What do you do here?

[AL78]

[hv=pc=n&n=sa4ha3djt92cakj72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp2cp2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

MPs. 5CM, strong NT system, we were not playing 2/1 GF or inverted minors. 1♦ is at least four.

[Cyberyeti]

Would have started with 3♣

[mikeh]

Would be playing 2/1, making 3D trivially obvious

 

But given that I’m playing a method that doesn’t allow for simple constructive bidding, I have to jump to 4D. Surely in any rational method this is a slam try in diamonds.

 

Btw, I’m not giving up over 5D

 

Now, I hope I’m not going to learn that not only do we not play a raise to 3D as forcing but we also don’t cue second round controls over 4D.

 

If we are playing such a primitive method, then I’ll just bid 4N over 2D (we’re not likely to be playing kickback in those circumstances)

 

AKxxx in diamonds and literally nothing else gives us play for slam, so we have to push hard here.

[DavidKok]

1♦-2♣ is the killer start of natural bidding, and the explanation of the bidding system doesn't instill me with confidence. Does 2♦ promise 5? 6? Is it limited in strength? Is 3♦ by us forcing? I don't know the system well enough to comment, I'd assume something like "2♦ shows 6 (otherwise you always have a second suit to bid or 2NT) and is limited NF, so that any new bid is GF (maybe except 2NT?)."?

[Cyberyeti]

1♦-2♣ is the killer start of natural bidding, and the explanation of the bidding system doesn't instill me with confidence. Does 2♦ promise 5? 6? Is it limited in strength? Is 3♦ by us forcing? I don't know the system well enough to comment, I'd assume something like "2♦ shows 6 (otherwise you always have a second suit to bid or 2NT) and is limited NF, so that any new bid is GF (maybe except 2NT?)."?

 

It usually promises 5 because if you lack the strength to reverse you may have a 4 card major too.

 

1♦-2♣-2♦ we could start with, but using 2♥ artificial here allows opener to clarify, lacking that I'd start with the SJS.

[AL78]

Would be playing 2/1, making 3D trivially obvious

 

But given that I’m playing a method that doesn’t allow for simple constructive bidding, I have to jump to 4D. Surely in any rational method this is a slam try in diamonds.

 

Btw, I’m not giving up over 5D

 

Now, I hope I’m not going to learn that not only do we not play a raise to 3D as forcing but we also don’t cue second round controls over 4D.

 

If we are playing such a primitive method, then I’ll just bid 4N over 2D (we’re not likely to be playing kickback in those circumstances)

 

AKxxx in diamonds and literally nothing else gives us play for slam, so we have to push hard here.

 

Yes we are playing primitive methods. 3♦ would not be forcing.

[sfi]

MPs. 5CM, strong NT system, we were not playing 2/1 GF or inverted minors. 1♦ is at least four.

 

I would have started with a strong diamond raise. We've already found our fit, so why not let partner in on the secret. In fact, in my current serious partnership we cannot show this hand here, and 1D-2C; 2D-3D is probably slam interest with strong clubs.

[LBengtsson]

This looks like a hand that demonstrates why American players are changing from SAYC to 2/1, and even British players are changing from Acol to 2/1. The 2♣ response just clogs the auction where it does not establish a GF. You could easily be missing 7♦ here if partner has just 4♥/4♠Kxxx ♦AKxxxx 2/1 just gives you the space to identify the controls on the way to the grand.

[AL78]

It usually promises 5 because if you lack the strength to reverse you may have a 4 card major too.

 

1♦-2♣-2♦ we could start with, but using 2♥ artificial here allows opener to clarify, lacking that I'd start with the SJS.

 

Assuming SJS means Strong Jump Shift, we play weak jump shifts.

[AL78]

I appreciate the comments about my 2♣ response but given the limits of our system to immediately show support with slam interest (I could have bid 4♦ which must be a slam try but if she bids 5♦ because she hasn't got a first round control Í'm stuck) I decided to start with a low level forcing natural bid to give partner a chance to clarify her hand (although that didn't help much either as it happens).

 

I did hesitate for a long time over my second bid and would have liked to investigate slam in diamonds, but didn't want to end up in 5♦ (damned matchpoint scoring) so bid 3NT making 10 tricks. The full deal:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq532hkq4dkq863c8&w=skj6ht87652d54c54&n=sa4ha3djt92cakj72&e=st987hj9da7cqt963&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp2cp2dp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Ugly I know and I would have liked to have bid this better. In the event we got 11/16 MPs when five out of the other eight tables played in 5♦. One pair found the slam.

[DavidKok]

Others have mentioned 2/1 as a possible solution, I'd like to add(/repeat) that 1♦-2♣ and even 1♦-(2♣)-? are the biggest Achilles heels of natural systems, and one of the first places where I'd introduce artificiality to catch up. 2♦ nondescript and 3♦ NF raise sound impractical, even in the context of a standard system.

[Douglas43]

I would expect 6♦ to make more often than not. For me, it's a clear 4♦. Bypassing 3NT is risky at pairs, but worth it.

[Cyberyeti]

Assuming SJS means Strong Jump Shift, we play weak jump shifts.

 

You play a fairly primitive system with no forcing raises and then take out the way that system normally deals with some of the strong responding hands.

 

You can disambiguate somke of the hands if you add some artificiality over 1♦-2♣-2♦ but that doesn't seem your style, ours is a home hashed version of Bourke relays.

[mw64ahw]

I would play fit jumps showing 1st/2nd round control in a standardish approach so 3♥ signals the intention to at least force to game in ♦.

 

My systemic unbalanced ♦ approach ends up signalling the SI at 3♦ from where control bidding etc. becomes standard.

[michel444]

SLAM are hard to bid and whemn you bid they may be wrong sided

i think yesterday playing A "primitive acol " with a random partner

I open 1 Spade with a 6=2=4=1 distribution

WITH SOMTHING LIKE

♠ AkQ xxx

♥ A Q

♦ A xxx

♣ K

PARTNER ANSWER 3♣

I SUSPECT IT IS WEAK SO BID 3♦

PARTNER BID 4 ♣

REALIZING THAT 3♣ IS WEAK

I BID 4 NT THAT I THINK HE WILL TAKE AS A NORMAL B/W AND I SEND HIM TO PLAY 6♣ AND HE MADE IT

HE HAD ♠X ♥J xxx ♦x ♣A Q xxx xx

it was pure lack to ask no sofisticated auction ..

Michel

[mw64ahw]

Ugly I know and I would have liked to have bid this better. In the event we got 11/16 MPs when five out of the other eight tables played in 5♦. One pair found the slam.

Not ugly, but efficient and you can score better than those in 5♦

[AL78]

Not ugly, but efficient and you can score better than those in 5♦

 

It scored well but that isn't satisfying in itself. We had three hands with slams on our way. One wasn't biddable but the other two were, and when I have a session in which I spend over half the time passing and following suit, missing out on the hands our way is bad. It seems the simplicity of the system tramlined us somewhat along with the nuisance MP strategy that punishes you for ending up in 5♦ after a failed slam investigation. At imps, I would probably have risked Blackwood and settled for 5♦ in the event of no key cards opposite, content this should be ok.

 

I need to check with my partner that 1♦ - 2♣; 2♦ - 4♦ will be interpreted as a slam try and not invitational to game in diamonds.

[AL78]

I need to check with my partner that 1♦ - 2♣; 2♦ - 4♦ will be interpreted as a slam try and not invitational to game in diamonds.

 

Answer:

 

"As an invitation to bid 5♦ if holding extra values".

 

This means if I had bid 4♦ after responding 2♣ we may well have played there and got a stonking bottom. :(

 

I need to discuss this with her as this effectively means our system lacks the ability to make a slam invite in a minor, which to my mind is absurd.

[Cyberyeti]

Answer:

 

"As an invitation to bid 5♦ if holding extra values".

 

This means if I had bid 4♦ after responding 2♣ we may well have played there and got a stonking bottom. :(

 

I need to discuss this with her as this effectively means our system lacks the ability to make a slam invite in a minor, which to my mind is absurd.

 

Is 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♣ forcing ?

 

If so 4♣ instead of 3♣ can be this hand

[AL78]

Is 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♣ forcing ?

 

If so 4♣ instead of 3♣ can be this hand

 

No.

[Cyberyeti]

No.

 

I think you should rethink that, I can't see a hand worth 3♣ that won't have minimum hands opposite that make 3N often enough that you have to investigate. We play this type of auction NF at the 2 level but F at the 3 level. Particularly if you play weak jump shifts so you don't have to shade 2♣.

[mikeh]

AL78

 

It seems that you are interested in becoming a better player. You are not likely to do so all by yourself. You need a partner who already knows more or who is prepared to learn along with you.

 

It’s impossible to get better if, for example, you want to cue first and second round controls up the line (as is virtually universal amongst good players), or want 1D 2C 2D 4D to set trump and force, but your partners refuse.

 

So…is there anyone in your club, with whom you’ve played or could play who is willing to learn?

 

If so, see if you can persuade them to learn some form of 2/1. I learned almost 50 years ago, from a very poorly written Max Hardy book…although what I play these days has virtually nothing in common with that book, lol. I think Mike Lawrence wrote a somewhat more recent and (I am sure) much better book. It’s important that both players study the same book.

 

I think that within a few weeks, if you both work on it, you’ll be terrorizing your club😀

 

Also, knowing 2/1 will likely help a lot if you decide to play online.

[AL78]

AL78

 

It seems that you are interested in becoming a better player. You are not likely to do so all by yourself. You need a partner who already knows more or who is prepared to learn along with you.

 

It’s impossible to get better if, for example, you want to cue first and second round controls up the line (as is virtually universal amongst good players), or want 1D 2C 2D 4D to set trump and force, but your partners refuse.

 

So…is there anyone in your club, with whom you’ve played or could play who is willing to learn?

 

If so, see if you can persuade them to learn some form of 2/1. I learned almost 50 years ago, from a very poorly written Max Hardy book…although what I play these days has virtually nothing in common with that book, lol. I think Mike Lawrence wrote a somewhat more recent and (I am sure) much better book. It’s important that both players study the same book.

 

I think that within a few weeks, if you both work on it, you’ll be terrorizing your club😀

 

Also, knowing 2/1 will likely help a lot if you decide to play online.

 

Yes I am interested in improving, at least to the point where I can trouble the scorers like I used to be able to. Something changed around 2016 where my results began regressing over a period of five years yet the club standard has remained steady or declined over that period.

 

I have one partner who is at my level who is willing to adapt the system and/or learn new things. Whether she will go as far as learning 2/1 from a book I'm not sure, but I can always ask. There is another partner who is one of the stronger pairs at my local club who I was having a monthly game with before the pandemic hit. He plays a partially self made system which I am/was learning in stages. It is not 2/1 but is a five card major system with a forcing 1NT and non-forcing 2/1 responses, and seems to be tuned to accurate hand description and contract placement once a fit is found (at least opposite the 1♠ opening which is as far as I've got with it). I could put it on here if anyone is interested. Unfortunately he is unavailable until November and when he gets back, I would like to learn his system opposite a 1♥ opening (which includes transfer responses).

 

I do not wish to play online anymore (except to practice a new system/convention) and so seek F2F games. I live alone and human interaction is important to me and when I am sat in front of a computer all day in my job, sitting in front of it all evening to play bridge does not appeal. Unfortunately the pandemic has changed bridge irreversably. Most of the members at my local club, especially the more experienced players, seem to have little interest in returning to club bridge. Some of this is because of vulnerability, but a lot of it I believe is because the club is located in the town centre and parking can be difficult and expensive (not a problem for me as I use a bicycle for local journeys), and the room is cramped, requires negotiating a flight of stairs, and can be unpleasantly hot in summer (because all the windows face west). I also suspect that club bridge will gradually shift towards afternoon sessions when we get into autumn and winter proper which makes it even less accessible for those of us with day jobs. The new Wedensday evening club session introduced at the beginning of this month is only attracting three tables so far. The other club I play at attracts 9-11 tables F2F but there is free and plentiful parking, the venue is excellent, and it is on Friday afternoon (and several of the experienced players at my local club also play there now).

[DavidKok]

I have one partner who is at my level who is willing to adapt the system and/or learn new things. Whether she will go as far as learning 2/1 from a book I'm not sure, but I can always ask. There is another partner who is one of the stronger pairs at my local club who I was having a monthly game with before the pandemic hit. He plays a partially self made system which I am/was learning in stages. It is not 2/1 but is a five card major system with a forcing 1NT and non-forcing 2/1 responses, and seems to be tuned to accurate hand description and contract placement once a fit is found (at least opposite the 1♠ opening which is as far as I've got with it). I could put it on here if anyone is interested. Unfortunately he is unavailable until November and when he gets back, I would like to learn his system opposite a 1♥ opening (which includes transfer responses).

I'm interested in this system. At the same time, just from the description so far, I'm very worried the system is making the wrong tradeoffs between simplicity and effectiveness. Part of the reason why 2/1 is so widespread is that it is relatively simple and reasonably effective. By contrast, transfer responses over 1♥ are not mainstream at all, and from the sound of it require extensive discussion to agree on followups. If you could share some notes on the system I'd love to see them.

[AL78]

I'm interested in this system. At the same time, just from the description so far, I'm very worried the system is making the wrong tradeoffs between simplicity and effectiveness. Part of the reason why 2/1 is so widespread is that it is relatively simple and reasonably effective. By contrast, transfer responses over 1♥ are not mainstream at all, and from the sound of it require extensive discussion to agree on followups. If you could share some notes on the system I'd love to see them.

 

I can do that, I will probably start a new thread.