UNBELIEVABLE !

[mikeh]

Haha, I truly feel like I am groundbreaking with some of this stuff. Years ago when I was very new to the game and the Vancouver Bridge scene, thanks to Forums, I started playing 2♣ / 1M gf balanced or clubs. People would roll their eyes, laugh and shake their heads, now of course they are playing it.

Considering extending the 2♣ meaning is exhilarating. So 2♣/1M turns into GF, could have 3 card support for the major, otherwise completely undefined?

 

Apologies for continuing to have a side conversation while the very important but over my head discussion regarding 3♠ is going on.

Off to the club with my new meaning for 2♣/1M :)

You have to be careful…it’s possible to take this too far. Years ago I played a relay method wherein 1M 2C was completely artificial. It wasn’t legal in most ACBL events, so there we compromised so that it always had 3+ clubs even with much longer suits elsewhere

 

Absent a relay method, which I don’t recommend, 2C over 1S should, imo, be at worst 3442.

 

Over 1H, while there’s some merit in bidding 2C on 4=3=4=2 (because it sets the gf and avoids awkward problems after say 1H 1S 2H or 1H 1S 2D….in the latter, 3C is very unwieldy and in the former, you have to invent a way to force), I prefer 1S and, if you have 5 spades, you’ll never show them after 2C.

[DavidKok]

I play a method where 2♣ is an absolutely awful mess. I have no idea what the ACBL thinks about it. The method is very effective, surprisingly so over interference. Since you specifically asked I'm happy to briefly give the full method, and also a simpler version that I think is more common and almost as effective. It is worth pointing out that I think others call this (and even some less complicated versions of 2♣) 'relay' although you could argue it is not - for example, the answers are not coded shape-showing, we don't have followup relay bids clarifying opener's hand and whatnot.

 

 

1M-2♣ is forcing but not GF for me, showing one of five hand types:

1. A GF hand with long clubs.
   
2. A GF balanced hand without a fit for opener's major.
   
3. A SI raise for opener's major (may even have short clubs, i.e. a 5=3=4=1 15-count over 1♠).
   
4. 11-12 (semi)balanced hand without support for opener's major.
   
5. 10-11 with 5(+) hearts and no support for spades (over 1♠ only).
   

The continuations are:

• 2♦ - natural diamonds, or any boring minimum. If the opening was 1♠, denies having 4(+) hearts.
  
• 2M - 6(+) in the opened major, not a minimum 6322 (so at least slight extras in either HCP or shape).
  
• 2oM - 5(+)M4(+)oM, 1♥-2♣; 2♠ shows a non-minimum but 1♠-2♣; 2♥ can be any lousy 11-count.
  
• 2NT - 15+ balanced
  
• 3♣ - 5(+)M4(+)♣ with extras.
  
• 3♦ - 5(+)M5(+)♦ with concentrated values, non-minimum.
  
• 3M - a not self-sufficient suit, 6(+) but usually 7(+), denies good support for other suits.
  
• 3oM - does not exist.
  
• 3NT - a self-sufficient 7(+)-card suit.
  

 

Over the common 1M-2♣; 2♦ as well as 1♠-2♣; 2♥ responder's rebids are:

• 2M - SI with a fit, asks opener to describe their hand further.
  
• 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2♠: 5(+)♣, 4(+)♠, GF.
  
• 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥: 10-11 5(+)♥ NF (note: on 1♠-2♣; 2♥ this hand bids 4♥).
  
• 2NT - 11-12 balanced, no fit, NF.
  
• 3♣ - GF long clubs
  
• 3♦ - GF long clubs with diamonds
  
• 3♥ and up: we should use these to distinguish the balanced hands (e.g. by strength), but since opener almost always has a minimum it's not a big cost to use 3NT and 4NT quantitative here.
  

 

What I would recommend playing is the 3-way 2♣ CLUBS or BAL or FIT, throwing out all my non-GF nonsense. I'd keep opener's rebid structure, but free up responder's second rebid to just clarify hand type (e.g. 2M shows a fit with at least mild SI and does not promise anything about clubs, 2NT is balanced, other bids show clubs and a second suit/extra length).

 

As mikeh pointed out you can take a plunge a step deeper and go for relay, where 2♣ doesn't promise anything about hand type but just says "I would like to know more about your hand, GF" and play shape-showing artificial responses. I think this is honestly not ideal, you are more vulnerable to interference, the bidding is already too high for most standard forms of relay so you'll be facing unpleasant compromises, it often exposes opener's hand (who is likely to become declarer), it is almost impossible to evaluate your hand as opener when responder hasn't said anything about shape and I think these methods really make a lot more sense with limited openers, e.g. in a strong club context.

[mikeh]

I play a method where 2♣ is an absolutely awful mess. I have no idea what the ACBL thinks about it. The method is very effective, surprisingly so over interference. Since you specifically asked I'm happy to briefly give the full method, and also a simpler version that I think is more common and almost as effective. It is worth pointing out that I think others call this (and even some less complicated versions of 2♣) 'relay' although you could argue it is not - for example, the answers are not coded shape-showing, we don't have followup relay bids clarifying opener's hand and whatnot.

 

 

1M-2♣ is forcing but not GF for me, showing one of five hand types:

1. A GF hand with long clubs.
   
2. A GF balanced hand without a fit for opener's major.
   
3. A SI raise for opener's major (may even have short clubs, i.e. a 5=3=4=1 15-count over 1♠).
   
4. 11-12 (semi)balanced hand without support for opener's major.
   
5. 10-11 with 5(+) hearts and no support for spades (over 1♠ only).
   

The continuations are:

• 2♦ - natural diamonds, or any boring minimum. If the opening was 1♠, denies having 4(+) hearts.
  
• 2M - 6(+) in the opened major, not a minimum 6322 (so at least slight extras in either HCP or shape).
  
• 2oM - 5(+)M4(+)oM, 1♥-2♣; 2♠ shows a non-minimum but 1♠-2♣; 2♥ can be any lousy 11-count.
  
• 2NT - 15+ balanced
  
• 3♣ - 5(+)M4(+)♣ with extras.
  
• 3♦ - 5(+)M5(+)♦ with concentrated values, non-minimum.
  
• 3M - a not self-sufficient suit, 6(+) but usually 7(+), denies good support for other suits.
  
• 3oM - does not exist.
  
• 3NT - a self-sufficient 7(+)-card suit.
  

 

Over the common 1M-2♣; 2♦ as well as 1♠-2♣; 2♥ responder's rebids are:

• 2M - SI with a fit, asks opener to describe their hand further.
  
• 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2♠: 5(+)♣, 4(+)♠, GF.
  
• 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥: 10-11 5(+)♥ NF (note: on 1♠-2♣; 2♥ this hand bids 4♥).
  
• 2NT - 11-12 balanced, no fit, NF.
  
• 3♣ - GF long clubs
  
• 3♦ - GF long clubs with diamonds
  
• 3♥ and up: we should use these to distinguish the balanced hands (e.g. by strength), but since opener almost always has a minimum it's not a big cost to use 3NT and 4NT quantitative here.
  

 

What I would recommend playing is the 3-way 2♣ CLUBS or BAL or FIT, throwing out all my non-GF nonsense. I'd keep opener's rebid structure, but free up responder's second rebid to just clarify hand type (e.g. 2M shows a fit with at least mild SI and does not promise anything about clubs, 2NT is balanced, other bids show clubs and a second suit/extra length).

 

As mikeh pointed out you can take a plunge a step deeper and go for relay, where 2♣ doesn't promise anything about hand type but just says "I would like to know more about your hand, GF" and play shape-showing artificial responses. I think this is honestly not ideal, you are more vulnerable to interference, the bidding is already too high for most standard forms of relay so you'll be facing unpleasant compromises, it often exposes opener's hand (who is likely to become declarer), it is almost impossible to evaluate your hand as opener when responder hasn't said anything about shape and I think these methods really make a lot more sense with limited openers, e.g. in a strong club context.

 

 

I infer that you’ve not played relay.

 

Low level interference helps. If they double or bid 2D over 2C, they actually make the relay more efficient. A2H bid breaks even…doesn’t disrupt but doesn’t enhance.

 

If they compete higher, we revert to natural bidding. Including the ability to penalize. We collected a few numbers from opps who’d heard that the best defence to relay is to bid without values😀

 

Our relay method used an engine based on frequency of shapes, so that only the freakish hands were forced to jump around. It was incredibly effective so long as we both remembered. I studied for hours before every event we played, even after we’d been playing it for several years

 

For both of us, playing this method won us our first Team Trials, back to back in the late 1990’s, and I think our slam bidding was extremely good back then. We’re playing again, but we’re too old to sustain the memory work. Also, because of the structure of the relay, we opened a little sounder than we do these days, and we’ve have to rejigger the relays, especially the control steps, to cater to that, making them a little less efficient

 

Relay is not for the old or less than great memory ability😀

[akwoo]

One idea I've adopted in a couple partnerships is that 1H-2S (or 1H-2N if 1H-2S is your artificial game forcing raise) shows 5-6 spades, exactly 3 hearts, and invitational+ values. The simple responses are 3C/3D to game force in hearts/spades, and 3H/3S as both passable, but it's possible (especially after 1H-2S) to have better methods to cooperatively figure out which 5-3 fit to play in if you have both.

 

The main idea is to avoid the dreaded 1H-1S-2D-3C fsf auction where you are still trying to figure out strain at the 3 level. This way, it's clear that 3C is looking for one and only one thing, though it's not clear what it is.

 

Of course it doesn't help with the current hand. Here I agree responder should just give up on hearts.

 

I don't think grand is really findable without a relay method - either responder needs to find out about both the king of spades and the queen of hearts, or opener needs to find out about the queen of spades and the king of hearts. There isn't a good way to get to 6 keycard here, so I don't see a way to look for both (outside of a relay method).

[nullve]

I don't think grand is really findable without a relay method - either responder needs to find out about both the king of spades and the queen of hearts, or opener needs to find out about the queen of spades and the king of hearts. There isn't a good way to get to 6 keycard here, so I don't see a way to look for both (outside of a relay method).

One possibility:

 

1♥-1♠

3♦-3♠(1)

4♠(2)-4N(3)

5♦(4)-6♥(5)

7♠(6)-7N(7)

P

 

(1) 6+ S

(2) raise, often flawed

(3) RKC

(4) 1 or 4 key cards

(5) ♥Q ask*

(6) ♥Q

(7) contract

 

* it's a common agreement between Norwegian players that 6♣/♦/♥ over 4N(RKC(♠))-5♦ asks for a 3. round control in the bid suit.

[LBengtsson]

Back to the discussion very late. Although I agree with smerriman that South's hand does not technically qualify for a Soloway Jump Shift, given the indepth discussion that has followed it is evident that this hand is difficult to bid without a SJS.

 

In terms of distributional strength it comes out at about 15.5 on a Kaplan and Rubens evaluation, that is without knowing the ♥ fit between the two hands. Which South knows about as soon as his partner opens the bidding!

 

I actually think that a SJS is one of those bids in its original form that comes across heavily as 'I am looking for a slam straight away" as opposed to "I want to find the right contract and level please describe your hand further, and I want to keep the bidding open until game, maybe slam".

 

What the discussion has highlighted is the difficulty of having a long suit of your own with support for partner, and how awkward it is to bid these hands when you cannot make a game forcing bid on your first call. Good hand to post, jillybean +1

[mikeh]

One possibility:

 

1♥-1♠

3♦-3♠(1)

4♠(2)-4N(3)

5♦(4)-6♥(5)

7♠(6)-7N(7)

P

 

(1) 6+ S

(2) raise, often flawed

(3) RKC

(4) 1 or 4 key cards

(5) ♥Q ask*

(6) ♥Q

(7) contract

 

* it's a common agreement between Norwegian players that 6♣/♦/♥ over 4N(RKC(♠))-5♦ asks for a 3. round control in the bid suit.

Is it a common agreement to use keycard and then somehow guess whether partner has Kx AQxxx AKQx Qx. Or Kx AQxxx AKxx Kx?

 

If so, your methods are likely to involve illicit communication of some kind, lol

 

Using keycard when it is trivial to construct hands, consistent with the auction, where one has no idea whether, after an entirely plausible response, one can make slam or are down off the top is not a habit most good players develope.

[jillybean]

Glad I convinced you that can be drop dead, at least :)

Only sometimes! :) happy to play it as this is what this partner prefers. However, I do like the SJS and so playing 1♥:1NT 2x:2♠ as drop dead, we don't lose anything do we?

 

 

You have to be careful…it’s possible to take this too far.

Yes, I'm only going to experiment & fool around with it for a while, should it come up. It's likely to fall flat rather quickly because I very much doubt that I can get partner on board, even to try it and he will have no idea what I'm doing.

[DavidKok]

However, I do like the SJS and so playing 1♥:1NT 2x:2♠ as drop dead, we don't lose anything do we?

As long as partner is kind enough not to jump past 2♠, and the opponents don't bid 3m while you hide your decent 6-card suit on the first round.

 

For what it's worth it is somewhat controversial to even include a four card spade suit in 1♥-1NT. I think including a weak hand with long spades is not a good idea at all.

[nullve]

Is it a common agreement to use keycard and then somehow guess whether partner has Kx AQxxx AKQx Qx. Or Kx AQxxx AKxx Kx?

 

If so, your methods are likely to involve illicit communication of some kind, lol

 

Using keycard when it is trivial to construct hands, consistent with the auction, where one has no idea whether, after an entirely plausible response, one can make slam or are down off the top is not a habit most good players develope.

Not every good player thinks it's a good idea to start cuebidding at the five-level. For example:

 

Improving 2/1 GF, Part 2[/i]']

Always remember WE NEVER CUE-BID AT THE FIVE LEVEL.

[mikeh]

Not every good player thinks it's a good idea to start cuebidding at the five-level. For example:

Quote-mining out of context. You’ve quoted a 1993 article, but failed to point out that it entails an unusual agreement.

 

He advocated that, for example, in a slam try auction in hearts, a bid of 4S asked partner to keycard via 4N…it isn’t itself a cuebid

 

Also, having agreed upon a major, a bid at the 5-level is exclusion.

 

The usual agreement about exclusion is that it is a jump to the 5-level. Thus if we’ve reached 4S, 5C is a cuebid but if we’ve agreed spades at 3S, a jump to 5C would be exclusion

 

I’ve been a teammate of Fred’s in two WC events and have followed his career with interest ever since he won a silver medal in the BB in the mid 90’s. I may be mistaken but I think that he’d agree that his article contained suggestions that were not and never became mainstream. Certainly I don’t recall ever seeing or reading about any expert pair who followed that rule of never cuebidding at the five level. He had to invent that rule in order that a non-jump ‘cuebid’ at the five level would be exclusion.

 

You like to quote authority. Larry Cohen writes that asker must jump for a bid to be exclusion. Larry Cohen in 2018 would, I think, be viewed as more authoritative than would Fred Gitelman in 1993…with all respect to Fred, who is a good guy as well as a truly fine player: imagine how Canada would do in bridge were our top players not in the US