[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-17, 08:29, said:

♠T9
♥KQ9
♦ KQ82
♣A984

Partner opens 1H. Probably at least 9 times out of 10 the correct contract is 4H. So I see the question as how to find the other possibilities without creatng som much confusion tht you land in sme silly contract.

1H-2C-2S. Already we need agreements. If opener is minimum I prefer a 2H rebid on 5. The 2S does not have to promise the moon, but it should be something extra. We can rule out 6C and 6D as possible contracts and 3NT would seem odd, so I bid 3H. If we belong in 6H we have a decent chance of finding it.

1H-2C-2D. Now 6D is in play. I still start with 2H, I plan to show diamonds later. This is a little risky as partner might think this shows a stiff spade but I think he shoould allow for 2=3=4=4.

1H-2C-2NT-3H. Since partner (my partner) is allowed to rebid 2H oveer 2C on five, I assume he has a spades stop for his 2NT. Still we probably belong in hearts. If partner, over 3H, chooses 3S I would regard this as something of a last train offer to play in 3NT. I might take him up on it but I think I still go with hearts, so I bid 4C in case that interests him.

1H-2C-2H-3H. I'm showing a decent hand and I more or less have one. On the auction so far I am not embarrassed to lay down the dummy.

1H-2C-3C-3H. Partner has hearts and clubs, I have clubs and hearts, the ball is n his court.

I don't see this as a problem hand.

I might hunt up Fred's articles on an improved 2/1 just for the fun of it. No doubt there is room for improvement on standard. But I think when problems arise in 2/1 we again have a 9 out of 10 probability that the difficulty is not that the system is bad but that the players have not discussed what means what. As mentioned, I like 1H-1m-2S to promise a little extra, using 1H-2m-2H with a minimum. It's different when it begins 1D-2C. Now there are two majors to sort out and I think we need to get started, even with a minimum. So 1D-2C-2M simply shows four cards in M without necessarily any extra values. These are my preferences. Are they the same as the preferences of the guy sitting across from me? Often I have no idea..

A little history might help. This all came up back in the day when I was playing with Bob Holmes as my partner, and although we were reasonably decent players we could not compete against the true experts so we decided if we couldn't outplay them our best chance was to outbid them. This led to 3 system inventions (all 3 published in Bridge World) that we didn't get to play for long but which still make sense to me.

First, to beat the pros we figured we needed to be able to find more skinny slams. This led to the idea of 2/1 in a minor as a source of tricks - a decent suit. That left the hole of the 2344 hand. That led to Better Berger.
Second, we decided that the most logical game contract after we open a weak 2-bid is game in the major opened, not 3NT, so I devised a losing trick count system for weak 2s. That was pretty sweet.
Third, we adopted a singleton-showing method over inverted minors, with 2N being shape showing only.

Then we didn't get to play much for a couple of years and that was that. So other than the weak 2 structure, I don't have a lot of actual play time with the other bids.

So that's the history FWIW.

[Winstonm]

 Flem72, on 2017-September-17, 07:36, said:

With one partner I play combined Bergen and use 3D as a balanced 3-cd raise, 10-15 support. Also, this hand is one of the big pluses of the Neb 2C structure, which I want to play whenever partner will. Both work for your Axx, KQx, xxxxx, Ax as well.

I like the idea of relays to clarify holdings.

[maartenxq]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-16, 15:08, said:

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

Bah, You say 2 ♣. p says something you support ♥ and p (should) know what u have. 4 + ♣ 3 ♥ mild or strong slam interest, the more so if you play Jacoby notrump. If p cues u cooperate below 4 hearts and await further developments. No cue p? No slam.
There are however players who see a problem in every solution.

Maarten Baltussen

[Winstonm]

 maartenxq, on 2017-September-17, 09:47, said:

Bah, You say 2 ♣. p says something you support ♥ and p (should) know what u have. 4 + ♣ 3 ♥ mild or strong slam interest, the more so if you play Jacoby notrump.
There are however players who see a problem in every solution.

Maarten Baltussen

I'm sorry if you don't see the difference in trick taking potential between xx, KQx, Axx, KQxxx and xx, KQx, Axxx, KQxx. Your comment does indeed highlight the problem: 4 or more clubs. Which is it? Jxxx or AQJxx? How should opener evaluate his Kx of clubs?

[GrahamJson]

I'm surprised that nobody has suggested responding with a forcing 1NT, following up with a jump yo 4H. It seems to me that this should show a pudding raise with three trumps. Maybe not a perfect solution to the problem, but a simple one that doesn't require learning lots of relays.

[GrahamJson]

Oh, and if partner rebids 2H you can jump in a new suit. I think that this must be a cue bid agreeing hearts, with three card support and a balanced hand.

[kenberg]

 GrahamJson, on 2017-September-17, 10:33, said:

I'm surprised that nobody has suggested responding with a forcing 1NT, following up with a jump yo 4H. It seems to me that this should show a pudding raise with three trumps. Maybe not a perfect solution to the problem, but a simple one that doesn't require learning lots of relays.

1H-1NT-2m-4H will presumably end the auction. As mentioned, I don't think this is a great hand but it's decent and, imo, too strong for 1H-1NT-2m-4H. I, and aparently many others, simply do not see what the problem is with bidding 2C and then supporting hearts.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-17, 09:32, said:

A little history might help. This all came up back in the day when I was playing with Bob Holmes as my partner, and although we were reasonably decent players we could not compete against the true experts so we decided if we couldn't outplay them our best chance was to outbid them. This led to 3 system inventions (all 3 published in Bridge World) that we didn't get to play for long but which still make sense to me.

First, to beat the pros we figured we needed to be able to find more skinny slams. This led to the idea of 2/1 in a minor as a source of tricks - a decent suit. That left the hole of the 2344 hand. That led to Better Berger.
Second, we decided that the most logical game contract after we open a weak 2-bid is game in the major opened, not 3NT, so I devised a losing trick count system for weak 2s. That was pretty sweet.
Third, we adopted a singleton-showing method over inverted minors, with 2N being shape showing only.

Then we didn't get to play much for a couple of years and that was that. So other than the weak 2 structure, I don't have a lot of actual play time with the other bids.

So that's the history FWIW.

The general philosophy here just doesn't suit me. In a long match against superior players, I expect to lose. Miracles happen, but probably I lose. But the fact is that many hands are close calls. Mybe the expert pair gets to the contract that has a 55% chance of being right and we get to the contract that has a 45% chance of being right.Maybe we get lucky. My preference is to play against experts pretty much the same as I play against anyone else. I will illustrate with a hand from the other day.

AK642
6
J9
AT843


Imps, non-vul, auction not contested
1S-1NT-2C-3S-?

5-5 come alive? And the values are concentrated n my suits. Still, it's a 12 count. I passed.

QJT
QT83
K65
KJ9

AK642
6
J9
AT843

Maybe I should have bid 4. Maybe partner should have upgraded a point for his QJT. Maybe we belong in 3S, just where we are. My point is that I passed, I would pass if my opponents were weak, I would pass if my opponents were expert. In this case it was one of these 25 cent robot tournaments so my pard and my opponents were upscale bots. I pass. Some bid 4, some didn't. Some took ten tricks, some didn't. I took 11. If I am playing against experts, I hope I made the right choice and they didn't. In a seven board Swiss I can hope for a shot. In a two day event, not that I have ever reached a two day showdown against experts, I can enjoy the challenge and congratulate them afterward.


Somewhere Larry Cohen noted that he and Bergen used to have carding that depended on their opponents. Against weak players they lead the T from KJTx, promising 0 pr 2. Against strong players they led the J from KJTx, promising the J. Presumably this was against different teams ni a long match, not a switch back and forth at a two boards a table pairs game. My estimate of my opponents may occasionally inspire me to contest to one level higher, but mostly I just play my game as best I can. It might or might not be the best approach, but it suits me.

[msjennifer]

We play Precision so our bid is an easy 4H.Playing a standard system we bid 2 C which as per the scheme described by kenberg does not pose any further problems as we do not consider the 2C bid to be showing a 5+ suit.

[GrahamJson]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-17, 11:10, said:

1H-1NT-2m-4H will presumably end the auction. As mentioned, I don't think this is a great hand but it's decent and, imo, too strong for 1H-1NT-2m-4H. I, and aparently many others, simply do not see what the problem is with bidding 2C and then supporting hearts.

I don't see much wrong with 2C first either. However the advantage of starting with 1NT is that it shows well the general nature of the hand; flat and with good three card support. Starting with 2C, when 1NT is available, would suggest longer clubs.

[Winstonm]

 GrahamJson, on 2017-September-17, 11:47, said:

I don't see much wrong with 2C first either. However the advantage of starting with 1NT is that it shows well the general nature of the hand; flat and with good three card support. Starting with 2C, when 1NT is available, would suggest longer clubs.

The issue is not that so-and-so is playable. But playable systems tend to be less accurate. Heck, Goren is playable but there is a lot of jumping around to show strength and create forces. Question to me: is there a better way, operating in the confines of a standard (basically a 2/1) structure?

A little history may help. Back before dirt, I read Howard Schenken's book where he described consistently losing to the Blue Team because (in his opinion) the Blue Team consistently outbid the Americans. His solution was The Schenken Club.

[GrahamJson]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-17, 11:56, said:

The issue is not that so-and-so is playable. But playable systems tend to be less accurate. Heck, Goren is playable but there is a lot of jumping around to show strength and create forces. Question to me: is there a better way, operating in the confines of a standard (basically a 2/1) structure?

A little history may help. Back before dirt, I read Howard Schenken's book where he described consistently losing to the Blue Team because (in his opinion) the Blue Team consistently outbid the Americans. His solution was The Schenken Club.

Whether the given hand is too strong for 1H-1NT-2m-4H depends entirely on your requirements for the bids. Even if you had no prior discussion regarding the sequence I think that most would conclude that it must show a 4432 hand, with three hearts and 12-15 points (in fact most likely specifically 2344 shape, given that you would probably respond 1S holding four). This seems to me to be a pretty accurate description compared with sequences starting 2C, unless you had some fairly detailed discussion of these.

[LBengtsson]

2/1 isnt perfect. your hand flat, partner 11+ bidding 2 over 1 is gf no more. 5h/4s open flanery 2d 11/15 then 1h/2c/2s bid show 16+

[maartenxq]

 Winstonm, on 2017-September-17, 09:51, said:

I'm sorry if you don't see the difference in trick taking potential between xx, KQx, Axx, KQxxx and xx, KQx, Axxx, KQxx. Your comment does indeed highlight the problem: 4 or more clubs. Which is it? Jxxx or AQJxx? How should opener evaluate his Kx of clubs?

Unless you want to develop or adopt a scientific relay structure I guess you cannot bid more accurately then support p and express mild slam interest. If partner insists we will be in slam, which may be a dubious contract but even these slams are made on some days.
Maarten Baltussen

[Phil]

 nige1, on 2017-September-16, 17:25, said:

We would bid 2♦ = TRF good 3 card raise.
After 1M we've recently agreed a simple mini-splinter structure. e.g. after 1♥:

• 1♠ = NAT
• 1N = NAT 6-11
• 2♣ = REL 12+. F1. Artificial. Then 2♦ = ART Sound opener.
• 2♦ = TRF 8+ 3 ♥s. Good raise to at least 2♥.
• 2♥ = NAT 0-8. Poor ♥ raise.
• 2♠ = SPL 4+ ♥s and any singleton). Raise to 3 or 5. Then 2N = ASK for singleton?
• 2N = ART. 4+ ♥s BAL or ♠ void. Raise to 3 or 5. Then 3♣ = ASK whiich?
• 3♣/♦ = SPL 4+ ♥s and this void. Raise to 3 or 5.
• 3♥ = PRE
• 3♠-4♥ = Same but game raise

Good methods. So why wouldn't use the GFR on this hand type?

[nige1]

 Phil, on 2017-September-17, 17:14, said:

Good methods. So why wouldn't use the GFR on this hand type?

Thank you, Phil. Our 2♣ relay response shows 12+. It's not GF when opener's rebid shows a weak hand. It has to be used on lots of hands. So it's a bit overloaded. Hence we tend to restrict its use to hands without a fit. Especially as we have so many fit bids. But you're right that 2♣ might well be a better reply, with the OP hand.

[masse24]

 kenberg, on 2017-September-17, 11:37, said:

Against strong players they led the J from KJTx, promising the J.

Leading the Jack to show the Jack eliminates any ambiguity!

[wank]

i play 2nt as inv+ with 4+ or a bal GF with 3+.

over that 3C is any intermediate hand, i.e. something akin in playing strength to a strong NT (3D asks for shortage; 3H/S/NT show responder's corresponding shortage)
3D is no shortage, equivalent in playing strength to 18-19 or a hand that would reject a 4 card invite (then 3M is to play; 3oM is GF no shortage and waiting; 3NT/4C/4D are slam tries opposite a hand which would reject the invite with responder's corresponding shortage)
3H/S/3nt are hands above a strong NT in playing strength with the corresponding shortage

if responder ever shows a shortage that promises a 4th trump. if responder doesn't have a shortage then a 4th trumps isn't as important and our structure is more about opener describing anyway.

obviusly we lose some precision on the slam hands, but we gain a lot in disclosing virtually nothing on the way to 4M and we've not had to waste a bid on an invitational 4 card raise, which means we can play 1M-3m as natural invitational. as we've taken the balanced 3 card raises out of 2m, we're in a better position when we do bid 2m then support - now opener knows to value cards in that suit more highly.

[Winstonm]

 wank, on 2017-September-18, 14:59, said:

i play 2nt as inv+ with 4+ or a bal GF with 3+.

over that 3C is any intermediate hand, i.e. something akin in playing strength to a strong NT (3D asks for shortage; 3H/S/NT show responder's corresponding shortage)
3D is no shortage, equivalent in playing strength to 18-19 or a hand that would reject a 4 card invite (then 3M is to play; 3oM is GF no shortage and waiting; 3NT/4C/4D are slam tries opposite a hand which would reject the invite with responder's corresponding shortage)
3H/S/3nt are hands above a strong NT in playing strength with the corresponding shortage

if responder ever shows a shortage that promises a 4th trump. if responder doesn't have a shortage then a 4th trumps isn't as important and our structure is more about opener describing anyway.

obviusly we lose some precision on the slam hands, but we gain a lot in disclosing virtually nothing on the way to 4M and we've not had to waste a bid on an invitational 4 card raise, which means we can play 1M-3m as natural invitational. as we've taken the balanced 3 card raises out of 2m, we're in a better position when we do bid 2m then support - now opener knows to value cards in that suit more highly.

I like this. It also makes it possible to assign some minimum holding for a 2/1 in a minor followed by support. To my thinking, artificial bids work best as an/or bids, making them work double-duty to make up for the loss of a natural bid.

[fromageGB]

2♣ for me also (in a 2/1 structure).

The problem with 2/1 being initially interpreted as natural is that it can lead to confusion when opener has a strong hand with clubs. Is it permitted in your regulations to have a relay 2♦ over 2♣? Then you could have : 3♣ = normal club GF; 3M = GF 3 card raise unlimited; 2M = 11/12 invitational 3 card support, this option being passable; 2otherM = GF 4 card suit; 2NT = other whatever.

If playing forcing NT, then that can include 13-15 hcp "other" hands, so the 2♣ "other" hands are defined as 16+.

The problem with the method of putting the given hand in the FNT is that it must have a restriction in the strength range, so what would you bid if stronger?