[kenrexford]

Fred's dead right that 4M after 4♦ has to be to play, but that itself creates a problem, namely that a 4♦ call largely forces Opener to place the contract.

[fred]

kenrexford, on May 27 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

Fred's dead right that 4M after 4♦ has to be to play, but that itself creates a problem, namely that a 4♦ call largely forces Opener to place the contract.

Responder is still unlimited. Opener can suggest a final contract, but he can't place the final contract.

So I would characterize 4M is "non-forcing" as opposed to "to play" or "signoff".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

whereagles, on May 27 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

hum.. well, dumping that hand into 2NT can widen the range of that rebid, both in terms of shape and strength, and I'm not sure one wants that.

Remember, we are basing this discussion on the system proposed by the OP.

In that system, 2NT can include 5143 so we are not widening the proposed range in terms of shape.

In that system, 3D is also acceptable with 5143 provided that the hand is not a complete minimum.

That being the case, one of these bids needs to have a wide range in terms of strength and I think it is clearly better to use the cheaper bid for that purpose - that will leave you more room to work things out.

Quote

Unless one uses 2M and 2NT as catch-alls (one for 11-14 hands, the other for 15-17s), that wide range might put responder in for a bit of guesswork.

My previous post suggested that you should use one of these bids as a catch-all (I prefer 2M) and leave the rest of opener's rebids pure. You certainly don't need to use both 2M and 2NT as catch-all bids.

Any way you do it there will sometimes be guesswork, but by making the catch-all bid as cheap as possible you maximize the space and time you have to resolve the ambiguity of the catch-all bid. This in turn will minimize the need to eventually resort to guesswork. A further advantage of using 2M instead of 2NT as the catch-all is that this increases the chances that, if 3NT is the right contract, it will be played from the right side of the table.

IMO the proposed system suffers from the lack of a catch-all bid - the result is that most of opener's rebids are not well-defined which increases the chances of the need for guesswork later.

Quote

Ok, I suppose you can sort this all out with a bit of tweaking. But this is the sort of stuff that sometimes gives 2/1 a bad name

It is actually not that difficult (in fact it is considerably easier and considerably more accurate than non-2/1 in my view). I suspect that most of those who think that 2/1 deserves a bad name are either being stubborn or they have never learned to play the system in a reasonable manner (or both).

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1, but given that almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings, I doubt it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

whereagles, on May 27 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

Ok, I suppose you can sort this all out with a bit of tweaking. But this is the sort of stuff that sometimes gives 2/1 a bad name

FWIW, what bad name?

I personally don't play 2/1 and I don't think it is my "cup of tea". But, I don't think it has a bad name.

All systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Just because your pet system has some difficult areas does not necessarily make it bad overall system.

Nick

[JLOL]

I think 3S can obv be a doubleton in this auction. Not sure I agree that 4D is the best bid, I think I prefer 3S.

[benlessard]

I think that if you play a 2/1 scheme after 1S-----2H------???

1- 2S is a way better catch all than 2Nt. Not close at all.

2- 2S is an economical bid but you cannot wait to have plenty of extras or a full 5-5 to bid 3m.

3- 2Nt is often the undersused bid here and I think we shouldnt wait to have full stopper in both m to bid 2Nt. With a 5143 and half a stopper in clubs i much prefer to be able to bid 2Nt if the system permit it.

So under these condition ill bid 4C wich is a pick a game punt (4D would be RKC for us and 3M would set trumps)


Under poster condition ill just bid 3S (if i dont play serious/unserious 3Nt.)

Playing serious /unserious 3nt and minorwood ill be a dead duck stuck with 3Nt.

[mike777]

Bende, on May 26 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Consider a 2/1 system with the following agreements:

a) 2-over-1 is game forcing even if suit is re-bid
1M - 2NT = 3+ support and invitational or 4+ support and GF
c) 1M - 2x; 2NT = 11-13 balanced, 20+ balanced or some unbalanced hands without a better bid available
d) 1M - 2x; 2M = 6+M, 14+
e) 1M - 2x; 3y = (non-jump) 5+M, 4+y, not complete minimum (13+, some slam interest)
g) 1M - 2x; jump = splinter in support of x
h) 1M - 2x; 3y - 4M = picture jump (i.e. not fast arrival)
i) non-serious 3NT when major is agreed
j) cue bid bypassing non-serious 3NT shows stronger slam interest

Holding the following hand

♠92
♥AKJ95
♦KJ8
♣874

you hear partner open 1♠, you bid a game forcing 2♥ and partner bids an at least semi-positive 3♦. Now, it would be nice if 3♥ showed a 6+suit, 3♠ showed 3-card support and 3NT showed a club stopper. However that seem to leave us without a bid.

Now for my questions:

1. What would you bid with the following hand?
2. If you think that the only reason for being in this difficult position is silly agreements, which agreement would you like to change?

Given constraints I bid 4d np yet.

[mike777]

". If you think that the only reason for being in this difficult position is silly agreements, which agreement would you like to change?"


If pard can open on junk compared to sound this is not a game forcing hand for me so......1nt over 1s.

[whereagles]

fred, on May 27 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1

If we stick to 2/1 bids only, then it's obvious 2/1 GF is better than 2/1 not GF because the GF variant is more narrowly defined. It cannot be more difficult to bid in this case

Agree too that the 2M is probably the best place to put a catch-all. In fact, 2/1 not GF does use such a catch-all and works pretty well, despite the wider 2/1 range.

2/1 GF has a lot of variants these days, some good, some bad. What we really need is a clear, good standard. Such a standard will probably include the 2M catch-all.

[whereagles]

NickRW, on May 28 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

FWIW, what bad name?

Not my words, actually. Barry Rigal's words, in a bulletin a while ago, where a world class pair went on to a hopeless slam after a 2/1 sequence

[gnasher]

I think that 2/1's bad name, if it has one, arises from the difficulty in determining the partnership's combined values.

In the SA/Acol auctions 1♠-2♦;3♦ or 1♠-2♦;2♥-3♥, one player has limited his hand. In the corresponding 2/1 auction, both players may (depending on agreements) be unlimited. In 2/1, that may cause us to get too high when we have lots of controls but not enough tricks, or more often to give away free information by cue-bidding or bidding out shape when we didn't need to.

These problems can be solved with agreements about how to limit one of the hands, preferably without unnecessary leakage. However, not all partnerships seem willing to put the necessary work in.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on May 28 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

However, not all partnerships seem willing to put the necessary work in.

This is a feature common to all systems.

[whereagles]

gnasher, on May 28 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

I think that 2/1's bad name, if it has one, arises from the difficulty in determining the partnership's combined values.

This is why I designed my own 2/1 GF variant in such a way that it totally mimics 2/1 not GF. I get the ranges all sorted out, so I keep that plus. Other advantages come in auctions such as

1M 2x
2y 3M

1M 2x
2y 2NT

which allow slam tries at a convenient level, with opener already limited (cannot have 18+, else he would have jumped to 3y).

[NickRW]

whereagles, on May 28 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

NickRW, on May 28 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

FWIW, what bad name?

Not my words, actually. Barry Rigal's words, in a bulletin a while ago, where a world class pair went on to a hopeless slam after a 2/1 sequence

Well, the only thing I can say about that is that good players, whether world class or not, if they want to actually perform as a good pair have to spend a lot of time hammering out their agreements in the bidding. And this applies whether they play 2/1 or any other system.

In other words I don't find this one example as evidence that I shouldn't play 2/1 or that 2/1 should be considered to deserve a bad name.

Nick

[whereagles]

What I'm saying is 2/1 not GF has had more development than 2/1 GF, which is why he might get the impression it works better. In theory, 2/1 GF MUST be better. And it WILL be better after it has settled down.

[y66]

For more discussion on 2M = catchall, see this thread. I thought david_c's comments (page 2) were particularly insightful.

[Cascade]

fred, on May 28 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1, but given that almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings, I doubt it.

I am not sure that this actually a true reflection of the current state of systems played by the leading players.

Here is a list of the top ten pairs in the datums (butler) in the round robin of the 2007 World Championships in Beijing and the systems they played:

Richard FREEMAN - Nick NICKELL 2/1 almost GF
Krzysztof MARTENS - Krzysztof JASSEM Polish Club/Strong Club
Ilan HERBST - Ophir HERBST Acol
Tor HELNESS - Geir HELGEMO System Card does not mention their 2/1 style
Jorgen MOLBERG - Terje AA 2/1 almost GF
Andreas KIRMSE - Michael GROMOELLER Swiss Acol 2/1 9+
Franck MULTON - Pierre ZIMMERMANN 5-card majors variable no trump no mention of 2/1 style
Boguslaw GIERULSKI - Jerzy SKRZYPCZAK Strong NT 2/1 F1
Berry WESTRA - Vincent RAMONDT 2/1 nearly GF
Josef PIEKAREK - Alexander SMIRNOV 2/1 GF

Only one pair Piekarek/Smirnov of Germany claim to be playing 2/1 GF and that pair finished 10th on the datums.

There are three other pairs playing nearly GF 2/1 methods.

I could be wrong but I assume that those that do not say that 2/1 is GF are not playing that method.

Otherwise there is a wide variety of systems played by these leading players and other players in the tournament. The almost all top players that Fred claims are playing these superior 2/1 methods did not seem to perform any better than players playing different methods.

It seems to me that either those players playing the supposed inferior methods are extremely good or 2/1 GF is not as dominant as some might like to think it is.

[CSGibson]

When I'm bidding with some partners, most bids are ambiguous.

[NickRW]

Actually, when I first learnt Bridge, I gathered that jump shift responses were FG. I misinterpreted this as "you should jump shift with all GF hands" - so they basically became 13+. Which is, overall, a terrible method - but it has some good points!

Nick

[fred]

Cascade, on May 29 2009, 06:38 AM, said:

fred, on May 28 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1, but given that almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings, I doubt it.

I am not sure that this actually a true reflection of the current state of systems played by the leading players.

Here is a list of the top ten pairs in the datums (butler) in the round robin of the 2007 World Championships in Beijing and the systems they played:

Richard FREEMAN - Nick NICKELL 2/1 almost GF
Krzysztof MARTENS - Krzysztof JASSEM Polish Club/Strong Club
Ilan HERBST - Ophir HERBST Acol
Tor HELNESS - Geir HELGEMO System Card does not mention their 2/1 style
Jorgen MOLBERG - Terje AA 2/1 almost GF
Andreas KIRMSE - Michael GROMOELLER Swiss Acol 2/1 9+
Franck MULTON - Pierre ZIMMERMANN 5-card majors variable no trump no mention of 2/1 style
Boguslaw GIERULSKI - Jerzy SKRZYPCZAK Strong NT 2/1 F1
Berry WESTRA - Vincent RAMONDT 2/1 nearly GF
Josef PIEKAREK - Alexander SMIRNOV 2/1 GF

Only one pair Piekarek/Smirnov of Germany claim to be playing 2/1 GF and that pair finished 10th on the datums.

There are three other pairs playing nearly GF 2/1 methods.

I could be wrong but I assume that those that do not say that 2/1 is GF are not playing that method.

Otherwise there is a wide variety of systems played by these leading players and other players in the tournament. The almost all top players that Fred claims are playing these superior 2/1 methods did not seem to perform any better than players playing different methods.

It seems to me that either those players playing the supposed inferior methods are extremely good or 2/1 GF is not as dominant as some might like to think it is.

Wayne,

Note that I was not saying that the system "2/1 GF" is dominant, but that playing game-forcing 2/1s after your own 5-card major openings is dominant.

I was careful to mention 5-card majors. As I understand it, pairs who play Acol do not play 5-card majors. I am not sure, but I seem to recall that Helgemo-Helness sometimes open 4-card majors as well.

Also, I think the pairs that play "2/1 almost GF" count as 2/1 players - this method, as it is usually played, is a lot closer to 2/1 than it is to "standard". It would be silly to suggest that Nickell-Freeman, for example, are a counterexample to the assertion that I made. For them I suspect that "amost GF" means they can stop in 4 of a minor on a few well-defined auctions.

Finally, there are only 10 pairs on your list. If you want confine your list of "leading players" to only 10 pairs, this particular list is not a very good one (since there is only one pair in your list that clearly belongs there and several pairs in your list that clearly do not belong there).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com