[barryallen]

fred, on May 27 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

whereagles, on May 27 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

fred, on May 26 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

I think 4D is the right call with this hand.

Must confess this is rather surprising to me. I can only mildly understand the bid if you now play that opener's 4M is not a cue but a proposal to play there.

How I play the sequence is not really relevant, because I don't play anywhere close to the same schedule of opener's rebids after 2H that the OP presented.

But if you do play, like he does, that 3D doesn't really mean much, then it makes complete sense to me that 4H/4S over 4D are non-forcing. The theory is "game before slam". To me there is a reasonably strong case to play this way even if 3D is more narrowly defined.

Quote

And you'll still miss a couple 3NTs that are right, opposite, say a 5143 with 15 hcp or so.

Not if partner has a club stopper. He should bid 2NT instead of 3D with a hand like that.

If partner doesn't have a club stopper then you are right, but we are not going to get to 3NT no matter what I do in that case (unless I bid 3NT myself of course and that is not going to happen).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

That makes a lot of sense. The other point has to be that opener must know the position he is placing partner by the 3♦ bid. Opener has created this situation for what ever reason and we are now forced along with the flow.

I would prefer the option of biding 3♥ or 3♠, but would not deviate from our agreement for something opener has deliberately created? Although 3♥ does not look a bad lie?

[aguahombre]

fred, on May 26 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

IMO you will often run into problems like this one (among others) unless opener's 3-level reverse is defined as either 5-5 with 2 strong suits or 5-4 with significant extra high card values with a strong 4-card holding in his second suit. This bid should be seen as a statement, not as a question.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

As usual, Fred nails it. And his conclusion that 4D is preferable to 3S with a strong 3-card holding in diamonds and only two small spades, is the logical one.

[Cascade]

fred, on May 30 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

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

It seems we understand different things from

"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"

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Jun 2 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

fred, on May 30 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

Wayne,

[tsuff]

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

"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"

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

What?!?!?

How can what Fred wrote be interpreted any other way than the following:

1. Take the world's leading players.
2. Reduce that list to ones who open 5-card majors
3. The resulting group will have almost all play GF for 2/1 bids.

Now, a bit of interpretation can tossed into this. I understood this as people who play a natural approach with five-card majors. Meaning that if the option was 2/1 GF or Standard, 2/1 GF predominates. I understood this as excluding strong clubbers and the like.

The interpretation that this meant that almost all people play 2/1 GF, even if you count those who play strong club systems and the like, is crazy. Goofy.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 2 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

fred, on May 30 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

Wayne,

[tsuff]

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

"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"

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

What?!?!?

How can what Fred wrote be interpreted any other way than the following:

1. Take the world's leading players.
2. Reduce that list to ones who open 5-card majors
3. The resulting group will have almost all play GF for 2/1 bids.

Now, a bit of interpretation can tossed into this. I understood this as people who play a natural approach with five-card majors. Meaning that if the option was 2/1 GF or Standard, 2/1 GF predominates. I understood this as excluding strong clubbers and the like.

The interpretation that this meant that almost all people play 2/1 GF, even if you count those who play strong club systems and the like, is crazy. Goofy.

You understanding of logic is clearly different than mine.

The phrase at the beginning "almost all of today's leading players" is not qualified in any other way.

For Fred's meaning I would have thought a construction like:

Almost all of today's leading players who play five-card majors prefer 2/1 GF.

Without the qualifier the statement clearly means all of today's leading players both prefer 2/1 GF and play 5-card majors.

Say for arguments sake that there are exactly 100 world' leading players. Further assume that 50 play 5-card majors and 50 play some other systems (mostly 4-card majors). And that of those who play 5-card majors 48 (all except one pair) play 2/1 GF.

Then the following statement is correct:

"48 of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

and the next statement is incorrect:

"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" since "48" is not "almost all" of today's leading players that number 100.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Jun 2 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 2 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

fred, on May 30 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

Wayne,

[tsuff]

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

"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"

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

What?!?!?

How can what Fred wrote be interpreted any other way than the following:

1. Take the world's leading players.
2. Reduce that list to ones who open 5-card majors
3. The resulting group will have almost all play GF for 2/1 bids.

Now, a bit of interpretation can tossed into this. I understood this as people who play a natural approach with five-card majors. Meaning that if the option was 2/1 GF or Standard, 2/1 GF predominates. I understood this as excluding strong clubbers and the like.

The interpretation that this meant that almost all people play 2/1 GF, even if you count those who play strong club systems and the like, is crazy. Goofy.

You understanding of logic is clearly different than mine.

The phrase at the beginning "almost all of today's leading players" is not qualified in any other way.

For Fred's meaning I would have thought a construction like:

Almost all of today's leading players who play five-card majors prefer 2/1 GF.

Without the qualifier the statement clearly means all of today's leading players both prefer 2/1 GF and play 5-card majors.

Say for arguments sake that there are exactly 100 world' leading players. Further assume that 50 play 5-card majors and 50 play some other systems (mostly 4-card majors). And that of those who play 5-card majors 48 (all except one pair) play 2/1 GF.

Then the following statement is correct:

"48 of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

and the next statement is incorrect:

"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" since "48" is not "almost all" of today's leading players that number 100.

Since this is funny.

OK -- let me toss this one back.

Say you take the group of 100 world leading players. Those players probably all play more than one approach. Sometimes, perhaps with their top partner in a top event, they play something sexy. However, when playing with clients, or friends, or whatever, they perhaps sometimes play a system of 5-card majors and otherwise basically natural.

In that scenario, I bet that almost all of them play a 2/1 response as GF in response to their 5-card major openings, when they play 5-card major openings.

HAH!!! Take that! LOL

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

Since this is funny.

OK -- let me toss this one back.

Say you take the group of 100 world leading players. Those players probably all play more than one approach. Sometimes, perhaps with their top partner in a top event, they play something sexy. However, when playing with clients, or friends, or whatever, they perhaps sometimes play a system of 5-card majors and otherwise basically natural.

In that scenario, I bet that almost all of them play a 2/1 response as GF in response to their 5-card major openings, when they play 5-card major openings.

HAH!!! Take that! LOL

Maybe that is what Fred meant.

But I don't think so.

And I am not sure it is correct but I could be wrong on that.

[hanp]

Since you are both at it, could you give me the names of a few leading pairs that do not play 5-card majors?

[Cascade]

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Since you are both at it, could you give me the names of a few leading pairs that do not play 5-card majors?

how many is a few?

What is a leading pair?

Here are a few pairs from the last world championships. I far from looked at every system card.

Helgemo Hellness Norway
Molberg Aa Norway
Hackett Hackett England
Townsend Gold England
Richman Gill Australia
Gromoeller Kirmse Germany
Herbst Herbst Israel
Hamman Compton USA (5-card 1st/2nd)
Blackstock Henry New Zealand
Reid Newell New Zealand
Pazur Zawislak Poland

Of those that played five-card majors it didn't seem to me that 2/1 FG was close to universal.

[the hog]

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

Since you are both at it, could you give me the names of a few leading pairs that do not play 5-card majors?

The Hacket twins, Auken and von Arnim, Helgemo and Helness, Waterlow and Paul Hacket.
Those four pairs came to mind without even thinking hard.

By the way, I don't know how you intended your comment, ie whether you were really interested in who didn't play 5 card Ms or whether you were attempting to state that top pairs all played 5 card Ms. If the latter, then this view is incorrect. I also think that both methods have their advantages/disadvantages but that 5 card Ms won the "war" due to familiarity, not because one method is demonstrably superior or inferior. For example, if they were around today, I would put money on the Sharples twins to beat many world class pairs in a bidding competition.

[hanp]

I didn't think that there were that many leading pairs in the world but I guess that's a matter of semantics.

[the hog]

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

I didn't think that there were that many leading pairs in the world but I guess that's a matter of semantics.

ok, maybe you can remove Waterlow and hacket from that list, but I don't think you can quibble with the others. The twins would be on anyone's list of the top 20 prs in the world; Arnim von Auken are arguably the best women pair in the world, and Helgemo can lay claims to being one of the top 5 men players.
Isn't that true?

[hanp]

I didn't mean your list Ron, but Wayne's. I wouldn't call all the pairs who play in the Bermuda Bowl leading pairs. But obviously there are also a few of the truly great players who prefer to play 4-card majors.

Of course Hamman has played 4-card majors for a long time but mentioning Hamman-Compton as one of the pairs because they can open a 4-card major in third seat is a complete joke.

I also think that very few things in bridge are demonstrably superior or inferior. I would not dare to imply that 4-card majors are inferior as I don't have that much experience playing them. I was thinking along with Wayne's and Ken's hypothetical argument and thought that 50 out of 100 world class players playing 5-card majors was quite a bit off.

[Cascade]

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

I didn't mean your list Ron, but Wayne's. I wouldn't call all the pairs who play in the Bermuda Bowl leading pairs. But obviously there are also a few of the truly great players who prefer to play 4-card majors.

Of course Hamman has played 4-card majors for a long time but mentioning Hamman-Compton as one of the pairs because they can open a 4-card major in third seat is a complete joke.

I also think that very few things in bridge are demonstrably superior or inferior. I would not dare to imply that 4-card majors are inferior as I don't have that much experience playing them. I was thinking along with Wayne's and Ken's hypothetical argument and thought that 50 out of 100 world class players playing 5-card majors was quite a bit off.

The Hamman/Compton convention card specifically says 4-card majors in 3rd/4th seat. I assumed from this it was more than an occasional offbeat 4-card major but a common experience something similar to what I play in third/fourth where we normally open a minimum balanced hand with a four-card major in the major. And as you point out Hamman has a long history of playing four-card majors.

I left other pairs off the list who mentioned four-card majors but it seemed more like that was something that they might try occasionally rather than a systemic typical style. I am not sure why that is a joke.

My hypothetical was not intended to represent actual numbers just to illustrate the logic of the phrase.

I agree that most common treatments are not demonstrably superior nor inferior.

Fred said that only one of the pairs in my previous list deserved to be there - the top ten of the World Championship Butler. I assume Helgemo/Helness but maybe he had some other pair in mind. If the World's top players are not found in the World Championships doing well I am not sure where we find them.

[kenrexford]

I would suspect that people who play different openings in 3rd/4th seat don't really have a 2/1 GF structure whehn Responder has already passed.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

I would suspect that people who play different openings in 3rd/4th seat don't really have a 2/1 GF structure whehn Responder has already passed.

Right, most World-Class pairs bid totally random after a 3rd seat opening, usually just bidding 3NT, or making nebulous doubles and cuebids which at least win the post-mortem

[jmcw]

Only 2 bids appeal
2♠ can be a dub in this sequence. I will pass 3NT
4♦ second choice.

[fred]

Cascade, on Jun 3 2009, 03:21 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

Since this is funny.

OK -- let me toss this one back.

Say you take the group of 100 world leading players.  Those players probably all play more than one approach.  Sometimes, perhaps with their top partner in a top event, they play something sexy.  However, when playing with clients, or friends, or whatever, they perhaps sometimes play a system of 5-card majors and otherwise basically natural.

In that scenario, I bet that almost all of them play a 2/1 response as GF in response to their 5-card major openings, when they play 5-card major openings.

HAH!!!  Take that!  LOL  

Maybe that is what Fred meant.

But I don't think so.

And I am not sure it is correct but I could be wrong on that.

I was not trying to be especially rigorous in the wording of my claim nor will be I try to be here. If some of you want to dissect every word that I wrote before or every word that follows in order to try to prove me wrong, then enjoy yourselves.

I was only referring to those who play 5-card majors. If you divide these into 2 groups:

1) Those who play that 2/1 responses to their 1st and 2nd seat major suit openings are forcing to game. I would include in this group those players who prefer to play a few sequences following a 2/1 as not forcing to game. If you disagree, think there are really 3 groups, or want to argue about where exactly to draw the line, enjoy yourselves.

2) Those who play a more traditional (call it Standard American or whatever you want) approach to 2/1s where many sequences following a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening and a 2/1 response are not forcing to game.

My claim is that, among the world's leading players, there are a lot more in the first group than there are in the second group. Furthermore, I suspect that most of those in the first group feel strongly that their approach is superior.

Apologies if I did not dot the i's or cross the t's sufficiently the first time or if I have not done so sufficiently here.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Jun 4 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I was not trying to be especially rigorous in the wording of my claim nor will be I try to be here. If some of you want to dissect every word that I wrote before or every word that follows in order to try to prove me wrong, then enjoy yourselves.

But, Fred. Some of us analyze each and every precise word you use, kind of like theologians review the exact word used in the original texts of the world's religious manuscripts. Arguments always develop when this is done. You know -- the three things that lead to more fights than anything else are religion, politics, and what Fred said.

[Cascade]

fred, on Jun 5 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 3 2009, 03:21 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

Since this is funny.

OK -- let me toss this one back.

Say you take the group of 100 world leading players.  Those players probably all play more than one approach.  Sometimes, perhaps with their top partner in a top event, they play something sexy.  However, when playing with clients, or friends, or whatever, they perhaps sometimes play a system of 5-card majors and otherwise basically natural.

In that scenario, I bet that almost all of them play a 2/1 response as GF in response to their 5-card major openings, when they play 5-card major openings.

HAH!!!  Take that!  LOL  

Maybe that is what Fred meant.

But I don't think so.

And I am not sure it is correct but I could be wrong on that.

I was not trying to be especially rigorous in the wording of my claim nor will be I try to be here. If some of you want to dissect every word that I wrote before or every word that follows in order to try to prove me wrong, then enjoy yourselves.

I was only referring to those who play 5-card majors. If you divide these into 2 groups:

1) Those who play that 2/1 responses to their 1st and 2nd seat major suit openings are forcing to game. I would include in this group those players who prefer to play a few sequences following a 2/1 as not forcing to game. If you disagree, think there are really 3 groups, or want to argue about where exactly to draw the line, enjoy yourselves.

2) Those who play a more traditional (call it Standard American or whatever you want) approach to 2/1s where many sequences following a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening and a 2/1 response are not forcing to game.

My claim is that, among the world's leading players, there are a lot more in the first group than there are in the second group. Furthermore, I suspect that most of those in the first group feel strongly that their approach is superior.

Apologies if I did not dot the i's or cross the t's sufficiently the first time or if I have not done so sufficiently here.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It is not so much arguing over every word as being mistaken in what you were saying.

I thought 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" meant something different than what you obviously had in your mind. Much the same as many might disagree if I said 'almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as not GF over their own 4-card major suit openings'.

Your comment that most of the first group feel strongly that their approach is superior is an interesting one.

Many years ago I went to a lecture where the esteemed visiting lecturer asked those in attendance to answer a simple question. From memory it was something like the question "how many 'f's in this sentence?"

"finished files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experiance of years"

I am not sure if the precise sentence used but he had the sentence displayed for maybe 30 sec and asked us to write down an answer.

Having done that he then asked us to write down how confident we were that our answer was correct.

The result was that those who were incorrect in counting the 'f's were actually more confident that they were correct than those who in fact were correct. He apparently had done some research and this was a common phenomonen.

I would be very surprised if anyone really knew that 2/1 was better (or worse) than a standard approach.

In practice it may well be better but that could simply be because better players are playing those methods and so continuations and developments are better thought out. Every system I have ever played has its holes and it takes effort to plug those holes to make a better system. Many top players plugging the holes in 2/1 will almost certainly make a better system than lesser players plugging the holes in not 2/1.

Certainly I don't recall ever seeing any analysis other than opinion about the relative merits of 2/1 versus not 2/1. Tysen Strieb did some analysis comparing systems over on rec.games.bridge but from memory that analysis was limited to opening bids and non-competitive auctions.

There are certainly some players (even very good ones) that are adament that 2/1 is not the best way to play bridge.