[han]

I do have a gadget for this hand, but I won't mention this. Seen pictures of Justin in what looked like a black leather jacket and I don't want to get into a fight.

Without gadgets I would bid 3NT. This gets the strength and good hearts across. If they can take the first 11 tricks I'm less happy, but partner is likely to correct to 4H with a diamond void.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 01:33 PM, said:

Mike,

Canadians are expected to bid 3C with this hand (one day I'll stop the Canadian jokes )

Hey, I took it as a compliment, not a joke

We Canadians are proud of our contributions to bidding theory, going back to Drury. More recent examples include Eric Kokish, who has to be on anyone's list of the top theorists in the world, and Fred: before he moved to the US he was a Canadian star... and indeed I think Fred would acknowledge that Eric's ideas helped him widen his understanding of the game.

Several other top 'US' players have their roots in Canada: it is a common theme in our culture... witness such actors as William Shatner aka Captain Kirk

That reference may be too old for Justin, however

[whereagles]

Good hand for the SEF 2C "fort indetermineé". In SAYC you need gadgets or open 2C or 2NT.

[iggygork]

awm, on Aug 31 2005, 01:17 PM, said:

This is really a classic problem hand -- "what do you do with a really good hand (too good for single raise) holding length in your original suit and exactly three cards in partner's major?"

Honestly this is one of the biggest unaddressed problems with (constructive) standard bidding. That's why we see so many people answering with "I play X convention." Without added conventions there isn't really a nice answer for such problems. I think the best option is:

(1) Without enough for game, rebid 3 of your suit. You may play the wrong partial, but partner will often rebid 3M with five on the way to game, allowing you to show your fit.

(2) With enough for game, make up a suit. Then try correcting to partner's suit. Most good partners will be aware that 1X-1Y-3♣ in particular is often a three-card (or shorter!) suit trying to describe a game force.

On this hand I take option (2). You're good enough to be in game opposite a 1/1 and at least you have the club ace (so if partner tries notrump you won't be off a stopper). I think 3NT could easily be the top spot opposite some minimums (Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx). If partner tries to raise the clubs I'd back into hearts immediately, and hopefully partner will know that I have the "game forcing one suiter" type of 3♣ bid with only 2-3 clubs. If partner tries 3♦ or 3♠ I am well placed to show my spade support.

Funny that this "Bridge World Problem" hand should come up here, I had one this weekend, which ended in disaster:

Scoring: IMP

---

I opened this hand 1♥ in fourth seat and pard responded 1♠. Playing vanilla 2/1 I had to manufacture a jump shift to 3♣ and then the bidding proceeded 3♦ by partner (presumably natural), 3♥ by me and now pard polished things off with 4♣!. By now I had figured out that pard has a ♥ void and something like 4-0-5-4, so I tried to bring things to a close by bidding 4♥ with my semi solid suit. Unfortunately pard had a ten count and we inched our way to 6NT via 5♣ by him, 5♦ by me, 5♠ by him, 5NT by me (intended as to play, taken as GSF by pard, neat is it not?), 6♣ by pard and a final 6NT by me. We went down 1. At the other table they were down 2 in 6NT.

The red suits were 5-5 on my left. My pard owes me a dollar.

[mike777]

Geez and I thought this was an easy one, 4h or 3nt take your choice. No need for gadgets or bidding non-existant suits oh well.

I thought iggy's hand was even easier, 3nt rebid.

No wonder my pick up partners bid so wierd and never have any energy left over to count out the hands on offense or defense . They exhaust themselves with simple hands.

[iggygork]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 03:48 PM, said:

This may be weird but with that hand you could conceivably open 2C and rebid 2N. Sounds like that will get you to slam though if pard has 10 and a void. Did it go down only because of the bad splits?

It did go down mostly due to bad splits, but the most annoying part of the whole thing was the unconvincing auction. I thought about opening 2♣ and rebidding 2♥ but then I would have to bid 3♥ anyway over pard's response and I wanted to find out more about his hand at a lower level. So much for that strategy

[Double !]

Confession
I am going to get raked for this but, if my partner is a passed hand, I would seriously consider opening 2 clubs and rebidding 2NT. After all, I do have 8 tricks in my hand, and I need 1 trick from partner and for the opps to not run off 5+ diamond tricks before I get in. I can still make game opposite a hand that P might pass a 1H opening. I wonder how many others of you might also do this if the running suit were a minor. Another way, as previously mentioned, is to play some form of Benjamin 2-bids (which I like-thought I was the only one) and open whichever bid you use to show an acol 2-bid. Otherwise, 1H and rebidding 4H if P can muster up a response, is a practical way of bidding the hand, particularly if playing some form of namyats/ mitchell transfers.

oops, sorry, did not see the post above: was busy writing this. Oh, well.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 11:49 AM, said:

This is becoming really annoying.

1) this is the SAYC and 2/1 discussion forum.
2) if you could show 6H and 3S and extra values, or if you could show 8 tricks in a major with a 2C opener, this hand would NOT be a problem.
3) Please assume standard methods. Bidding problems on here seem to end up being "I have X treatment so thats how I solve this bidding problem" as opposed to "I'm playing standard methods thus this is a problem hand so what, in my judgement, is the best bid?" Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the point of bidding porblems in general, especially on the sayc 2/1 board. I know in real life if I gave this problem and someone said "I bid 3H showing 6H and 3S and extras" I would say "you don't have that bid available, so what do you bid?"

That being said, yes I would open 1H. Over 1S I'll just bid 4H. I make opposite the KQ of spades and out so I can't see making a non forcing bid, and 3C is just sick. 3N could work out, but it could work poorly as well.

On a side note: here is a bidding problem for you free. J AQT9xx KQx Axx playing YOUR methods, 1H p 1S ?

Thanks, Justin. I chose this post specifically because it dealt with SAYC and 2/1. I'm just curious how excellent players try to solve these kinds of rebid headaches in real life without the luxury of perfect system bids.

I appreciate the system ideas as well - don't get me wrong - but along with the system answers it would be nice to also say, not having that available, I guess I'd do so and so.

Winston

[inquiry]

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 03:21 AM, said:

I appreciate the system ideas as well - don't get me wrong - but along with the system answers it would be nice to also say, not having that available, I guess I'd do so and so.

Well, since Justin took a jab at my answer to the YOUR question "You open 1H (Agree, disagree, or maybe?). were I said no, I would open 2♣ and explained why, let me add that I did exactly as you suggested. I added that if I didn't (or couldn't) open 2♣ I would rebid 3NT. Somehow I thought both answers were what you were looking for. If you didn't want alternatives to 1H, why ask if we agreed?

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 31 2005, 12:13 PM, said:

1♥-1♠-2NT GF, simple and easy

ROFL...i guess my post was a lost cause. ok. If you could bid this way would this hand be a problem?

2NT gf is the standard treatment! , 6+18=24 then nobody can stay out of game.

Of course it shows a balanced hand, but anyway when bidding 2NT you will end in 3NT, 4♠, 6♠ or 6NT 95% of the time, I agree you might want to play in ♥ rather than ♠, but the bidding seems the best overall.

[helene_t]

I would bid 2NT even if it's only semi-forcing. If partner bids 3NT I bid 4♥ (not sure that's right).

[Winstonm]

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 07:05 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 03:21 AM, said:

I appreciate the system ideas as well - don't get me wrong - but along with the system answers it would be nice to also say, not having that available, I guess I'd do so and so. 

Well, since Justin took a jab at my answer to the YOUR question "You open 1H (Agree, disagree, or maybe?). were I said no, I would open 2♣ and explained why, let me add that I did exactly as you suggested. I added that if I didn't (or couldn't) open 2♣ I would rebid 3NT. Somehow I thought both answers were what you were looking for. If you didn't want alternatives to 1H, why ask if we agreed?

Thanks for your input Ben - and yes, the question was would you open 1H or would you try to solve the rebid problem by chosing another opening bid. Whether there were those who judged that it may be right to open 2C was certainly part of what I was thinking of when I posed the question (agree, disagree, maybe?).

Rebid heachaches come in two forms: those that occur after you have chosen a bid and those that are avoided by the choice of opening bids. Another bid I thought some might chose simply due to the rebid headache might be a 2N opening. It is the discussion of the pros and cons of all these choices set within the framework of 2/1 or SAYC that I was looking for, as well as the discussion of how to handle the rebid after a 1H opening.

Don't get me wrong - all input is valued - it is just that with my regular partner I play 2/1 so although interesting to see systemic solutions as far as helpful answers that stay within the framework of the question are more so.

I have great respect for all the minds who regularly inhabit these pages, and I don't consider myself to be in the "elite" group in the bridge world so to be able to wander into a discussion with all the folks who contribute is an honor.

And I sincerely appreciate anyone who takes the time to give freely of his or her knowledge and expertise.

Winston

Winston

[inquiry]

Well if you play 2♥ as instant double negative to a 2♣ opening bid, it is very easy to incorporate ACOL two bids in either of your majors into SAYC or 2/1. Simply pass 2♥ with an acol 2 bid in hearts, and rebid a non-forcing 2♠ if you have that hand. This does not require a great re-work of what you play and is very effective.. I just enjoy it everytime the auction goes...2C-2H-PASS (except against henri he will balance everytime, and he is right), as his side has half the deck.

Of course, if your 2♥ is not double negative right away, this method will not work for you.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Sep 1 2005, 10:28 AM, said:

2NT gf is the standard treatment! , 6+18=24 then nobody can stay out of game.

Of course it shows a balanced hand, but anyway when bidding 2NT you will end in 3NT, 4♠, 6♠ or 6NT 95% of the time, I agree you might want to play in ♥ rather than ♠, but the bidding seems the best overall.

2NT gf as standard is not standard

2N shows upgraded 17 count to average 19. I like my partners to respond to my 1-level openings on any decent 5 count and on some good 4 counts.

So 2N on this hand is wrong for two main reasons: it is an underbid, and it is a distortion.

There are times when distortion is unavoidable even in your constructive auctions. Indeed, my choice of 3♣ is a distortion.

However, in choosing one's distortion, one should try to minimize the probability that the distortion will come back to bite you. 3♣ has the lowest risk to reward ratio: because partner will very, very rarely, if ever, jump to 5♣. The worst that is realistically probable is he bids 4♣ and you bid 4♥, which he should usually pass.

4♥ has lower risk in the sense of reaching an unplayable contract, but offers slightly less reward, in that it makes slam bidding more difficult, and rules out 3N.

2N threatens to miss game, and risks reaching the wrong game or the right game from the wrong side.

Partner will not appreciate your hogging of the hand if he holds KQxx xx Jxx Kxxx

Won't he be impressed when they run 5 ♦ tricks on you.

Or maybe he has a ♦ stopper..... from his side

BTW, for those who think 3N shows this hand: it doesn't!

3N shows both minors stopped, even if you restrict its use (as I do) to a 'near-solid' or better ♥ suit: AKQ10xx would be my minimum holding. 3N is not just a preempt and a grab of dummy: it is a positive, descriptive bid over which an intelligent partner is encouraged to move with the right hand. Typically the 3N bidder is short and weak in ♠, not an unbid sidesuit.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 11:47 AM, said:

Well if you play 2♥ as instant double negative to a 2♣ opening bid, it is very easy to incorporate ACOL two bids in either of your majors into SAYC or 2/1. Simply pass 2♥ with an acol 2 bid in hearts, and rebid a non-forcing 2♠ if you have that hand.

I pick up AKQxx AKQxx Ax x

I open 2♣ and hear partner bid an immediate negative 2♥.

I cannot adopt Ben's pass or 2♠, since game is likely (and slam possible), if only I can find out which major partner prefers.

So I bid 3♠, I assume. Partner holds xx Jxxx xxx Qxxx.

3♠ is forcing, but what can my guy do? He bids 4♠ to shut it down: 3N would not be my choice, but if you insist that 3N is the 'correct bid', change partner's hand to xxx Jxxxx xxx xx. Now he has to raise ♠.

I'm not suggesting that any method gets to the decent 6♥ (on the second hand), but I do know that I'd prefer the 10 card fit to the 8 card fit on that one and the 9 card fit to the 7 card fit on the first.

So it is not possible to incorporate Acol 2 bids into a standard 2♣ opening style merely by using 2♥ as immediate negative (which I have played for more than 20 years, so can claim some familiarity with the method).

We see this type of system tweak suggested all the time, usually in response to a specific problem. There is a tendency to say: Aha, we can deal with this problem by making this change to our method: see how well it works!

But this is NOT how to build a system. All system changes have implications for hands which are DIFFERENT from the ones we have just 'fixed'. A proper system reflects a coherent, consistent, holistic philosophy: and a change to any one part impacts many other parts, directly or (more commonly) indirectly.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Sep 1 2005, 07:32 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 11:47 AM, said:

Well if you play 2♥ as instant double negative to a 2♣ opening bid, it is very easy to incorporate ACOL two bids in either of your majors into SAYC or 2/1. Simply pass 2♥ with an acol 2 bid in hearts, and rebid a non-forcing 2♠ if you have that hand.

I pick up AKQxx AKQxx Ax x

I open 2♣ and hear partner bid an immediate negative 2♥.

I cannot adopt Ben's pass or 2♠, since game is likely (and slam possible), if only I can find out which major partner prefers.

So I bid 3♠, I assume. Partner holds xx Jxxx xxx Qxxx.

3♠ is forcing, but what can my guy do? He bids 4♠ to shut it down: 3N would not be my choice, but if you insist that 3N is the 'correct bid', change partner's hand to xxx Jxxxx xxx xx. Now he has to raise ♠.

I'm not suggesting that any method gets to the decent 6♥ (on the second hand), but I do know that I'd prefer the 10 card fit to the 8 card fit on that one and the 9 card fit to the 7 card fit on the first.

So it is not possible to incorporate Acol 2 bids into a standard 2♣ opening style merely by using 2♥ as immediate negative (which I have played for more than 20 years, so can claim some familiarity with the method).

We see this type of system tweak suggested all the time, usually in response to a specific problem. There is a tendency to say: Aha, we can deal with this problem by making this change to our method: see how well it works!

But this is NOT how to build a system. All system changes have implications for hands which are DIFFERENT from the ones we have just 'fixed'. A proper system reflects a coherent, consistent, holistic philosophy: and a change to any one part impacts many other parts, directly or (more commonly) indirectly.

assuming 2h=no ace or king but can have zero or many small hcp
I bid 2s non force...partner can strain to bid with anything or pass with nothing.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Sep 1 2005, 08:32 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 11:47 AM, said:

Well if you play 2♥ as instant double negative to a 2♣ opening bid, it is very easy to incorporate ACOL two bids in either of your majors into SAYC or 2/1. Simply pass 2♥ with an acol 2 bid in hearts, and rebid a non-forcing 2♠ if you have that hand.

I pick up AKQxx AKQxx Ax x

I open 2♣ and hear partner bid an immediate negative 2♥.

I cannot adopt Ben's pass or 2♠, since game is likely (and slam possible), if only I can find out which major partner prefers.

So I bid 3♠, I assume. Partner holds xx Jxxx xxx Qxxx.

3♠ is forcing, but what can my guy do? He bids 4♠ to shut it down: 3N would not be my choice, but if you insist that 3N is the 'correct bid', change partner's hand to xxx Jxxxx xxx xx. Now he has to raise ♠.

I'm not suggesting that any method gets to the decent 6♥ (on the second hand), but I do know that I'd prefer the 10 card fit to the 8 card fit on that one and the 9 card fit to the 7 card fit on the first.

So it is not possible to incorporate Acol 2 bids into a standard 2♣ opening style merely by using 2♥ as immediate negative (which I have played for more than 20 years, so can claim some familiarity with the method).

We see this type of system tweak suggested all the time, usually in response to a specific problem. There is a tendency to say: Aha, we can deal with this problem by making this change to our method: see how well it works!

But this is NOT how to build a system. All system changes have implications for hands which are DIFFERENT from the ones we have just 'fixed'. A proper system reflects a coherent, consistent, holistic philosophy: and a change to any one part impacts many other parts, directly or (more commonly) indirectly.

Well, thanks for the advertizement for two of my methods in one post Mike. That might be a record!!

As I said in my original post in this thread, I play both 2♥ and 2♠ as double negatives (not just 2♥). This "type" of responder hand is why (I don't mean two suiter per se). Now responder bids 2♥ - no trick for heart contract, 2♠ no trick for spade, likely trick (aka fit) for hearts. So your partner would bid 2♠ with this hand and finding hearts is easy, and finding six hearts is not totally out of the question.

But, with a strong two suiter, I don't open 2♣. This is part of the simplification of the auctions after opening 2♣ i was mentioning to justin in the thread on MisIry. Problems like this, even on a non-competitive auction is problematic, and in competition can be even worse.

So if I opened this 2♣, the bidding would be 2♣ - 2♠ - 4♥. Hannie and I ahd this very auction recently where the heart fit was enough to allow game. Or I would open 2NT (misiry) and heart fit is found per force.

Now, due to the beating I was taking for a "non-SAYC/2over1" 2♣, I made the note that you could open these kinds of hands if you play 2♥ double negative (even though I play both, as i think everyone should). If you play misiry, then you can still do this without worry about hands like this even if you don't play both majors as the double negative. But I like the both majors, because you can find some good heart game when partner bids 2♠, if one trick or a fit is enough.

Ben