[DFGBUFF]

In BBO, Mr. GITLEMAN, has written a few articles on IMPROVIMG YOUR 2/1. he had mentioned that he would write another article, about when your MAJOR IS raised on the 2nd level, after a 2/1.......ex....1S---2C,,,,,2H----2S................What should occur NOW? We have been using our next bid to be 3S, then start SERIOUS 3NT........................IS THERE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE...?

[fred]

In my regular partnerships (and throughout the expert community in the USA as far as I can tell), we tend to make a descriptive bid (as opposed to a cuebid) after the auction starts this way.

For example, in the auction you describe:

1S 2C
2H 2S

2NT=Natural - a suggestion that 3NT might be the best contract
3C=Typically 5413 but you might have 5422 with a doubleton honor in clubs
3D=Typically 5431 but not appropriate for 2NT
3H=At least 5-5 in the majors
3S=At least 6 spades

The big problem hand is 5422 with nothing in diamonds or clubs. There is no perfect descriptive bid for such a hand - the best you can do is tell the smallest lie. Use your judgment to decide what this is.

In my regular partnerships, if opener bids 2NT at his 3rd turn, there is no more Serious 3NT. This contradicts the definition of Serious 3NT in the original series of articles.

In my experience this general approach is vastly superior to starting to cuebid at the 2-level. The whole Serious/LTTC concept (and cuebidding in general) works much better if one of the players knows roughly what his partner's hand looks like before cuebidding starts.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

PS You can call me Fred

[joshs]

I don't think there is absolutely universal agreement about this but let me outline a general 2/1 approach, and point out the issues:
1. The next bid is natural
E.G.
1S-2D-2H-2S
2N Slow Club values, either 5422 or 5413. Usually the range on this is like 12-14 or 18+
3C 5413 or maybe 5404
3D 5431 or maybe 5422 with Hx in Diamonds
3H 55xx
3S Some play this as 5422 but not right for 2N. Some as 6-4. Some as promising extras. Some as denying extras.
3N Natural, but 15-17ish
4C on Qbids, serious slam tries
4M Exactly 5422 with good suits but no controls in the other suits.

As you can tell there is no universal agreement here on the exact shape or the exact range shown by these bids.

In traditional 2/1, 2N was the "Slow Down bid". After this bid 3N is a possible final contract. This bid indicates that the hands don't fit that well, and its more of a quantatiative auction.

One Set of Agreements:
In Order of priority
A. With Qx or better support responders 2/1 bid (assuming it promised 5 cards) at your 3rd bid.
B. With 5413 and values in the 4'th suit OTHER than the ace, bid 2N or 3N depending on range
C. With 5413 and no KQJ or 5404 bid the 4'th suit
D. With 5-5 in Majors show that
E. With 6412 or 6421 and a good 6 card suit, but a min hand and not Hx in partner's suit, splinter
F. With 5422, a min, no control in either minor, but good trumps, bid 4S
G. With other hands bid 3S and things proceed like in Gitelman 2/1

There are many alternatives here:
For instance I usually allow more flexibility with what you do with Hx in partner's suit so its not totally obligatory to show that feature at your 3'rd bid but rather depends some on how much you like your hand. Hxx is obligatory to show.
For instance with Axxxx Kxxx Qx KJ, I prefer a slow down 2N bid to an encouraging 3D bid at your 3rd turn.

In general, after 2 level trump agreement, trumps have not been firmly set unless either player rebids trumps a 3'rd time or starts qbidding at the 4 level. Otherwise, NT is a possible final contract.

After all the bids above, responder can bid 3M (Serious/non-serious depending on what you play), 3N natural, 4 level q bidding.

[kenrexford]

I agree with Fred as to what the normal practice is. IMO, though, I disagree that pattern bidding is vastly superior to initiating cues immediately. If one couples immmediate cues with a good set of picture jumps, I believe that much more useful information can be exchanged if you immediately start cuebidding.

Consider, for instance, the actual auction (1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-2♠). If Opener now bids, say, 3♣ as a pattern bid, we now know that Opener has 5413 or 5404 pattern, which is useful information. However, Opener's club holding could be about anything, as could his Opening strength.

With direct cues, alternatively, consider the same auction. Opener's 3♣ call will show an honor in clubs, and the bypass of 2NT will show two top spades.

So, let's assume that Responder's next call is 3♥ in both scenarios. Both might enable Responder to show a heart card and deny a diamond control. So far, similar.

Now, let's assume a 3♠ call from Opener. I'm not sure what Fred's meaning would be, but mine would now confirm the diamond control and show a solid spade suit (third top spade). The diamond control could be shortness or King/Ace, which is ambiguous. If Fred's 3♠ shows good trumps, then I am behind on the nature of the diamond control but ahead on the quality of the spade suit.

Suppose, now, a 3NT Serious by Responder and a 4♣ call by Opener. Fred would be showing, I believe, one top club, whereas I would confirm the second top club.

Now, this sequence may be one of many, but the principle is illustrated. Immediate cues allow the partnership more room to describe critical internal cards/honors, even when the honors are "short" (Qxx is the same as stiff Queen, for instance), whereas patterning out allows more precise description of shape and is, at times, less ambiguous as to some holdings but more often ambiguous or underdefined as to what I believe to be the more critical of informational exchanges, the honor locations.

I strongly believe that immediate cues are superior. As an example, I would rather that partner be able to show the Queen (stiff or protected) than to show three cards in a side suit without knowledge of an honor if I hold AKJ10x. Three small is ugly; stiff Queen is gold. Further, with A10xxx, I want him to be able to cue clubs twice to show both missing honors, as KQ tight is much more informative than three-card support, or three-card support with one of the top honors (King OR Queen).

I also like the ability to discover how many trump honors we have below four of our trump suit, which is not completely possible with pattern bidding.

But, each approach has pros and cons. The key is to elect that which you and partner can best handle and that best meets your style and way of thinking. With pattern bidding, deciding upon your calls is easier, but placing the contract accurately and making decisions at safe levels is less so.

[cnszsun]

I have the following sentences quoted from my bridge notes. It should be extracted from some online article, but sorry, i've forgot where the source was.
Opener shows strength before shape, it seems to be the major difference to fred's method.

1s-2c
2d-2s
?
How does opener continue after getting three-card spade support? With a very very very bad hand, opener jumps to 4. Q10xxx Qx QJ10xx A for instance. With a sound minimum, opener bids 3. It’s important to be able to limit the strength of your hand. If responder has a minimum hand also, he bids 4 and the opponents will not learn any more about opener’s hand. Bidding 3 allows responder to investigate slam at the four-level if he has at least an ace more than a minimum game force. Bidding 3 also allows responder to bid 3NT offering opener a choice of games. If opener has a very good hand, he shows his distribution. With 55, opener rebids his five-card suit. With 5431 or 6421, opener bids the third suit showing shortness in the fourth suit. With 5422, opener bids notrump. This allows responder to evaluate whether or not he has wasted values. There will be plenty of room for cuebidding.

[pclayton]

A few thoughts:

There was a thread a few months ago that discussed responder's 2♠ call. While I didn't agree with the consensus, many of the posters felt that 2♠ could be a stall on Hx. I think 2♠ on non-support adds a lot of ambiguity to this sequence. This affects many of the continuations, as it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to start patterning and cue bidding unless we have a strong idea what strain we are going to play in.

The most common treatment is shape before 3 of our major. I agree with most of what Josh and Fred say and that 5422 can be a problem pattern. Ken's ideas, as usual, are intriguing, but they are very out of mainstream bidding.

I had this discussion with one of my students a few months ago, and we were picking apart this exact 4 bid sequence. One thing I could not get a good handle on is how do these sequences differ:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♣, and:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♦.

Shouldn't they both show 5=4=1=3?

[mike777]

Always an interesting discussion. Shape before cuebidding?
I guess I would ask when do you not show your shape. When your hcp are few in the suit?


I think cuebidding is fine for most of us but forum members do seem to prefer shape showing.

I assume 2s by responder is 100% slam try. 3 card support, only, 99% of the time.

If 2spades can be 2 spades or 3 spades or 4spades..then I have no idea.

[cherdano]

Interesting, the style I am used to seems to care even more about shape than Fred's. With a 5422 I would almost always bid 2N. If I don't have a diamond stopper, I won't sit for partner's 3N, though. If I have Hx rather than xx in partner's suit, I can usually still show this with a cue bid later.
A 3C rebid would show 5413 for me.

I am comfortable with this style, even though I can think of a couple of sequences where I might not get to show my nice Hx in partner's suit without overstating my strength.

[fred]

mike777, on Jan 10 2008, 01:14 AM, said:

I guess I would ask when do you not show your shape.

A simply and relatively effective way to decide:

Show your shape when trumps are agreed at the 2-level. After that cuebid.

Cuebid when trumps are agreed at the 3-level.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jan 9 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

I had this discussion with one of my students a few months ago, and we were picking apart this exact 4 bid sequence. One thing I could not get a good handle on is how do these sequences differ:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♣, and:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♦.

Shouldn't they both show 5=4=1=3?

This is a good discussion. Pattern bidding coupled with undefined splinters does seem to create a redundancy overlap.

For me, one principle is to define the jumps and then allow the jumps to "define" the parallel non-jump auctions.

Thus, the latter auction (Opener jumps to 4♦) specifically promises a stiff diamond (never void) that is not the Ace or King (Queen possible). The trump contribution will be above average for the sequence; in this sequence, that means two of the top three honors (or better). The second suit will be great, meaning, in this sequence, three of the top four (or better) hearts. The fourth suit (here clubs) will be control-lacking, meaning at least two cards and no better than Queen-high.

That will "define" a non-jump as lacking something definitional, an unexpected strength (void, stiff Ace/King, or a club control) or weakness (poor trumps, lesser hearts).

A delayed jump (Opener bids 2NT, hears 3♣, and then jumps to 4♦) will be done tactically, with an eye to definition. Here, as my 2NT call would show poor trumps, a delayed 4♦ would show the same parameters as a direct 4♦, but lesser trumps. This option for a delayed splinter further "defines" the non-jump option.

If you were to use initial pattern bidding, rather than initial cues, then defining the jumps precisely would help add definition. Thus, a 3♣ call, inferring a short diamond, would be tailored by my definition, for example, such that 3♣ would show (1) a void in diamonds, or (2) lesser trumps, or (3) lesser hearts, or (4) the Ace or King of clubs. If Opener later cannot re-cue clubs, then one of the other four must be the reason. If Opener can later show two top trumps, then one of the remaining two must be the reason. If Opener shows up not having a void in diamonds, then Responder knows that his hearts are weaker than three of the top four.

The problem, IMO, is that few discuss how a splinter differs from a pattern-out bidding without jump around the shortness. Strangely, the same people who cannot distinguish 3♣ from 4♦ often have strong opinions as to the merits of their incomplete pattern style in comparison to an inadequately studied cuebidding-first style. But, that is the typical arrogance shown by all of us as bridge players.

[mike777]

fred, on Jan 9 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 10 2008, 01:14 AM, said:

I guess I would ask when do you not show your shape.

A simply and relatively effective way to decide:

Show your shape when trumps are agreed at the 2-level. After that cuebid.

Cuebid when trumps are agreed at the 3-level.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

thanks...this is really important and clear. ty.

[fred]

pclayton, on Jan 10 2008, 01:02 AM, said:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♣, and:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♦.

Shouldn't they both show 5=4=1=3?

I don't think so.

You could use 4D to describe 5413 and decide that there is some particular characteristic(s) of a hand that makes it appropriate for 4D versus 3C. For example:

- One bid promises extra values while the other bid denies extra values
- One bid promises or denies control(s) in some particular suit(s) while the other bid does not
- One bid promises good trumps while the other bid denies good trumps
- Some combination of the above

To me none of these explanations make much sense because:

1) None of them are intuitively obvious. I try to avoid making obscure agreements that will be hard to remember especially in auctions that rarely arise. For me non-intuitive tends to mean hard-to-remember.

2) Establishing *any* definitions for 3C versus 4D will make your 3C auctions easier (provided that everyone remembers), but it is far from clear to me how much this will help - after 3C there is so much room available, a lot of info has already been exchanged, and trumps have already been agreed.

3) Unless you make the definition of 4D super-explicit, I believe that in practice responder will not infrequently be endplayed by the bulkiness of this bid. And the more specific you make the definition, the harder it is to remember and the less the gain when opener bids 3C instead of 4D.

So in trying to come up with a sensible meaning for 4D, I would start by assuming that this call is NOT made with 5413. Another premise for me would be that 4D does indeed show shortness - if rare bids that sound like splinters are not splinters then they are too hard to remember (for me at least).

I would then ask myself, "given the rest of the bids that are available, what sort of hand with short diamonds would be awkward to bid?".

The answer I would expect to come up with would be "something like 6403". I have never discussed this sequence with any of my regular partners, but that is what I would expect them to have if they used this sequence. That is partly because it makes sense to me and I would expect it to make sense to my partners as well. But it is also because it feels intuitive to me that 4D would suggest a void on the principle of "use extreme bids for extreme hands". In other words, if I could be convinced that a really obscure definition of 4D "made sense", no matter how much sense it made I would never expect my partner to assume such a definition without prior discussion. In my experience playing bridge that way just doesn't work no matter how good the players are.

As to the strength of the 6403ish hand I would not spend a lot of time thinking about that. Instead I would assume on general principles that a good-fitting minimum opposite could produce a slam and bid accordingly. It is partner's job not to endplay himself by bidding 4D on a hand in which he won't know what to do if I signoff in 4S - he has to find another bid (3C or 3S) on such hands.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

In the new league season I will be using the "Improving 2/1 GF" methods. I will let you know if any interesting 2/1 situations come up.

BTW for symmetry reasons we use:

1♥
- 2♠ = Balanced, min. GF or slammish
- 2NT = Jacoby
- 3♣♦ = Bergen style raises

1♠
- 2NT = Balanced, min. GF or slammish
- 3♣ = Jacoby
- 3♦♥ = Bergen style raises

[pclayton]

Very good, thanks Fred.

I had typed, and the back-spaced in my original post that a 6=4=3=0 is a difficult pattern (along with a 54-xx-xx) but the comment didn't make sense in the context of what I was saying.

I like the 643 idea myself, and I think it works well as a delayed splinter for pard's 1st suit too.

[kenrexford]

I knew things were bad when I looked over hand records and read materials by others. This confirms things. If Fred has never discussed a 4♦ rebid with any of his partners, then things are as bad as I thought.

This also confirms my secondary guess. Folks who do not have any agreement as to the meaning of 4♦ in this auction are assessing whether immediate cues work better or whether pattern-bidding works better. If you do not understand your own approach, how can it possibly be fairly assessed as better than an alternative approach? You might comment on memory concerns fairly, as a fair concern that one method or another seems too memory-intensive for your tastes. However, assessing merits seems flawed.

As to the "memory intensive" concern, however, I doubt that this is all that complicated.

A picture jump usually shows a concentration of values inside the two suits and a lack of controls on the outside. Thus, if Opener jumped to 4♥, you would expect very god trumps, very good hearts, and no controls in the minors, right? Well, a "picture splinter" like 4♦ is very easy to follow as well. If shows a "pciture jump" holding (very good trumps, very good hearts), but a shortness control in the jump suit (diamonds). How tricky is that? Whereas 4♥ might be the right call with something like ♠AKxxx ♥AQJx ♦xx ♣xx, a 4♦ call looks like ♠AKxxx ♥AQJx ♦x ♣xxx and a 4♣ call looks like ♠AKxxx ♥AQJx ♦xxx ♣x. If you can remember what a Picture Jump shows, then a Picture Splinter is easy and not memory intensive.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Jan 10 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

I knew things were bad when I looked over hand records and read materials by others. This confirms things. If Fred has never discussed a 4♦ rebid with any of his partners, then things are as bad as I thought.

Why is this bad?

I happen to think it is good that it is possible to play bridge effectively enough to win at the highest levels without making explicit agreements concerning every single auction.

Furthermore, my experience suggests that there is such a thing as making "too many agreements". I know several great players who think that it is important to make agreements concerning every auction they can think of. In most cases their partnerships are not anywhere near as successful as I would expect from such highly-skilled players.

The lesson (for me at least) is clear: even the best bridge players have a limited mental capacity and, if this capacity is overwhelmed, their bridge suffers as a result.

The sooner that a partnership comes to this realization and gets a sense for when they are pushing the envelope the better (at least as far as their results are concerned).

Of course some have a greater capacity than others and of course there are things you can do to increase your capacity (like playing full time). I believe I am better at remembering system than most. I also believe that my main partner (Brad Moss) and I have considerably more explicit agreements than most.

But it is still the case that we have capacity issues. Our capacity at this particular moment in time is likely lower than it has been in the past (because we are getting older and because we don't play much these days or practice much between serious tournaments). That being the case, nowadays I prefer to remove obscure agreements from our system notes rather than add new obscure agreements.

We are already at our saturation point. Unless we are super-careful about any new agreements we make, I believe it is likely that any particular new agreeement will harm us more than it will help us.

Is that a bad thing?

No - it is just reality.

Quote

This also confirms my secondary guess. Folks who do not have any agreement as to the meaning of 4♦ in this auction are assessing whether immediate cues work better or whether pattern-bidding works better. If you do not understand your own approach, how can it possibly be fairly assessed as better than an alternative approach? You might comment on memory concerns fairly, as a fair concern that one method or another seems too memory-intensive for your tastes. However, assessing merits seems flawed.

Your conclusion makes no sense.

I claim "pattern bidding" is better even without any agreements regarding bids above 3S.

How can I make that claim?

Because I know from experience that, when partner has shown 5-4 in 2 suits and we are known to have a fit, that knowing more about partner's pattern is very likely to be the single most important piece of information I care about. This is especially true when the bidding is at a low enough level that it is possible to have an effective cuebidding auction after the pattern bid has been made.

No doubt your experience tells you that is more important to be able to cuebid all of your Jacks below the 4NT level, but I think you will have a lot of trouble finding a single A1 player who would agree with you. Meanwhile I suspect I could easily come up with a long list of A1 players that agree with me (because such a list would be nearly identical to the list of A1 players).

Of course the A1 players are not always right about such things, but for me it is hard to ignore the fact that these players are the ones who tend to win. On the other hand, those who ignore the advice of experienced players and those who refuse to examine their pet theories objectively, are the ones who tend to lose.

If all the A1 players handle a given auction in the same way, the chances are pretty good (at least in my view) that they know what they are doing. It is possible that you are the only person who has seen the light, but I don't think that is very likely.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I cannot imagine that success at bridge is not a wholistic accomplishment. If you have A1 play, A1 defense, and A1 judgment, I think you can win even with B2 bidding agreements. That does not translate into all aspects of one's game being A-1. Plus, not all of us have careers at bridge and career-enabled partnerships. That does not operate as proof of theory inferiority.

[kfay]

cherdano, on Jan 9 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Interesting, the style I am used to seems to care even more about shape than Fred's. With a 5422 I would almost always bid 2N. If I don't have a diamond stopper, I won't sit for partner's 3N, though. If I have Hx rather than xx in partner's suit, I can usually still show this with a cue bid later.
A 3C rebid would show 5413 for me.

I am comfortable with this style, even though I can think of a couple of sequences where I might not get to show my nice Hx in partner's suit without overstating my strength.

This is the way I play. To me it just seems right.

[david_c]

pclayton, on Jan 10 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

One thing I could not get a good handle on is how do these sequences differ:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♣, and:

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♦.

Shouldn't they both show 5=4=1=3?

I thought this was obvious but the amount of discussion suggests otherwise. To me, 4♦ confirms spades as trumps, whereas 3♣ suggests clubs as an alternative. So 4♦ is most likely to be 6412. I can see why it might be useful to have it showing specifically a void, but unless this has been explicitly discussed a singleton is normal.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Jan 10 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

I cannot imagine that success at bridge is not a wholistic accomplishment.  If you have A1 play, A1 defense, and A1 judgment, I think you can win even with B2 bidding agreements.  That does not translate into all aspects of one's game being A-1.  Plus, not all of us have careers at bridge and career-enabled partnerships.  That does not operate as proof of theory inferiority.

The point is that neither of us can prove we are right using logic or math - the problem is too complicated for that.

The main thing we have to go on is our judgment and experience. Mine suggests one thing and yours suggests something else. I cannot say I *know* that I am right, but given that a whole bunch of really good players would agree with me and very few would agree with you, I think the odds are in seriously in my favor.

If it was just me against you I would like your chances a lot better.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com