[Gerben42]

You play Woolsey / Jassem / Multi Landy (whatever you call it) vs 1NT.

What is the difference between:

Pass (1NT) 2♦* (Pass)
2♥ (Pass) 2♠ (Pass)
3♣

and

Pass (1NT) 2♦* (Pass)
3♣

* 1-suiter in ♥ or ♠

What would example hands look like?

[Tomi2]

first 2♥ then 3♣ = spade fit, invit with some clubs, maybe:

Kxxx - xx - Kx - KJxxx, with AJxxxx - xxx - Ax - Qx pd will upgrade his hand

direct 3♣ = fit in both majors, maybe something like

Kxx - Kxx - xx - KJxxx or so

at least for me both should include major support, even if you are unpassed, if you are already passed, then its 100% with fit

[hrothgar]

Hi Gerben

For the first auction, I agree with Tomi that 3♣ should show a Spade fit and say something about the club suit. However, its unclear to me whether its better to show

1. A club suit looking for a double fit
2. Club shortage, looking for no wasted values in opposition
3. Club honors

Given that we're making a game try and there is a NT opener sitting over us, I expect that shortage might be more useful that a suit. However, this is open to interpretation.

In the case of the second auction, I agree bids from 2NT need to show support for both majors. However, I think that these hands need to be fairly specific. I'd recommend using

3♣ as both majors, with short clubs and 3♦ as both majors with short diamonds. 2NT should (probably) serve as showing both majors with a flat hand, asking the 2♣ bidder to show shortage

(You might prefer to use 2N as both majors with a preference for Hearts and 3♦ and both majors with a preference for Spades, and use 3♣ as showing indifference between the two suits)

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2007, 07:39 AM, said:

What about the first one showing a hand willing to play in 2H but wanting to play in 3C when partner has spades, and the second one just showing clubs? I don't understand the recent fixation with fit showing bids over bids aimed at trying to find the best fit.

Agree with this. Why can't responder have 3-6 in the rounded suits?

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

What about the first one showing a hand willing to play in 2H but wanting to play in 3C when partner has spades, and the second one just showing clubs? I don't understand the recent fixation with fit showing bids over bids aimed at trying to find the best fit.

This is (obviously) a valid interpretation. However, let me play Devil's advocate for a minute. In order for this interpretation to be correct, we need the following to be true:

1. Responder must hold a hand which leads him to believe that there is better play in 3♣ than in 2♠. (Note that 3♣ is a full level higher)

2. Responder is (essentially) announcing that he has no tolerance for Spades. If the opponents are able to hit 3♣, there is no chance of improving the contract.

3. The partnership is taking a very slow road to 3♣, giving the opps a lot of chances at bat.

Over the past few years, we've seen a trend towards so-called paradox responses in which partner will advance the 2♦ bid by showing whichever major he likes least. If responder holds 0-1 Spades, he might very well advance 2♠ immediately in order to maximize the pressure on the opponents. Yes, you might land in a sub-optimal fit at the two level, but at least you're playing at the 2 level undoubled.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

What about the first one showing a hand willing to play in 2H but wanting to play in 3C when partner has spades, and the second one just showing clubs? I don't understand the recent fixation with fit showing bids over bids aimed at trying to find the best fit.

I agree also

[FrancesHinden]

I don't play this family of methods so I don't have this problem.

As it happens, I do play (1NT) 2H (natural) (P) 3C as natural, forcing and inivitational in hearts, playing the 2H effectively as a 'pre-empt'. So perhaps that is inconsistent with what I just said above.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Sep 12 2007, 10:06 AM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 12 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

What about the first one showing a hand willing to play in 2H but wanting to play in 3C when partner has spades, and the second one just showing clubs? I don't understand the recent fixation with fit showing bids over bids aimed at trying to find the best fit.

This is (obviously) a valid interpretation. However, let me play Devil's advocate for a minute. In order for this interpretation to be correct, we need the following to be true:

1. Responder must hold a hand which leads him to believe that there is better play in 3♣ than in 2♠. (Note that 3♣ is a full level higher)

2. Responder is (essentially) announcing that he has no tolerance for Spades. If the opponents are able to hit 3♣, there is no chance of improving the contract.

3. The partnership is taking a very slow road to 3♣, giving the opps a lot of chances at bat.

Over the past few years, we've seen a trend towards so-called paradox responses in which partner will advance the 2♦ bid by showing whichever major he likes least. If responder holds 0-1 Spades, he might very well advance 2♠ immediately in order to maximize the pressure on the opponents. Yes, you might land in a sub-optimal fit at the two level, but at least you're playing at the 2 level undoubled.

You make many inaccurate statement. I am not sure what you mean by paradox responses as a new trend, this is just pass/correct and certainly must have been around since whenever bids like 2♦ have been used. Bidding 2♠ with any hand is of course wrong, you also need 3+hearts (or game interest in hearts), otherwise you get unnecessarily high opposite hearts.

Also, the 3♣ as fit-showing only gains when it helps you to make a better decision via 3♣ fit-showing than via a 2N cuebid, which gives you a lot of room to make trial bids. This seems a very small target.

Example hands where 3♣ to play is useful will depend on your partner's overcalling style of course, but I think 1246 is possible.

[joshs]

Gerben42, on Sep 12 2007, 05:11 AM, said:

You play Woolsey / Jassem / Multi Landy (whatever you call it) vs 1NT.

What is the difference between:

Pass (1NT) 2♦* (Pass)
2♥ (Pass) 2♠ (Pass)
3♣

and

Pass (1NT) 2♦* (Pass)
3♣

* 1-suiter in ♥ or ♠

What would example hands look like?

1. Something like 0337 (maybe - Qxx xxx Kxxxxxx). Was happy to play in 2H, but prefered 2S to 3C. I didn't notice the vul, so I am trying to work out what hand
a. wouldn't premept
b. felt they should correct spades to clubs
c. wasn't worried about missing a heart game

2. Prefered Clubs to both majors. This is strange for a passed hand, so I would guess something like x x Axx Jxxxxxxx

p.s. One scheme for responding to the multi:
P=Diamonds
2M=P/C
2N=Inquiry
3C=Forcing with a minor
3D=forcing with a major
3H=P/C
3S=INV (or you can play it as p/c)

Over 2D-2H:
P=Hearts
2S=Spades and then
2N=Ogust
3C=To Play

Over 2D-2S:
P=Spades
2N=Hearts, Min (then 3C=to play)
3C=Hearts, Max (then 3C=to play)

This lets you get out in either minor over the multi. (p.s. To get out in clubs, you bid your Better major first. If partner passes you are in a fine spot, if he bids you correct to 3C)

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Sep 12 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

You make many inaccurate statement. I am not sure what you mean by paradox responses as a new trend, this is just pass/correct and certainly must have been around since whenever bids like 2♦ have been used. Bidding 2♠ with any hand is of course wrong, you also need 3+hearts (or game interest in hearts), otherwise you get unnecessarily high opposite hearts.

I think that paradox should be treated as separate and distinct from Pass-or-Correct. “Pass-or-Correct” describes the meaning of a specific bid. For example, many people play that a 2H response to a multi 2D opening is pass-or-correct.
“Paradox” a response structure that incorporated multiple bids (using pass or correct principles). For example, a paradox structure over a multi-2D opening means that both a 2H and 2S response are “Pass-or-Correct” bids.

As to the age of so-called paradox structures: My impression is that they seem to be getting more popular. I agree that this type of treatment has been arround for quite some time. However, I think that they are becoming more popular. In years past, I recall seeing lots of response structures over multi 2D openings and the like that used 2H as pass or correct and 2S as some kind of artificial advance. The standard assumption was that players should respond 2H holding better Hearts than Spades in order to gauruntee that one stays at the two level.

Now-a-days, there seems to be a lot more emphasis on minimizing the length of the auction and its become a lot more popular to use both 2H and 2S as pass or correct.

[joshs]

hrothgar, on Sep 12 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 12 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

You make many inaccurate statement. I am not sure what you mean by paradox responses as a new trend, this is just pass/correct and certainly must have been around since whenever bids like 2♦ have been used. Bidding 2♠ with any hand is of course wrong, you also need 3+hearts (or game interest in hearts), otherwise you get unnecessarily high opposite hearts.

I think that paradox should be treated as separate and distinct from Pass-or-Correct. “Pass-or-Correct” describes the meaning of a specific bid. For example, many people play that a 2H response to a multi 2D opening is pass-or-correct.
“Paradox” a response structure that incorporated multiple bids (using pass or correct principles). For example, a paradox structure over a multi-2D opening means that both a 2H and 2S response are “Pass-or-Correct” bids.

As to the age of so-called paradox structures: My impression is that they seem to be getting more popular. I agree that this type of treatment has been arround for quite some time. However, I think that they are becoming more popular. In years past, I recall seeing lots of response structures over multi 2D openings and the like that used 2H as pass or correct and 2S as some kind of artificial advance. The standard assumption was that players should respond 2H holding better Hearts than Spades in order to gauruntee that one stays at the two level.

Now-a-days, there seems to be a lot more emphasis on minimizing the length of the auction and its become a lot more popular to use both 2H and 2S as pass or correct.

Actually paradox responses, as you describe them, has almost compeltely disappeared in high level play over the last ten years as far as I can tell.

Practically everyone plays 2H as pass or correct over the mini-multi.

Most people play 2S as either:
a. wants to play 3/4 hearts but only 2S (no implication of INV values)
b. a game invite or better opposite hearts, but drop dead opposite spades
c. less common is the meckwell scheme which I outlined earlier (to play opposite spades, and to play in hearts OR in clubs opposite hearts). Being able to get to 3C is a good idea, when partner's weak 2's canm be 5 card suits or very bad 6 card suits....

Some play 2S as an ART inquery, but thats not common, and much more usually associated with a semi-forced 2H bid than a p/c 2H bid, and these are not popular over the mini-multi.

Playing Any of the above the correct bid with any of the following:
1. 1246 and not game INV strength
2. xx Qxx xxxx xxxx
3. xx Qxxx xxxx xxx

and so on, is 2H p/c
Yes you prefer hearts to spades, but on 1 you don't want to go to the 3 level in hearts, and in 2/3 you do not want to help your opponent figure out how to play the hearts when partner has spades. The space you use up with 2S vs 2H is hardly worth giving up a trick.

I hope this helps.