[slothy]

fred, on Jan 10 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

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

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I dont see any logic at all in that statement Fred

PS i am only saying GITELMAN, GITELMAN in order to increase my chances of getting my post mentioned in the lobby

For what it is worth, i have recently had a 3-way protracted discussion with 2 of my regular pards as to the meaning and intention of both of these auctions (or similar set), simply because we lost a lot of imps in an important match when the 2nd was misinterpreted. Playing an Acol approach in contrast to a 2/1 one however maybe emphasis is different.

[jtfanclub]

david_c, on Jan 10 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

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.

To me, being me, 4♦ should be 6-4-1-2 or 6-4-0-3. Never 5413.

It's just a logic thing to me.

1) 4♦ shows diamond shortness, by metarules.
2) It bypasses 3NT, so it must set trumps.
3) It's a space hog, so it must say something that cannot be said any other way.

The only thing that fits all 3 is for it to be short diamonds AND an extra spade. The extra spade allows you to set trumps, and there is no other bid that simultaneously shows diamond shortness and spade length.

This would be stronger than bidding 3♣ and then converting 3NT to 4♠.

I know there are those who would disagree with me, but at least I'm consistent.

[bhall]

A1 players gain an advantage in MP events by playing the most popular agreements and using their (superior) judgement. Bidding "against the field" is generally a randomizing strategy, even when the non-standard method is better over the long haul. Why should they risk having a bad system day?

If your primary aim is KO teams at a high level, it makes sense to go more deeply into the auctions. However, one should look for principles that can be applied essentially without exception, rather than compiling a laundry list of special cases, for exactly the reasons that Fred cites. Of course, most of us who are KO freaks spend an awful lot of time playing MP, as the only game in town. So we risk bad system days to keep fresh on our agreements and use the practice to explore situations (especially competitive ones) that we had not planned for.

One can argue about the best use of rare sequences (we do it here all the time), but the most useful approach IMHO is to look for answers that carry over to many similar situations. I am not much interested in what the best answer is in the context of one particular, little-played system. That said, if there is a good theoretical argument to make a change in some aspect of standard bidding, I want to hear, and consider, it. Players of any level can have good ideas or make telling observations about current practice.

[mike777]

Shape not cuebidding.

AKxxx...AKxx....x.....xxx

Just to make sure I understand these forum posts.

We bid 3clubs here not 3H after
1s=2c
2h=2s
?

and we bid 3d with:
AKxxx..AKxx...xxx...x?

What do we bid with
AKxxx...AKxx...xx...xx?

[Stephen Tu]

Do the A1 players pattern out because they've tried a comprehensive approach like Ken's book utilizing 3 level cues (not just randomly agreeing 3 level cues without thoroughly discussed inferences/negative inferences on most of the sequences) & discarded it as inferior (I really doubt many have gone through this effort), or simply because that's how everyone's always played and it's easier to go along the herd (certainly clearly easier for memory burden, multiple/infrequent partnerships, clients etc.)

Problem is that a different approach like Ken's takes effort to implement, and the frequency of gain is likely small, so most people aren't going to try it at all, let alone long enough to give a fair evaluation of whether it's overall better or worse.

[fred]

mike777, on Jan 10 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

What do we bid with
AKxxx...AKxx...xx...xx?

That's an example of the problem hand I was talking about.

It makes sense (to me at least) to jump to 4S with a hand like this: 5422, basically nothing in the minors, and strong holdings in both majors.

I would go as far as to say if my partner made this (undiscussed) bid, that is exactly what I would expect (based on our agreements in similar auctions). I would not make that assumption with a non-regular partner (I would assume 4S meant "I have a terrible hand and don't feel like bidding anything else").

You can't play 4S to mean *any* 5422 with basically nothing in the minors - the bid would have too wide a range.

So whether or not 4S is a possibility in your partnership, there will be some 5422 hands for which you are truly stuck. Probably the least of evils is to bid 2NT on such hands (obviously planning not to Pass if partner's next bid is 3NT).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Stephen Tu, on Jan 10 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

Do the A1 players pattern out because they've tried a comprehensive approach like Ken's book utilizing 3 level cues (not just randomly agreeing 3 level cues without thoroughly discussed inferences/negative inferences on most of the sequences) & discarded it as inferior (I really doubt many have gone through this effort), or simply because that's how everyone's always played and it's easier to go along the herd (certainly clearly easier for memory burden, multiple/infrequent partnerships, clients etc.) 

Problem is that a different approach like Ken's takes effort to implement, and the frequency of gain is likely small, so most people aren't going to try it at all, let alone long enough to give a fair evaluation of whether it's overall better or worse.

For sure some strong players are lazy, but many are not.

There are a lot of partnerships who would have a chance to win, say, the World Open Pairs, who play 5-card majors and 2/1s are forcing to game.

Probably almost all of them have discussed auctions of this nature in at least reasonable detail. Many of the players in these partnerships (and many more strong players not in these partnerships) have actually been playing top-level bridge and similar bidding methods for decades. You can bet that almost all have given these matters some thought (granted few have thought about it as much as Ken).

Probably you are right that many of these people would not give the concept of cuebidding here the time of day. In fact, I would expect most would quickly dismiss the concept as absurd.

Why is that?

Maybe because none of them are quite as smart about bridge as Ken.

Maybe because they are too lazy to think about new bridge ideas.

Maybe because their massive egos get in the way and they cannot believe that an "unknown" player could come up with anything new and good.

And maybe they are right and the concept really is absurd.

I can't tell you how really good players *know* these things, but one of the things that makes them really good is that they tend to be better than lesser players at seeing through the forest to the trees. They can't always explain why, but their instincts tend to be pretty good.

Do you really think all A1 2/1 players for the past 30+ years have been complete idiots? If no, then I think it is overwhelmingly likely that some of these non-idiots would have seen the light by now. And when a good idea is noticed, word tends to spread fast - even if a given A1 player is too much of an idiot to pay attention to Ken, he/she tends to pay attention to what other A1 players are bidding.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Do you really think all A1 2/1 players for the past 30+ years have been complete idiots?

Huh? How did I ever imply that? I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am just saying that they aren't going to look, try, evaluate every alternative approach because other constraints make it impractical to do so.

And I do think that many excellent players are too quick to immediately dismiss alternative approaches as absurd based on gut feeling without giving the matter full analysis. If an idea is truly absurd, one ought to be able to lay out logical reasons why this should be so. You yourself said you can't prove you are right with logic. Maybe Ken's approach is worse, maybe it is better, who knows, but I don't think it's fair to call it absurd.

There are lots of ways to win at bridge. Lack of popularity shouldn't equate to assumed theoretic inferiority. There are a lot of top players using 5CM, naturalish 2/1 systems. Yet there are still players like Hamman who play 4cM and think 5cM is worse. And plenty of top partnerships playing strong club systems. And Fantoni-Nunes playing natural but a lot differently from everyone else ...

[kenrexford]

If you equate system decisions with conclusions based upon thorough analysis and election, as if that is the norm, then you are naive.

I just had an interesting conversation with a pro player concerning the idea of using 2M openings in the Roman Club system, but in a standard system. The point of the discussion was not that we should play it. The point of the discussion was directly on point with Fred's commentary. The reason for not using this technique that was given was that no one (no A-1 players, and the guy I spoke with knows a lot of A-1 players) did it, and therefore that it must not work.

So, I tossed back at him a challenge to explain the pros of the bid. Not the cons, just the pros. For, if the technique has or lacks merits, in the opinion of a geat player, then that player should be able to at least explain the pros and cons competently. Through that discussion, I established that the pro had not considered the subtle impact. The obvious was noted quickly -- you get in quickly, superior position when you open the call, penalty doubles when they overcall, and the like. What was missed is that a 2♠ opening with maybe 11-15 or so and 5+♠/4+♣ allowed 1♠...2♣ to be artificial without cost, that the high reverse problem with spades and clubs was solved, that the "what to open" with 5-5 blacks was solved, and that you are no longer preempted by simple red overcalls in competitive sequences. Plus, the fact that the Italians used it might suggest that it had merit.

Now to cuebidding. You, Fred, have suggested through inuendo that my approach to cuebidding might possibly be absurd, or maybe not. I have personally used this with a very strong partner and have amazing an success ratio in slam decisions. I have tested my techniques against vugraph records, not to prove anything (I wrote the thing not intending to publish but as a set of notes to myself) to anyone except myself, to see if it really worked. It did.

In contrast, you cannot provide anything concrete to explain your position, except two arguments. First, ad hominem. The man with the idea has no credentials and is not a professional player with recognized status. Second, implicit community opinion. Cite a community of experts, do not cite a single one who has considered the idea yet, and then claim that because none of these folks have yet endorsed the idea that it must be bad, and of course ignore those members of that community that have actually praised the idea in things like book reviews and such.

This critique comes from someone for whom a simple auction like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠-4♦ is a mystery, undiscussed and subject to guessing. One of my bridge partners teaches rather rudimentary classes to rather newbie players where something this basic is discussed. I'm sure that a lot of others out here also find that disturbing. I'd rather rest on my ability to explain my suggestion logically than admit to something that ridiculous but cite my success at the table.

[fred]

Stephen Tu, on Jan 10 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

Quote

Do you really think all A1 2/1 players for the past 30+ years have been complete idiots?

Huh? How did I ever imply that? I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am just saying that they aren't going to look, try, evaluate every alternative approach because other constraints make it impractical to do so.

This particular alternative would be completely obvious for any strong player who chose to think about the auction (ie every strong player who plays 2/1).

To suggest that it never occurred to a strong 2/1 player to use cuebids in an auction like this is to suggest, to me at least, that the person in question is an idiot who happens to be dressed up as a bridge player.

Quote

And I do think that many excellent players are too quick to immediately dismiss alternative approaches as absurd based on gut feeling without giving the matter full analysis.

I agree with you, but there are also many excellent players who are not like this.

Quote

If an idea is truly absurd, one ought to be able to lay out logical reasons why this should be so. You yourself said you can't prove you are right with logic. Maybe Ken's approach is worse, maybe it is better, who knows, but I don't think it's fair to call it absurd.

I can't *prove* that my approach is better, but I bet I could lay out an argument that would convince almost everyone (other than Ken). Sorry, but I don't have the time, energy, or patience to get involved in that particular discussion.

Quote

There are lots of ways to win at bridge. Lack of popularity shouldn't equate to assumed theoretic inferiority. There are a lot of top players using 5CM, naturalish 2/1 systems. Yet there are still players like Hamman who play 4cM and think 5cM is worse. And plenty of top partnerships playing strong club systems. And Fantoni-Nunes playing natural but a lot differently from everyone else ..

But to the best of my knowledge, none of them believe in cuebidding in these sort of auctions.

Sure it is possible that they (and I) are all wrong, but I think that is most unlikely.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

kenrexford, on Jan 10 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

In contrast, you cannot provide anything concrete to explain your position, except two arguments. First, ad hominem. The man with the idea has no credentials and is not a professional player with recognized status. Second, implicit community opinion. Cite a community of experts, do not cite a single one who has considered the idea yet, and then claim that because none of these folks have yet endorsed the idea that it must be bad, and of course ignore those members of that community that have actually praised the idea in things like book reviews and such.

This critique comes from someone for whom a simple auction like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠-4♦ is a mystery, undiscussed and subject to guessing. One of my bridge partners teaches rather rudimentary classes to rather newbie players where something this basic is discussed. I'm sure that a lot of others out here also find that disturbing. I'd rather rest on my ability to explain my suggestion logically than admit to something that ridiculous but cite my success at the table.

I have never said:

- that I think your bidding ideas are absurd
- that a non-famous player's ideas should be dismissed automatically
- that consensus in the expert community should be equated with "best"
- that I know I am right and you are wrong

In fact, I do not believe any of these things.

All I have said:

- I think you are clearly wrong based on my own experience and judgment
- that expert consensus greatly increases the chances that you are wrong

I think I could articulate why you are wrong to the extent that my argument would satisfy most players, but that is not convenient for me right now and probably won't be any time soon (sorry).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

To suggest that it never occurred to a strong 2/1 player to use cuebids in an auction like this is to suggest, to me at least, that the person in question is an idiot who happens to be dressed up as a bridge player

Call me an idiot, fine, but please stop twisting my words. I suggested no such thing. An idea occurring to a player, who then dismisses developing it for practical, or popularity reasons, or gut feeling, is different from really trying it out. I am suggesting that few top players have thoroughly explored this idea, worked out a complete system based on this, gotten their strong regular partnership to try it, then abandoned it because of poor result. Or do you know of people who have actually done this for this idea?

I am *not* suggesting that none have ever thought about it cursorily then dismissed it.

It seems bidding systems are like religion, you have to "believe in it". Screw logic, huh?

[kenrexford]

You are right about one thing, Fred. Some very good players have, in fact, considered the idea of cuebidding at the two-level.

I mean, consider what I have actually proposed.

Georgio Bellandonna and Claudio Petroncini advocated early on much of what formed the foundational basis of my approach, including cuebids at the two-level. I doubt that you would consider these gentlemen to have absurd ideas about bidding.

But, these gentlemen only got so far. They had not developed in quite the same way the ideas of picture bidding with jumps. They had not yet thought of some of the ideas that your yourself came up with, very good ideas at that.

When I took picture bidding and explained it better (after consultation with people like Eddie Kantar and Eric Kokish -- decent players to you, Fred?), I realized that redundancies from Belladonna's approach coupled with your approach and affected negatively by picture bids could be resolved. Hence, the conclusion. Some additional concepts were then added, like "what next" and the like, but the core is very simply evaluation of existing ideas, exploration of the undiscussed, and resolution of redundancy.

But, you have a secret proof of superiority that you cannot be bothered to provide, despite your willingness to claim that superiority. Please. You are beginning to prove something, but not what you intended.

[cherdano]

Fred, the problem with the "expert consensus" is that expert opinions don't develop independently.
For example, for me personally I am absolutely sure that it is far superior to play shape-showing in this auction rather than starting cuebidding. This has little to do with the fact that I guess it is theoretically better, but more with the fact that
- I am quite comfortable with auctions where I can bid out shape since this is what I am used to play in many other situations,
- so I don't have to learn many new sets of rules about cuebidding in this auction (obviously if you want to make cuebidding work well here you need many special rules, e.g. what NT bids show, what 3M shows, etc.),
- more importantly shape-showing is what all the players (some of them better and a few of them much better than me) I regularly play against play on this auction. Well you have explained the advantages of playing a standard system various times yourself, so I guess I needn't say more about that.

I think it is quite possible that cuebidding in auctions where we have found a major suit fit and are in a game force at the two level is superior to shape showing, but that no expert partnership has invested the (significant) effort yet to make it work well (especially given that these auctions are not so frequent).

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

[mike777]

I thought slam tries in a major fit at the two level are common in 2/1?

1h=2c
2d=2h or

1s=2c=2h=2s

I thought these were frequent auctions.

It seems these shape showing rebids could be confusing but if this is expert standard I need to look at them and ask my partners what they play.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Jan 10 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

I thought slam tries in a major fit at the two level are common in 2/1?

1h=2c
2d=2h or

1s=2c=2h=2s

I thought these were frequent auctions.

It seems these shape showing rebids could be confusing but if this is expert standard I need to look at them and ask my partners what they play.

Yeah. That's the funny thing about this. These do seem to be rather common auctions.

If we were talking about how to handle slam tries after landy overcalls of kamikazee 1NT auctions, then that might be a valid concern.

[awm]

Having a 2/1 GF auction is not very common. And there will be some subset of these auctions where you don't have a fit, or where opener's rebid is 2M or above. So auctions like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ really are not all that common. When these auctions do occur, you have a lot of space. It seems likely that most reasonable methods will do a fairly good job at slam auctions here, and there will be a high percentage of hands where slam is either obvious or ridiculous. Putting this together, even if one method is somehow a lot better than another, it will take a very long time (many hands) for that to win substantial imps or mps. This also means that if the superior method is somehow more complicated, or less similar to other parts of the system, the memory strain may not be worth the benefit.

An advantage to the "pattern" method of bidding is that sometimes the major suit will not be the best strain for slam. Some people are bidding 2♠ on this auction with balanced hands lacking a diamond stopper (i.e. 2-3-3-5 with ♦xxx) in which case it can easily be wrong to commit to the major (opener could have 5-4-3-1 with good diamonds and 3NT could be a cinch). There are also situations where there is a spade fit, but you are better off in another suit (most frequently clubs, if opener has 5-4-1-3 or the like and responder is 3-5 or 3-6 in the blacks). When opener's continuation is "pattern" it allows you to easily back into alternative strains when that's best. Starting cuebidding right away virtually commits you to playing in spades (admittedly you can back into notrump at the slam level sometimes).

Generally it seems like two times through the suits is enough cuebidding. If you start cuebidding after 2♠, you can get all your cuebids in and still stop in 4♠. But you really can't get pattern information. Patterning out first, you get the pattern information but your cuebids might carry you to 5♠ on a bad day. But usually you can evaluate based on pattern whether to push past game, so going down at the five-level will be pretty rare. And the 5♠/6♠ decision should be strictly more accurate. What exactly does Ken's cuebidding method do beyond 4♠? Show jacks? Isn't pattern more important than jacks?

[fred]

cherdano, on Jan 11 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

OK good example, let's assume these facts.

Now assume one day that some unknown Italian player who has never won any major championships claims "I know a better use of 2C". When he tells his idea to the experts, the typical response is:

"I have thought about this before but not in depth because intuitively it seems very wrong to me".

Is it possible the unknown player is right? Of course.

Is it likely he is right? No.

That is all I have been saying. However, I will add:

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right
- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right
- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

awm, on Jan 10 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

What exactly does Ken's cuebidding method do beyond 4♠? Show jacks? Isn't pattern more important than jacks?

You are not understanding the approach.

Take a simple auction hat starts as suggested (1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠).

Opener's first cue possibility is 2NT. This would deny good trumps. Bypassing 2NT would show good trumps. A later cue of 3♠ by either party would show good trumps within the context of what is known so far. Bypassing would show poor trumps within the context of what is known so far. The result of all of this is that I find out about a critical part of RKCB before bypassing 4NT, namely truymp strength.

Opener's next cue possibility is a club cue. That shows a top club (A/K/Q). Because a later cue of 4♣ would show a second top club, not possible with pattern bidding, I can fill in partner's one-honor-high suits. Notably, Responder can do that for my hearts, as well. Pattern bidding and high cues fill in two-honor-high suits, but not one-honor-high suits.

Opener's next cue possibility is a diamond cue. That shows control. He can later re-cue 4♦ to show first-round, which is not possible with pattern-first. He can later cue a third-round control if he denied a 1st/2nd, which is also not possible without this approach.

So, I can show more useful cards, or deny useful cards, and more about trumps, weak or strong, below game. Whereas RKCB is sometimes unsafe for folks, I will already know that answer before entering the five-level.

As to cues above game, they don't exist in this auction. Five-level calls generally ask for unknown last issues in side suits. For instance, Opener might be able to check on a heart or club Queen.

On rare occasions, Jacks actually can be sought.

But, the question was whether pattern is more important. Keep in mind that half of the pattern story is always known to half of the partnership. The person who makes the ultimate decision will not be better placed if his partner knows his shape. He, as the ultimate decision-maker, already knows his own shape and is not comforted by partner's equal knowledge. Further, the person with the greater shape probably needs to know about critical cards more than shape.

If you have AQJx in clubs, do you care more whether partner has two, three, or four cards in that side suit or whether partner has the King, whether K, Kx, Kxx, or Kxxx?

That said, shape often becomes known. If Opener lacks a control in diamonds, for instance, then he must have two or more diamonds, and thus at most two clubs. If he lacks a tertiary diamond control, then he has three diamonds and a stiff club.

Take the thing to its extreme. If partner opens 1♠ with 10-20 HCP's and rebid 2♥, you know that he has 10-20 HCP's and 5+/4+/?/? pattern. So, after 2♠ by you, he could bid 3♥ to show 5+/5+/?/? pattern, and 10-20 HCP. You could then bid 3♠ to ask for more, and hear 4♠ to show precisely 5-5-3-0 pattern and 10-20 HCP's. That's a lot of pattern development, but you have no clue what he has. If you yourself have five trumps, a stiff heart, and xxx in diamonds, you have no clue what to do.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Jan 10 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 11 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

OK good example, let's assume these facts.

Now assume one day that some unknown Italian player who has never won any major championships claims "I know a better use of 2C". When he tells his idea to the experts, the typical response is:

"I have thought about this before but not in depth because intuitively it seems very wrong to me".

Is it possible the unknown player is right? Of course.

Is it likely he is right? No.

That is all I have been saying. However, I will add:

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right
- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right
- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm sorry. I did not know that we were placing bets on this.

WTF?

I love this argument.

I ran this through a simulator. We take the known variables, which include the following:

1. I have no idea who Ken Rexford is. We'll call him A.
2. His book has been out X number of days.
3. Y number of people probably have read his book.
4. The number of people I think probably agree with his idea is B.

Then, we run it through the machine. Chunk, chunk, ching. And, bazooie! It appears that the odds of his idea being better than standard practice are (Y)(X/-A to 1.

Now, the odds of the standard idea being best is (Z)(1-X/A)+A to 1.

Therefore, I win the argument. Tada!