[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Apr 23 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

I don't get why people's opinions' are so strong in this thread (especially mikeh!), when this is just a question of our agreement. If we play that 2♦, 3♦ shows 15+ HCP and 3♦ shows 11-14, which seems rather normal to me, then wow what do you know, we have a 3♦ bid!

What are you talking about? I just read through every post, and almost everyone says either that they do this themselves or something like, "Seems strange, but OK -- if you do this then...."

I thought everyone seemed kind of willing to play ball.

[gwnn]

I think this jump reverse=5-6 with less than a reverse is an old Italian invention that went out of fashion. The fact that nobody else has remarked this makes it likely that I didn't recall correctly, but I definitely heard of it, and wouldn't use it.

[hanp]

I think it was a Garozzo idea.

[mikeh]

Well, I did say that I would use the gadget if I had agreed to play it... so there is some limit to my dogmatism

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues. Now, perhaps that is because my raising them is seen as thread-jacking, or the issues are uninteresting


But, if I were to actually bid 3♦ here, I might well have some real interest into how partner:

1. signs off in 4♣
2. sets clubs as trump en route to slam
3. sets diamonds as trump en route to slam
4. sets diamonds as trump while inviting game
5. sets clubs as trump while inviting game


I'd like to know if 3♠ by him was forcing... or invitational... or to play

The first 5 questions seem reasonable to me..... and simply having the OP agreement that 3♦ shows somewhere between this hand and, I assume, a hand such as x x KQJxx KQJxxx leaves me troubled.

It does seem to me that there is NO natural scheme that accommodates answers to every one of these 5 questions... maybe we have to invoke an artificial 3♥ call by responder as some kind of mark-time bid.

I post criticisms like this for two equally valid (to me) reasons: one altruistic and the other selfish.

I know that quite a few players adopt gadgets without thinking through the consequences. Raising issues like how responder bids various plausible hand types is one way of helping such players think a little deeper.. even and especially if they end up disagreeing with me... at least they have gone that extra step

The second reason is that there are many good, thinking players on this site, and by revealing my concerns, I often find that someone has already got an answer or that I have missed something, and thus my own bridge knowledge is expanded.

[MarkDean]

mikeh, on Apr 23 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

Well, I did say that I would use the gadget if I had agreed to play it... so there is some limit to my dogmatism

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues. Now, perhaps that is because my raising them is seen as thread-jacking, or the issues are uninteresting


But, if I were to actually bid 3♦ here, I might well have some real interest into how partner:

1. signs off in 4♣
2. sets clubs as trump en route to slam
3. sets diamonds as trump en route to slam
4. sets diamonds as trump while inviting game
5. sets clubs as trump while inviting game


I'd like to know if 3♠ by him was forcing... or invitational... or to play

The first 5 questions seem reasonable to me..... and simply having the OP agreement that 3♦ shows somewhere between this hand and, I assume, a hand such as x x KQJxx KQJxxx leaves me troubled.

It does seem to me that there is NO natural scheme that accommodates answers to every one of these 5 questions... maybe we have to invoke an artificial 3♥ call by responder as some kind of mark-time bid.

I post criticisms like this for two equally valid (to me) reasons: one altruistic and the other selfish.

I know that quite a few players adopt gadgets without thinking through the consequences. Raising issues like how responder bids various plausible hand types is one way of helping such players think a little deeper.. even and especially if they end up disagreeing with me... at least they have gone that extra step

The second reason is that there are many good, thinking players on this site, and by revealing my concerns, I often find that someone has already got an answer or that I have missed something, and thus my own bridge knowledge is expanded.

I have never played the method in question, but it seems reasonable to me. If I could have two different 3♦ bids, I would certanily use this gadget, I just do not think it is worth giving up the splinter.

Here is a possible method over 3♦ (obviously not perfect, I took 90 seconds to make it up).

4m = invitational.
3♠ = GF, nat
3NT = to play.
3♥ = forces 3♠, can pass, or continuations:
4m = slamming.
3NT = forces 4♣, to sign off, or bid 4♦ to ask about major suit dist or key card or something.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Apr 23 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

The 3♦ gadget is awful.. one of the worst pet treatments I have seen recently.

If you can't see this... if you think I am being overly dogmatic and conservative, try getting a good hand simulator and generate hands consistent with the auction. If you are honest with yourself, I bet you find that the extra level of bidding you have destroyed would have been very useful... of course, if you pretend that responder should know you hold these cards, then I am sure your gadget will often work well

If I had agreed to play it I would use it expecting to be able to later say; I told you it was bad

otherwise, playing good bridge, I would reverse... yes, it is light, but it is pure in the sense that I have good controls.

When I rebid 3♦, partner will know that I reversed primarily on shape, not power. Now I am at the same point as if I had jumped to 3♦, but partner has had a chance to tell me something about his hand (and I might be in 3♣ over an ingberman or lebensohl sign-off).

For example, if, as seems plausible from the opps' silence, he makes a strength showing preference to 3♣, I am far, far better off than if he had made an ambiguous preference to 4♣ over 3♦... I mean... is that even forcing? or constructive? Or weak? Or all of the above?

I don't think gadget is really that bad. If we reverse, surely we are patterning out with 3♦ anyway (right?), and all we do is get to 3♦ one round sooner.

Presumably partner can even pass (?) 3♦, so there's a lot going for it, especially if we shut out LHO who could not act over 1♣ because of club length and diamond shortage.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 23 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

I don't think gadget is really that bad. If we reverse, surely we are patterning out with 3♦ anyway (right?), and all we do is get to 3♦ one round sooner.

I thought the entire point of this method was for hands that aren't good enough to reverse, so I would certainly not reverse with them anyway and thus what would happen if we did reverse doesn't matter much. I would choose between 1♦ then 2♣, or 1♣ then 2♣.

Also, even if I have stretched to reverse with a 5-6 or have a very minimum reverse then my third bid will be a NF 3♣ rather than a probably-ambiguously-game forcing 3♦. It's a totally different situation when holding the side 5 card minor than holding a side 5 card major, which is much more costly to leave unshown.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Apr 23 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 23 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

The 3♦ gadget is awful.. one of the worst pet treatments I have seen recently.

If you can't see this... if you think I am being overly dogmatic and conservative, try getting a good hand simulator and generate hands consistent with the auction. If you are honest with yourself, I bet you find that the extra level of bidding you have destroyed would have been very useful... of course, if you pretend that responder should know you hold these cards, then I am sure your gadget will often work well

If I had agreed to play it I would use it expecting to be able to later say; I told you it was bad

otherwise, playing good bridge, I would reverse... yes, it is light, but it is pure in the sense that I have good controls.

When I rebid 3♦, partner will know that I reversed primarily on shape, not power. Now I am at the same point as if I had jumped to 3♦, but partner has had a chance to tell me something about his hand (and I might be in 3♣ over an ingberman or lebensohl sign-off).

For example, if, as seems plausible from the opps' silence, he makes a strength showing preference to 3♣, I am far, far better off than if he had made an ambiguous preference to 4♣ over 3♦... I mean... is that even forcing? or constructive? Or weak? Or all of the above?

I don't think gadget is really that bad. If we reverse, surely we are patterning out with 3♦ anyway (right?), and all we do is get to 3♦ one round sooner.

Presumably partner can even pass (?) 3♦, so there's a lot going for it, especially if we shut out LHO who could not act over 1♣ because of club length and diamond shortage.

Phil are you serious you are bidding 3d after say:


1c=1s
2d=2s
?

I would expect 3d to be 100% game force

I understand those that prefer reverse but it seems after 2s I am stuck with 3c rebid yes?

I grant after:
1c=1s
2c(very often 6c,10-15, ugg)=2s(very often 6)
? I am not in a great position.

[xcurt]

I don't have any more to add to the debate on the merits of 3♦ or not, but given that we're playing it, I think it's worth pointing out that 3♦ is a terrible idea on this hand because, given how much it preempts us, we're betting that we come out ahead by finding a big fit. If we don't have that big fit, we just lost the board anyway. If we do have that big fit, and this is one of those hands where the only honors that matter are the aces, I have a killer hand, and we're going to miss the target, low.

In other words, the implied odds on 3♦ are bad.

[pclayton]

mike777, on Apr 23 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 23 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 23 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

The 3♦ gadget is awful.. one of the worst pet treatments I have seen recently.

If you can't see this... if you think I am being overly dogmatic and conservative, try getting a good hand simulator and generate hands consistent with the auction. If you are honest with yourself, I bet you find that the extra level of bidding you have destroyed would have been very useful... of course, if you pretend that responder should know you hold these cards, then I am sure your gadget will often work well

If I had agreed to play it I would use it expecting to be able to later say; I told you it was bad

otherwise, playing good bridge, I would reverse... yes, it is light, but it is pure in the sense that I have good controls.

When I rebid 3♦, partner will know that I reversed primarily on shape, not power. Now I am at the same point as if I had jumped to 3♦, but partner has had a chance to tell me something about his hand (and I might be in 3♣ over an ingberman or lebensohl sign-off).

For example, if, as seems plausible from the opps' silence, he makes a strength showing preference to 3♣, I am far, far better off than if he had made an ambiguous preference to 4♣ over 3♦... I mean... is that even forcing? or constructive? Or weak? Or all of the above?

I don't think gadget is really that bad. If we reverse, surely we are patterning out with 3♦ anyway (right?), and all we do is get to 3♦ one round sooner.

Presumably partner can even pass (?) 3♦, so there's a lot going for it, especially if we shut out LHO who could not act over 1♣ because of club length and diamond shortage.

Phil are you serious you are bidding 3d after say:


1c=1s
2d=2s
?

I would expect 3d to be 100% game force

I understand those that prefer reverse but it seems after 2s I am stuck with 3c rebid yes?

I grant after:
1c=1s
2c(very often 6c,10-15, ugg)=2s(very often 6)
? I am not in a great position.

I would not take 3♦ as GF or even a one round force.

For me, only 3♥ and 4♣ would be forcing. 4♦ too I suppose but I've never made that bid.

[jdonn]

You would take 1♣ 1♠, 2♦ 2♠, 3♦ as a nonforcing bid? Wow...

[Codo]

Wait:
1 have 6/5 yes
2 I am a little low on HCPs for a normal reverse yes
3 I have a bid to show this hand yes

Sorry, I don't understand the question. When you just use the 1 Club 3 Diamond just for x,x,KQxxx,KQJxxxx you will wait a lifetime to use it.

Yes, this is a great maximum for 3 Diamond, but you still have a void in partners suit which is no good news so far, so to me 2 Diamond would be an overbid.

And espacially something like 1 Club 2 Diamond 3 Diamond would be a big overbid, because this would show my shape with even more HCPS.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Apr 24 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues.

I thought I had addressed most of them, but, taking your earlier arguments one by one:

Quote

I bet you find that the extra level of bidding you have destroyed would have been very useful

I usually prefer auctions where the partners exchange information rather than one player taking control, but when one hand has extreme shape and not a strong hand it works at least as well for that hand to do all the describing. Opener isn't going to learn much of interest from a 2♥ or 2♠ rebid. If responder would have made a forcing bid in a minor, that would be of interest to opener, but against that opener would have no way to limit his hand.

Quote

When I rebid 3♦ [after bidding 2♦], partner will know that I reversed primarily on shape, not power. Now I am at the same point as if I had jumped to 3♦

No you're not. In your methods, you have shown 5-6 and 14+. In the original poster's methods, he has shows 5-6 and a limited hand. One of the problems with allowing a reverse based partly on extra shape is that it is often hard to show a hand that has both extra shape and the high card values for a reverse.

Quote

For example, if, as seems plausible from the opps' silence, he makes a strength showing preference to 3♣, I am far, far better off than if he had made an ambiguous preference to 4♣ over 3♦

You are better off, because you know of club support and enough for game opposite a reverse. Your partner is worse off, because he doesn't know how strong you are. I assume that your next move is going to be 3♦, so he is going to know about your shape. I agree that overall the partnership is a bit better off after 2♦-3♣ than after a direct 3♦.

Quote

I mean... is that even forcing? or constructive? Or weak? Or all of the above?

It seems strange to assume that someone would play this method but not discuss the continuations. Instead, I'd assume that they have, at least, a way to sign off in 4♣ and a way to start cue-bidding with clubs agreed.

[miguelm]

Okay, I have been following this thread and trying to resist it.... can't do it anymore...

3D is not my cup of tea, and I think there is not much left to be said about it.

2D is a reverse. I tend to be serious about my reverses. I especially like to be serious about this specific reverse (showing two minors).
I think my hand is short of values for a true reverse (isn't it...?). Ofc I can just "promote" it and reverse anyway... but where did I get the motivation to promote to begin with...? From partner's 1S, the suit I have a void in...?

What is so wrong about 2C...? Or opening 1D and rebidding 2C for that matter...?

Okay... you can all come and get me now...

[Codo]

miguelm, on Apr 24 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Okay, I have been following this thread and trying to resist it.... can't do it anymore...

3D is not my cup of tea, and I think there is not much left to be said about it.


What is so wrong about 2C...? Or opening 1D and rebidding 2C for that matter...?

Okay... you can all come and get me now...

The problem is, that you did not answer the question.

It is given, that you play 3 ♦ to show 6/5 with HCPS short of a reverse.

So the question is: With the given methods, do you bid 3 ♦ or 2♦ because any other bid is plain silly- with the given methods.

When you prefer 3 Diamond as a splinter or an unbalanced raise of 1 Spade, this is fine. But nobody asked.

He named this thread "judgement call" for a reason.

[miguelm]

Codo, on Apr 24 2009, 02:04 AM, said:

Wait:
1 have 6/5 yes
2 I am a little low on HCPs for a normal reverse yes
3 I have a bid to show this hand yes

Sorry, I don't understand the question. When you just use the 1 Club 3 Diamond just for x,x,KQxxx,KQJxxxx you will wait a lifetime to use it.

Yes, this is a great maximum for 3 Diamond, but you still have a void in partners suit which is no good news so far, so to me 2 Diamond would be an overbid.

And espacially something like 1 Club 2 Diamond 3 Diamond would be a big overbid, because this would show my shape with even more HCPS.

Can't read any from you either... at least I wrote it wasn't my cup of tea... whatever that means

Anyway, the discussion is already long enough, and in several directions, so I don't actually see a problem with my post.
Okay, addressing the issue at hand... and having to make a choice between something I don't agree and something I really don't like, I go with the reverse.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Apr 24 2009, 02:23 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 24 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues.

I thought I had addressed most of them, but, taking your earlier arguments one by one:

At the risk of boring everyone: where did you answer or even acknowledge my concerns about how one goes about agreeing diamonds while inviting/slamming...and at most you said that you assumed that any user of this method would have at least a method of signing off in clubs and cuebidding with clubs as trump.

That's not enough... surely the entire point of the gadget is to allow us to play in diamonds as well as clubs? I suspect the reason you didn't address these issues is because you can't find a satisfactory answer... I mean, even using an artificial 3♥ relay, we have limited bidding space with which to describe all of the various hand types responder may possess...Mark's 90 sec scheme seems dubious at best... a method that says we can never play 3N has to be weird when we have no sure fit, and any fit we have is in a minor.

I find it funny that we have so many posts defending the utility of the bid, or at least calling it acceptable, and yet no-one deals with its obvious flaws.

[MarkDean]

mikeh, on Apr 24 2009, 05:39 AM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 24 2009, 02:23 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 24 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues.

I thought I had addressed most of them, but, taking your earlier arguments one by one:

At the risk of boring everyone: where did you answer or even acknowledge my concerns about how one goes about agreeing diamonds while inviting/slamming...and at most you said that you assumed that any user of this method would have at least a method of signing off in clubs and cuebidding with clubs as trump.

That's not enough... surely the entire point of the gadget is to allow us to play in diamonds as well as clubs? I suspect the reason you didn't address these issues is because you can't find a satisfactory answer... I mean, even using an artificial 3♥ relay, we have limited bidding space with which to describe all of the various hand types responder may possess...Mark's 90 sec scheme seems dubious at best... a method that says we can never play 3N has to be weird when we have no sure fit, and any fit we have is in a minor.

I find it funny that we have so many posts defending the utility of the bid, or at least calling it acceptable, and yet no-one deals with its obvious flaws.

My scheme did allow for 3NT to be played. Responder can bid it immediately, or he can bid 3♠ forcing, and opener can bid it.

Yes, there are flaws, but getting a pretty specific desription of your hand off your chest is useful: really if responder had to place the contract after 3♦, I think he would get it right a decent portion of the time.

It feels like you are holding this convention to a very high standard. I mean I could say the same thing about the modern strong 1NT opener: what if we are too high? Can we find all 5-3 and 3-5 major suit fits, signing off, inviting or slamming?

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Apr 24 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 24 2009, 02:23 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 24 2009, 01:22 AM, said:

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues.

I thought I had addressed most of them, but, taking your earlier arguments one by one:

At the risk of boring everyone: where did you answer or even acknowledge my concerns about how one goes about agreeing diamonds while inviting/slamming

I'm not particularly keen on debates about who said what when, but I think you should have another look at the order in which you posted your comments.

Your first post made no mention of a problem with supporting diamonds. In your second post, you asked why no one had addressed the points made in your first post; I replied that I thought I had already addressed most of them, then proceeded to reply to the parts of your first post that offered bridge arguments.

As to how one would support diamonds playing these methods, Mark's suggestion seems quite sensible, and appears to cover all of the hands one might hope to be able to show.

Quote

...and at most you said that you assumed that any user of this method would have at least a method of signing off in clubs and cuebidding with clubs as trump.

That's not enough... surely the entire point of the gadget is to allow us to play in diamonds as well as clubs? I suspect the reason you didn't address these issues is because you can't find a satisfactory answer.

Then your suspicion is unfounded. I found Mark's answer quite satisfactory, and had nothing to add to it.

Quote

.. I mean, even using an artificial 3♥ relay, we have limited bidding space with which to describe all of the various hand types responder may possess...Mark's 90 sec scheme seems dubious at best... a method that says we can never play 3N has to be weird when we have no sure fit, and any fit we have is in a minor.

In case there is any doubt, the reason that I'm not responding to that is that Mark has already done so.

Quote

I find it funny that we have so many posts defending the utility of the bid, or at least calling it acceptable, and yet no-one deals with its obvious flaws.

Again, put me down for what Mark said.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-April-24, 09:06