[hrothgar]

hotShot, on 2010-October-30, 10:10, said:

When I hold 6 card in a suit, partners long time average is holding 2+1/3 cards in that suit, so I expect a combined 8+1/3 fit.
8+1/3 means that we will have an 8 card fit most of the time, sometimes a 9 card fit and rarely only combined 7 cards in that suit.

When I hold 5 card in a suit, partners long time average is holding 2+2/3 cards in that suit, so I expect a combined 7+2/3 fit.
7+2/3 means that we will have 8 cards a little more than half of the time.

In SAYC and 2/1 opening 1♣and rebidding 2♣ over partners 1M bid, almost always promises a 6 card suit.
Bidding this way will lead us to a highly likely 8 card fit, but conceals the ♦ length.

Starting the bidding with 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ ( or 3♣ ) conceals the ♣ fit and it's hard to see how revealing this 9 cards can be an advantage, if it forces us to play an 8 or 7 card fit at the 3 level, or a 5-1 ♠ fit on the 2 level.

I would think that a more apt comparison is the frequency with which the auction

1♣ - 1♠
2♣

finds an X+ card fit in clubs

Compared with the frequency that

the auction

1♦ - 1♠
2♣

finds an X+ card fit in either Clubs or Diamonds

[hotShot]

hrothgar, on 2010-October-30, 12:03, said:

I would think that a more apt comparison is the frequency with which the auction

1♣ - 1♠
2♣

finds an X+ card fit in clubs

Compared with the frequency that

the auction

1♦ - 1♠
2♣

finds an X+ card fit in either Clubs or Diamonds

Maybe you are right, but I guess you would bid:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣

holding 4♦ and 5♣ or 5♦and 4♣.

So responder will believe he needs 4 (of 7) ♣ cards to have a ♣ fit for sure and he will need 4 (of 8) ♦ cards to be sure he has a fit opposite partners minimum length in ♦. When in fact 2♣ or 3♦ will do.

[MickyB]

655321 please. Now pass 2♠

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on 2010-October-30, 12:33, said:

Maybe you are right, but I guess you would bid:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣

holding 4♦ and 5♣ or 5♦and 4♣.

So responder will believe he needs 4 (of 7) ♣ cards to have a ♣ fit for sure and he will need 4 (of 8) ♦ cards to be sure he has a fit opposite partners minimum length in ♦. When in fact 2♣ or 3♦ will do.

Eight card fits are nice, but 4-3 fits play perfectly well.

[losercover]

hrothgar, on 2010-October-29, 17:51, said:

that's all very nice, however, the name of this forum is "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion"

Is there another 2/1 forum at this site? Our general style is 2/1 using losers and cover cards for hand evaluation and trying to limit one bids to 18 HCP. Started using the 2/1 from the Romex book and have been reading Lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

[mtvesuvius]

hrothgar, on 2010-October-28, 12:29, said:

How many Spades do you think partner has?
What percentage of the time do you think he has 6?

(If I had to bet, I'd place partner with a 6=4=2=1 hand)

I can't fathom pulling what looks to be a 6-1 spade fit at the 2 level in order to play in a 5-2 Diamond fit at the three level. (Yes, I'd like to be able to ruff more Hearts, however, nothing in life is perfect)

Good point. The more I consider this, the more I think 2♠ is better... But unfortunately I don't have 2 days to think before making a bad bid

[Zelandakh]

losercover, on 2010-October-30, 14:54, said:

Is there another 2/1 forum at this site? Our general style is 2/1 using losers and cover cards for hand evaluation and trying to limit one bids to 18 HCP. Started using the 2/1 from the Romex book and have been reading Lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

This forum is specifically for SAYC and 2/1 meaning the normal American definition of that. Limited openings using 2/1 responses use the Non-Natural System discussion forum, as do such 'unnatural' systems as Culbertson and Acol.

[han]

1C, I open my longest suit as much as I can. AJ10xxx is a decent enough suit, I see no reason to distort my lengths.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2010-October-30, 23:38, said:

This forum is specifically for SAYC and 2/1 meaning the normal American definition of that. Limited openings using 2/1 responses use the Non-Natural System discussion forum, as do such 'unnatural' systems as Culbertson and Acol.

lol

[kayin801]

---

-150 was not a good MP score after they cashed the ♥A and switched to a trump. Spades might have been 5-1 or something as well, and I'm pretty sure the AQxxx of diamonds was over dummy's suit, but it was ugly.

Transition to an ATB if you'd like: who is more of a goon?

EDIT: I will add that North after the hand admitted he got greedy looking for a good MP score, so even if you don't agree with his thinking, he was "thinking"

[hrothgar]

kayin801, on 2010-November-03, 16:02, said:

---

-150 was not a good MP score after they cashed the ♥A and switched to a trump. Spades might have been 5-1 or something as well, and I'm pretty sure the AQxxx of diamonds was over dummy's suit, but it was ugly.

Transition to an ATB if you'd like: who is more of a goon?

Hard to tell who deserves more blame:

Your partner for rebidding a 5 card Spade suit rather than raising clubs (or even passing)
You for deliberately playing with your partner

[bftboy]

Opening 1 ♣ may work or not work with this holding, but it is certainly not idiotic. If I open 1♦ I expect that about half the time I'll end up playing 3♦ in a 5-2 fit, when I could have played 2♠ in a 6-1, or 3♣ in a 6-2 or even 6-3. I don't think opening 1 ♦ is idiotic, but I'd wait for something like x, Kxx, AKQx, Jxxxx, not the example hand, and even then I'm going to end up in 2♦ in a 4-2 sometimes.

[Fluffy]

kayin801, on 2010-November-03, 16:02, said:

Transition to an ATB if you'd like: who is more of a goon?

Obviously the guy who changed a 6-4 fit for a 5-1 fit is blameless lol