[655321]

daveharty, on 2011-February-27, 02:12, said:

OleBerg, I'm not sure why you think I am "expecting the forum to write an entire book" for me. I posted a question about one specific bidding scenario where I expected that there might be either disagreement or consensus, and a couple of the responses have indicated that this is not an open-and-shut case.

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

[the hog]

655321, on 2011-February-27, 03:11, said:

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

Another poster who has difficulty with literacy. Had he wished to ask about standard methods, he would have posted in the 2/1 - Sayc forum. He was interested in whether everybody would bid 2D and the answer is clearly "no". rofl that you think top Polish players are on the fringe

[daveharty]

655321, on 2011-February-27, 03:11, said:

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

How am I "rejecting" the many correct answers? I am fully cognizant, even more so than when I made the original post, that 2D is the "standard" bid with the hand given. As I tried to explain--perhaps I was unclear--I was curious about situations where the 4cM is much stronger than the longer minor, or where responder has a minimal GF, etc. If the answer is STILL a universal "bid the minor first", then I have learned something and filled a weird little gap in my bidding knowledge. But as the Hog pointed out, I didn't post to the 2/1 or SAYC forum, because I am interested in other treatments too, and posters to this forum have often shown a willingness to depart from "standard" practice when they feel it is superior. I'm not trying to justify my own bidding in hindsight; I'm quite capable of admitting when I have made a bidding blunder. I meant to ask the question I asked: Is there consensus on this subject? In standard methods, the answer seems to be "yes", which is a valuable part of the answer I was hoping for.

[hrothgar]

Hi Dave

I don't have any strong objections to advancing 1♠ rather than 2♦ provided that I think that I'll be well positioned for likely auction continuations.
On this hand, I'm not... therefore, I'd bid 2♦ opposition a random partner.

Consider the following (likely) auction

1♥ - 1♠
2♣

what's my rebid?

2♦ establishes a game force, however, partner will expect me to have a 5 card spade suit
2NT isn't forcing
3NT gets us to game, but it suppresses the diamond suit (the standout feature of my hand)

Let's change the hands slightly so that I hold

♠ KQT9
♥ KJ
♦ JT987
♣Kx

I can see an argument to bid 1♠ - even playing standard methods - planning to suppress the Diamond suit and

bid 3N after a 2♣ rebid
bid 4♥ a 2♥ rebid

[daveharty]

hrothgar, on 2011-February-27, 08:19, said:

I don't have any strong objections to advancing 1♠ rather than 2♦ provided that I think that I'll be well positioned for likely auction continuations.
On this hand, I'm not... therefore, I'd bid 2♦ opposition a random partner.

Yeah. In hindsight I shouldn't have even included the hand that got me thinking about it.

[kenrexford]

the hog, on 2011-February-27, 00:37, said:

"The problem with that approach is that you make getting diamonds in focus miserably difficult. Sure -- if partner has a 4-fit in diamonds, you will have some better luck. But, it still seems hopelessly strained. Starting with 2♦ GF makes any diamond exploration for slam really nice and easy."

I disagree with this comment. Yes you do have to assign a bid to show the long D hand that is used for something else in a standard version of 2/1, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it out to be. After all Balicki and Zmudsinski do not seem to have the problems you describe, do they? Ken, one of my points that you have ignored is that a major advantage of MAFIA responses occurs when responder fails to bid a Major. Now you know 100% he does not have one and any subsequent Major bid carries different meanings.

I suggest Ken, that you and David look at the following site:
http://taigabridge.c...cles/mafia1.htm

Dave, you also might have a look at http://www.bridgewit...Matula_text.txt to see how PC players treat MAFIA and the continuations thereto.

By the way, I am not suggesting that this method is superior to standard responses; all I am saying is that there are other alternatives which some very good bidding theorists, eg Matula, Izddebski and others think are superior and that perhaps some posters should not be so dismissive about methods which they don't play and appear not to understand.

Perhaps Frances might benefit from reading this as well, especially as the op was made in THIS forum and not in a 2/1 or Sayc forum.

FWIW, I agree with much of what "MAFIA" is trying to accomplish. In fact, years ago, when playing primarily a canape system, of course canape responses appealed to me. I encorporated these into responses to 1NT, as well as into responses to major openings, for a while. I also continued some of these into other systems, as well. I did not call it "MAFIA" then, because I had not heard that term at that time.

The problem that I have with MAFIA (and what I did then) is that it seems to have the same problems of tendency canape (as opposed to pure canape), in that too much is stacked onto one set of cals rather than exploding out into other calls.

For instance, with canape openings, opening 1♠ as "maybe canape or maybe longer spades" is a tendency canape that becomes unworkable (IMO). If you instead, for instance, skim off the "spasdes longer" problem hands by opening 1♦ with secondary diamonds and 2♠ with secondary clubs, then the canape works better.

MAFIA-type structures work better, theoretically, if you then add in the same concept for 2/1 responses, except that this gets really messed up.

Consider the problem of 5-5 in spades and a minor. Classic natural might bid 1♠ then jump to 3♣. MAFIA has that sequence as 4♠/5♣. Now, Opener can presumably delayed raise spades, but that does not establish fit (like it would in traditional bidding), meaning another call needed to agree that fit, which absorbs cuebidding space. As I mentioned, this is not so m,uch a problem if Responder's range is tightened to GF but not much more, but a wide range for Responder creates difficulties, from my experience.

So, if you end up purifying the approach, you get weird calls like 1♥-P-2♣ showing clubs, but possibly 5+ spades. (Yes -- I did try this for a while.) That also gets really messy.

So, then you come back to the question of tendency canape. (Walsh, by the way, is also tendency canape, and in the same type that I am about to describe.) I did play a tendency canape system that worked, but it worked because stress was still removed (2-level openings showed a specific type of two-suiters), allowing the tendency to be governed by STRENGTH STRATA. In other words, a call would be canape if MAXIMUM but non-canape if MINIMUM. Dividing this out in this manner worked. As I mentioned, Walsh does this strata-separation (canape if weak; non-canape if GF).

MAFIA, as I stated (without referring to MAFIA) has some merit, but I think it should be limited to either minimum GF hands or extras hands. Break down the stratas, and you "solve" the stacking problem of inconsistent tendency canape.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2011-February-27, 02:11, said:

If I'm promised an uncontested auction and if my continuations are carefully prepared and probably requiring that opener is a limited hand (like 10-15), then it makes a great deal more sense to respond 1S to 1H. Responder will be able to ascertain opener's shape or show his own shape after a 1N rebid. 1S saves a tremendous amount of room.

Since obviously the auction can be contested and we're probably not excluding limited openers, I'd vote strongly for a 2D response. It's expensive in terms of space, but it does create a GF and will establish the relative lengths of 2 suits.

I like this post, because it does on the "other side" that which is my concern about tendency canape in MAFIA. Ideally, MAFIA works best with either Opener or Responder limited; both even moreso.

[FrancesHinden]

the hog, on 2011-February-27, 00:37, said:

"The problem with that approach is that you make getting diamonds in focus miserably difficult. Sure -- if partner has a 4-fit in diamonds, you will have some better luck. But, it still seems hopelessly strained. Starting with 2♦ GF makes any diamond exploration for slam really nice and easy."

I disagree with this comment. Yes you do have to assign a bid to show the long D hand that is used for something else in a standard version of 2/1, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it out to be. After all Balicki and Zmudsinski do not seem to have the problems you describe, do they? Ken, one of my points that you have ignored is that a major advantage of MAFIA responses occurs when responder fails to bid a Major. Now you know 100% he does not have one and any subsequent Major bid carries different meanings.

I suggest Ken, that you and David look at the following site:
http://taigabridge.c...cles/mafia1.htm

Dave, you also might have a look at http://www.bridgewit...Matula_text.txt to see how PC players treat MAFIA and the continuations thereto.

By the way, I am not suggesting that this method is superior to standard responses; all I am saying is that there are other alternatives which some very good bidding theorists, eg Matula, Izddebski and others think are superior and that perhaps some posters should not be so dismissive about methods which they don't play and appear not to understand.

Perhaps Frances might benefit from reading this as well, especially as the op was made in THIS forum and not in a 2/1 or Sayc forum.

I am well aware that there are systems in which 1S is the correct response. There are also those in which 2C is the correct response. Canape has been around for a very long time. But as the OP has clarified, the question was about if there is a consensus among those playing standard natural-based longest-suit-first methods. You might say that wasn't mentioned in the original post, but if questions are not asked in that context, there's no point ever answering this sort of vague question because the answer is always "it depends on what system you are playing"

[Free]

To be honest, in some of my partnerships I'd respond 2♣ GF relay

But in a natural system, 2♦ is really obvious imo.

[rhm]

daveharty, on 2011-February-26, 19:13, said:

Thanks so much for this helpful reply.

There is a reason that I posted it in this forum, rather than in the B/I forum; namely, I am interested in why the forum Experts would universally start with 2D, since I assume that would be the case. Except for The Hog, nobody here has really taken the time to answer beyond scoffing at the original question.

The big advantage of starting with your minor is that you force to game immediately and can go slowly thereafter. I doubt that there are even many Mafia players, who prefer 1♠ in this scenario.
If you bid 1♠ what do you do if opener responds 2♥? Unless you are playing canape it is now difficult to introduce your minor and show the relative lengths of your suits. The situation does not get better if opener introduces the other minor over your 1♠ response. Now a fit in your minor (the fourth suit) is likely to get lost.
If you start with your minor opener can bid the ♠ suit, if he has 4 cards there.

A couple of months ago there was a discussion on another expert forum when the minor was equal in length:
http://www.bridgewin...ond-2c-or-1s-on

what to respond to 1♥ with

♠KQ84
♥Q43
♦A8
♣A843

The expert consensus was to respond 2♣.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

rhm, on 2011-February-28, 07:06, said:

The big advantage of starting with your minor is that you force to game immediately and can go slowly thereafter. I doubt that there are even many Mafia players, who prefer 1♠ in this scenario.
If you bid 1♠ what do you do if opener responds 2♥? Unless you are playing canape it is now difficult to introduce your minor and show the relative lengths of your suits. The situation does not get better if opener introduces the other minor over your 1♠ response. Now a fit in your minor (the fourth suit) is likely to get lost.
If you start with your minor opener can bid the ♠ suit, if he has 4 cards there.

A couple of months ago there was a discussion on another expert forum when the minor was equal in length:
http://www.bridgewin...ond-2c-or-1s-on

what to respond to 1♥ with

♠KQ84
♥Q43
♦A8
♣A843

The expert consensus was to respond 2♣.

Rainer Herrmann

Rainer your latter example has nothing to do with MAFIA whatsoever.
In the first case, if opener bids 3D over a 2H rebid, that shows 4S and long Ds GF. What's the problem?

[rhm]

the hog, on 2011-February-28, 23:05, said:

Rainer your latter example has nothing to do with MAFIA whatsoever.
In the first case, if opener bids 3D over a 2H rebid, that shows 4S and long Ds GF. What's the problem?

My example was motivated by the question, whether you should first bid a major in preference to a longer minor in a GF hand.
The consensus (American experts of course) on the latter example was to bid even a 4 card minor first in preference to a 4 card major in a GF hand.

the hog, on 2011-February-25, 19:26, said:

The major advantage comes when you don't bid your M first, as that categorically denies holding one.

So it has something to do with Mafia and a "real" Mafia player would reject starting with 2♣ or you loose the above inference.

With regard to the first case, I guess you meant responder not opener. I said "unless you are playing canape", exactly what you also say. No problem then I agree, but this change from standard is required and has of course implications.
As you say bidding 3♦ does not show 5 cards in ♠s. Now you need agreements how to handle spades-minor two suiters with at least 5 cards in ♠. All manageable and maybe even superior, but it does require some thinking and a departure from standard.

Rainer Herrmann

[dboxley]

daveharty, on 2011-February-26, 19:33, said:

The question wasn't meant to be about this particular hand, it was just the hand that got me thinking about it. What if you hold, for example, AKJx xx Jxxxx Ax? Or AKQx x xxxxx QJx? Just wondering if people think there is a line, and if so, where it is. Agree that 2D is correct with the given hand.

I voted for 'it depends' just because of these hands, anyone who responds 2♦ with either of these (or similar) hands belongs in the beginner group.

[wyman]

dboxley, on 2011-March-01, 06:54, said:

I voted for 'it depends' just because of these hands, anyone who responds 2♦ with either of these (or similar) hands belongs in the beginner group.

because you say so?

xxhong, paulg, cphastrup, wyman, gordontd, mike777, whereagles, gnasher, nigel_k, Phil, ArtK78, dellache, gwnn, OleBerg, mtvesuvius, awm, kenrexford, manudude03, Mbodell, kriegel, BillHiggin, peachy, RMB1, kgr, TMorris, cfederl, mich-b, JaffaCakes, rhm, Free, mcphee, straube, shyams

I'm pretty sure at least one of us is intermediate or better.

[MrAce]

wyman, on 2011-March-01, 08:36, said:

because you say so?

xxhong, paulg, cphastrup, wyman, gordontd, mike777, whereagles, gnasher, nigel_k, Phil, ArtK78, dellache, gwnn, OleBerg, mtvesuvius, awm, kenrexford, manudude03, Mbodell, kriegel, BillHiggin, peachy, RMB1, kgr, TMorris, cfederl, mich-b, JaffaCakes, rhm, Free, mcphee, straube, shyams

I'm pretty sure at least one of us is intermediate or better.

I think he didn't mean what u think he did, but i may be wrong.

[wyman]

MrAce, on 2011-March-01, 08:46, said:

I think he didn't mean what u think he did, but i may be wrong.

I thought the question we were voting on and the remark he made were both pretty umambiguous, but I've been wrong before and look forward to hearing what he actually meant.

[mtvesuvius]

dboxley, on 2011-March-01, 06:54, said:

I voted for 'it depends' just because of these hands, anyone who responds 2♦ with either of these (or similar) hands belongs in the beginner group.

It's been a while since I did this... Here goes:

LOL

[kgr]

wyman, on 2011-March-01, 08:36, said:

xxhong, paulg, cphastrup, wyman, gordontd, mike777, whereagles, gnasher, nigel_k, Phil, ArtK78, dellache, gwnn, OleBerg, mtvesuvius, awm, kenrexford, manudude03, Mbodell, kriegel, BillHiggin, peachy, RMB1, kgr, TMorris, cfederl, mich-b, JaffaCakes, rhm, Free, mcphee, straube, shyams

I'm pretty sure at least one of us is intermediate or better.

it is me

[MrAce]

kgr, on 2011-March-01, 10:55, said:

it is me

Well i have been rated as "Bright intermediate" in the past by master Rainer, and my name is not in this list now, so i am confident that i am better than all u beginners in the list

[bluecalm]

In precision where all the jumps promises 7 carders or 6-5 distribution this approach is playable.
In standard I think it sucks because you will be too high too often without meaningful information.