[32519]

Here is something new I have recently encountered at the table. The opponents were playing 2/1. The auction proceeded as follows -
1M-(P)-2♦ (alerted)
So obviously you ask why the bid was alerted and you get this explanation: 2♦ is GF promising 15+ HCP, the ♦ suit can be as short as 2 (with only 1 or a void they splinter). So you then ask what the 2♣ bid would promise and they say GF but only 12-14 HCP.

After the days play you sit back and think more about what these guys are communicating to each other by bidding this way, and you conclude, "Hey, maybe I should think deeper about this." The continuation bidding after either response from opener's point of view is basically the same i.e.
1. After the 2♣ response opener makes the cheapest shape showing bid or 2NT to find out where the auction is headed (4M or 3NT).
2. After the 2♦ response opener again makes the cheapest shape showing bid or 2NT and hands over captaincy of the auction to responder.

Anybody else come across this before? What are your thoughts about bidding this way?

[ahydra]

These are fit-showing bids? If so, what do they do without a fit, and vice versa?

ahydra

[manudude03]

What are you supposed to bid with a hand say AQ Axxx x AJxxxx over 1S? Even if you played SJS, this doesn't look like it qualifies.

[mikeh]

It's silly.

They seem to think that possession of a side singleton means that they hold at least 3 in partner's suit. That's idiotic.

It also means that their splinters are unlimited upwards, and I really don't think that works very well: too much bidding space is being consumed without adequate strength limits being known. Not to mention that they must splinter with only 3 trump, which makes identifying the true degree of fit almost impossible for opener.

How does responder show a shapely hand? How many rounds of bidding does it take to find, for example, a 4-4 side fit when each player has a 5 card suit?

My guess is finding clubs over a 2♦ response is going to be difficult, and finding diamonds over a 2♣ response will be as well, particularly when responder has another suit he needs to show first.

A lot of players experiment with gadgets like this relatively early in their career. I think it is good for one's game so long as one realizes soon enough where the flaws lie.

[aguahombre]

Mike, above has got it right. There are some BBO'rs who use 2/1 to first show strength ---then worry about strain later. I strongly disagree with this waste of a round of bidding. 2/1 allows us to bid our distribution in a natural order comfortable that we are forced to at least game.

There are many things people do to distort their hands in order to show strength, with which I also strongly disagree. Opening the lower of two equal-length suits so that they can show extra strength with a reverse is one. Responding 2♣ to 1D with (say) 4-3-2-4 and 13+ is another.

2/1 is allegedly a natural bidding system. If you want to play some bastardization of it, no problem. I am happy to reap the results; but, please don't call it 2/1.

The method in the OP might indeed trigger a relay system of continuations which is not allowed in some jurisdictions.

[32519]

Hey guys, this isn’t my system. It’s something unusual that I have never before encountered. So I posted it here to find out if others have encountered something similar.

Over either response (2♣ or 2♦), opener makes the cheapest shape showing bid or 2NT. If responder repeats either minor (now on level 3), it must surely show a 5-card or longer suit. Where the 1st response was 2♦ showing 15+ HCP, you still have plenty of room to bid a minor suit slam if a 5-3 or better fit can be found. When the 12-14 HCP hand is shown, opener can try and sign off in 3NT if that is the best spot or 5m with an unbalanced hand and a 3-card fit.

[hrothgar]

Ron Klinger's Power system used a 2♦ bid as an artificial game forcing relay]

A 2♣ response was a game invitational relay. If Relay Responder bid 2♥+, he showed shape using the same relay scheme as to the 2♦ relay. A 2♦ rebid limited the hand strength.


This seems vaguely reminiscent (Though I admit its a stretch)

[mikeh]

 hrothgar, on 2013-May-07, 09:41, said:

Ron Klinger's Power system used a 2♦ bid as an artificial game forcing relay]

A 2♣ response was a game invitational relay. If Relay Responder bid 2♥+, he showed shape using the same relay scheme as to the 2♦ relay. A 2♦ rebid limited the hand strength.


This seems vaguely reminiscent (Though I admit its a stretch)

There have been many 2/1 relay methods: I think Rubin-Granovetter (or maybe it was Becker) had an extraordinary run in the BW CTC feature in the mid 1970's in which their strong club method incorporated 2♣ any invite and 2♦ any gf response to 1M, but I haven't looked at those issues in years so I may be in error. I played, and loved, a 2♣ gf relay response to 1♦/1♥/1♠ method for about 5 years.

However, relays like this are going to be very inefficient unless one has properly designed responses, with 'nesting' of hand-types *. And the higher one starts the gf relay, the more difficult it becomes to exchange enough information below likely resting spots.

There simply isn't enough biddding space, and 'natural' bidding after the artificial start becomes hopeless on a number of fairly common hand-types. My guess is that the users of this system haven't taken the time to test it properly. These days hand generators are fairly easy to find, and my advice would be to generate say 500 1M openings and 500 corresponding 2♣ and another 500 2♦ responses then sit down together and bid them.

My guess would be that they'd find about 50-100 hands where their bidding will range from dubious to awful. However they would have to be alive to the bias that affects just about everybody testing a pet idea: the temptation to rationalize away the problems and to stress the hands on which they get good results. This would include under-estimating the chances of matching those results through more mainstream 2/1 methods.

* thus for us, 1M 2♣ 2♦ included all 5332's and all 6322/7222's and all hands with 4+ in the other major. 2♥ relayed, and 2♠ was 5332 or 6322 or 7222, with 2N and higher showing various major 2 suiters (IIRC). Using 2♦ as, say, just one of these two hand-types would have meant a very inefficient use of bidding space.

Btw, I think one side-benefit of playing a relay method is that it really brings home the importance of bidding space as a bridge concept: one that I don't think is well understood by the majority of players

[32519]

It’s easy to criticise other player’s methods without having the full system notes. 2/1 uses a 15-17 1NT range. It’s common for the range to include a 5-card major. So by opening 1M, opener is showing either, a) 12-14 HCP, b) 18+, or c) an unbalanced hand of any range. So maybe the thinking is to firstly tell opener what the combined HCP holding is, therein applying the brakes immediately when both hands are minimum?

[aguahombre]

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 07:58, said:

What are your thoughts about bidding this way?

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 09:25, said:

Hey guys, this isn’t my system. It’s something unusual that I have never before encountered. So I posted it here to find out if others have encountered something similar.

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 10:25, said:

It’s easy to criticise other player’s methods without having the full system notes.

I am getting mixed messages on whether you really wanted our thoughts about bidding this way.

[manudude03]

The problem is that just because you have a combined 25 count, it doesn't mean slam isn't on. Similarly, just because you have 30-32 combined doesn't necessarily mean slam is good. By essentially sacrificing finding your fit until the 3 level at least, you are making it very hard to find out how well the hands fit together. Also, you've all but demolished any constructive minor suit bidding:

---

What do you do in a situation like this. You haven't shown diamond support, but doing so commits you past 3NT, meanwhile, you have no idea whether you belong in diamonds or NT (imagine partner having AQJxx x Axxx xxx, for those who bid 2S with that, then AQJxx Q AJxx QJx, both hands making 6D while off 5 heart tricks in NT, or partner could be AQJxx AQ xxxx Qx where you belong in 3NT (from partner's side ideally).

[mikeh]

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 10:25, said:

It’s easy to criticise other player’s methods without having the full system notes. 2/1 uses a 15-17 1NT range. It’s common for the range to include a 5-card major. So by opening 1M, opener is showing either, a) 12-14 HCP, b) 18+, or c) an unbalanced hand of any range. So maybe the thinking is to firstly tell opener what the combined HCP holding is, therein applying the brakes immediately when both hands are minimum?

Well, yes

Old-timers will remember Jacoby step responses to 2♣ openings, based on responder announcing his/her hcp point right away, within a 3 point range.

No good player ever plays it for very good reasons. Methods that communicate hcp at the expense of showing shape are as bad as methods that show shape at the expense of communicating hcp.

Any experienced player knows that shape is at least as important as hcp in determining the level to which one can successfully bid. Haven't you ever bid and made an 18 point slam? Or a 21 point game?

The described methods appear to have the disadvantages of relay with none of the advantages. The disadvantage is the delay in finding fit, while the advantage (of relay) is the use of coded responses to conserve bidding space, and the unilateral Q & A approach that converts a dialogue into an interrogation.

In addition to the points I made earlier, methods such as the one under discussion have a further flaw: if I am white v red and my opps start 1M (p) 2♦ alert!....I am going to go out of my way to bid as high as I can, altho I suspect that even low level interference will usually prove effective. While I'll often be unable to bid and on occasion will regret bidding, I expect that aggressive intervention here will derail the opps more times than not.

[mikeh]

 aguahombre, on 2013-May-07, 10:36, said:

I am getting mixed messages on whether you really wanted our thoughts about bidding this way.

A friend of mine recently described his frustration at being asked, at tournaments, for his opinion. He is a multiple internationalist for Canada and as such, at Canadian tournaments, is often approached. His pet peeve is the player who poses a question, and then on hearing the answer, starts to argue.

Such players aren't interested in learning what a better player would do: they are looking for confirmation that they were right, and they rarely are.

I share your sense that the OP was intrigued by the method and has become (perhaps unconsciously) defensive about it.

[EricK]

What is 1♠ 2♥? If it is GF with 5+♥ (any strength), then they just might be able to make it work, by means of a 2-way ♥ bid on the next round (♥ or relay asking for more info) - but I'm still not keen on it. If all hands in the relevant ranges go through 2♣/2♦, then I doubt the system works at all well.

Of course, without seeing the full system, I might be missing some really clever stuff they've got in there to sort things out below 3NT.

[PhilKing]

 EricK, on 2013-May-07, 12:08, said:

What is 1♠ 2♥?

18+

[JLOGIC]

 PhilKing, on 2013-May-07, 13:21, said:

18+

too good lol.

Quote

His pet peeve is the player who poses a question, and then on hearing the answer, starts to argue.

+1 million

Quote

Methods that communicate hcp at the expense of showing shape are as bad as methods that show shape at the expense of communicating hcp.

Not a fan of strong club then eh?

I'm half joking but methods where you show points first can be good in some circumstances (i mean even 1S p 1N in std or 2/1 does not say anything about shape other than less than 4 spades, it just says something about HCP).

On that note, Welland was recently telling me his and Sabines methods over 1S. They had been playing 1S p 2C as a GF relay, but they felt like the relays were much better if they started with 1N. That left 2C as showing a forcing NT lol. They were trying to convince me that this wasn't that bad, I have a hard time believing it but on the other hand they win everything recently so obv it can't be that bad.

[mikeh]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-07, 13:51, said:

too good lol.



+1 million



Not a fan of strong club then eh?

I'm half joking but methods where you show points first can be good in some circumstances (i mean even 1S p 1N in std or 2/1 does not say anything about shape other than less than 4 spades, it just says something about HCP).

On that note, Welland was recently telling me his and Sabines methods over 1S. They had been playing 1S p 2C as a GF relay, but they felt like the relays were much better if they started with 1N. That left 2C as showing a forcing NT lol. They were trying to convince me that this wasn't that bad, I have a hard time believing it but on the other hand they win everything recently so obv it can't be that bad.

Every big club method I have seen has shape being shown pretty early! Sure, the 1♣ opening conceals it, but hardly uses up much bidding space The 1♦ response isn't exactly preemptive either, and all other sequences carry some shape inferences.

Actually, I like big club and have played it off and on over the years. I generally play whatever my current partner likes, subject to my adding/changing a few things

I don't like the idea of using 2♣ as a substitute for a forcing 1N, but I suspect that the obvious theoretical problems end up not being too big a deal, especially since they arise on (usually) partscore hands. If the space saving of 1N as the gf relay wins an occasional double digit swing, then they can afford the equally occasional 6 imp loss, I suspect. Personally, my gut tells me that the cost will be significantly more frequent than the gain, especially since when it counts, for them, they're playing opps who will often get to the same good high level contract without relays.

i don't play at their level, but I vaguely remember a hand from about 15 years ago where my partner and I used about 13 bids, most of them relays and answers, to reach a great slam. It was a push: the opps got there in 3 calls. We knew the slam was good, they guessed that it was and it was a push.

[32519]

 manudude03, on 2013-May-07, 08:22, said:

What are you supposed to bid with a hand say AQ Axxx x AJxxxx over 1S? Even if you played SJS, this doesn't look like it qualifies.

Haven't got the faintest idea what they would do with this. Maybe they put it through the 1NT bid which is forcing for 1 round playing 2/1. Once opener has made his 2nd bid (showing shape or whatever), responder possibly makes some or other jump bid?

[32519]

 aguahombre, on 2013-May-07, 09:00, said:

2/1 is allegedly a natural bidding system. If you want to play some bastardization of it, no problem. I am happy to reap the results; but, please don't call it 2/1.

Bastardization sounds about right, but it's still a 2/1 GF, just not what the rest of us are accustomed to.

[32519]

 manudude03, on 2013-May-07, 10:44, said:

The problem is that just because you have a combined 25 count, it doesn't mean slam isn't on. Similarly, just because you have 30-32 combined doesn't necessarily mean slam is good. By essentially sacrificing finding your fit until the 3 level at least, you are making it very hard to find out how well the hands fit together. Also, you've all but demolished any constructive minor suit bidding:

---

What do you do in a situation like this. You haven't shown diamond support, but doing so commits you past 3NT, meanwhile, you have no idea whether you belong in diamonds or NT (imagine partner having AQJxx x Axxx xxx, for those who bid 2S with that, then AQJxx Q AJxx QJx, both hands making 6D while off 5 heart tricks in NT, or partner could be AQJxx AQ xxxx Qx where you belong in 3NT (from partner's side ideally).

With this bidding sequence opener is showing 5X♠ and 4X♦ so you found the fit. NT looks like failing because of the ♥ weakness. Responder can bid 4♦ over 3♦ as Minorwood confirming the fit. Now its just whether you sign off in 5♦ or 6♦.