[32519]

 mikeh, on 2013-May-07, 10:58, said:

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.

I think it was Zel who said he likes to dabble in bidding theory. Maybe I also like to try and figure out why players do things like this. With more and more replies maybe something pops out the woodwork that the players using this method spotted that I have yet to discover.

To reply to your post: I certainly am interested in trying to figure out why someone would bid like this.

[32519]

 EricK, on 2013-May-07, 12:08, said:

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.

Don't know what the answer is but I would assume that 2♥ over 1♠ promises a 5-card suit and GF values. All I could gather was the corruption of how the 2♣ and 2♦ bids were used.

[mikeh]

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 16:11, said:

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♦.

I never seem able to quote the entire post...the parts that were quoted from earlier posts just disappear, but you suggested that with
Kx xxxx KQxx AKx, after a 2♦ response fetches a natural 3♦ bid from partner, you bid 4♦ as minorwood.

wtf???

Say partner shows 2 keycards. If he has AQJxx x AJxx xxx you want to be in 6♦. If he holds AQJxx xxx AJxx x, you want to be in 3N or possibly 4♠ If he has AQJxx xx AJxx xx you aren't sure about 3N but if they lead their 8 card fit rather than their 7, you'll prefer 3N to 5♦ and in any event prefer 4♠ to either. I could go on at length, but you can surely do this sort of thinking yourself.

Nice bidding system you have there. I especially dislike the idea of never being able to set trump other than by an idiotic ace asking bid: idiotic because the answer may give you no clue as to what to do next, even if you belong in diamonds, which you may well not.

What if we change the example hands just a touch: make responder Kx xxxx KQx AKxx, and have the same auction. What do you suggest responder bid over 3♦?

Whenever you are intrigued by a new bidding idea, it is essential to look at what hands will become unbiddable as well as what problems the methods solve.

If, as here, even a modest amount of thought can quickly conjure up nightmarish bidding problems, then the analysis ought probably to stop then and there. When one thinks of the problems that these two simple hands conjure up, no amount of benefit on other hands will justify adopting this method, because standard methods simply don't have such awful problems. Standard methods have lots of issues, but the reason they have become standard methods is that they handle the vast majority of hands adequately even if not optimally.

I'd rather have a method that gives me 90% confidence on 98% of the hands than a method that gives me 100% confidence on 75% of the hands and disaster on the other 25%.

Whatever problem these guys were trying to fix wasn't as bad as the problems they have created, but they'll probably have some fun for a while, because most of us remember and overestimate the good results rather than the bad.

[aguahombre]

Just for the record, 32519: We have done some "bastardization" of our 2/1 methods, and still call it 2/1. We have kept and expanded possibilities for the forcing NT, for instance. We have not made the most common bastardization from the original ---J2N.

But we have kept the main tenet of natural suit responses and specific distribution rebids; so we feel comfortable in continuing to call it 2/1.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2013-May-07, 18:32, said:

Just for the record, 32519: We have done some "bastardization" of our 2/1 methods, and still call it 2/1. We have kept and expanded possibilities for the forcing NT, for instance. We have not made the most common bastardization from the original ---J2N.

But we have kept the main tenet of natural suit responses and specific distribution rebids; so we feel comfortable in continuing to call it 2/1.

I guess that "2/1" is a poor name for a system, because it can be adopted by any system that includes 2/1 as game forcing, no matter how different from whatever is understood by others as "the 2/1 system".

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-07, 18:59, said:

I guess that "2/1" is a poor name for a system, because it can be adopted by any system that includes 2/1 as game forcing, no matter how different from whatever is understood by others as "the 2/1 system".

In Scotland, "2/1" players often agree that
1♦ - 2♣ is not GF

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-May-07, 20:44, said:

In Scotland, "2/1" players often agree that
1♦ - 2♣ is not GF

Some American "2/1" players agree that 1♠ - 2♥ is not GF either.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-07, 21:16, said:

Some American "2/1" players agree that 1♠ - 2♥ is not GF either.

I don't think so. Or, they don't play 2/1 even though they say they do. 1D-2C is a righteous choice whether g.f. or not, but not 2 over a major.

Of course, you are in a better location to know about that

[32519]

In regular 2/1 how does one initiate a 2/1 GF sequence immediately when partner opens 1♥ and you hold 5X♠ and 12+ HCP?

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2013-May-07, 22:03, said:

I don't think so. Or, they don't play 2/1 even though they say they do. 1D-2C is a righteous choice whether g.f. or not, but not 2 over a major.

Of course, you are in a better location to know about that

Well, I know some people who do this, and I will find out whether they call their system "2/1" or just go with what I suppose is the general term, "2/1 GF".

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 22:03, said:

In regular 2/1 how does one initiate a 2/1 GF sequence immediately when partner opens 1♥ and you hold 5X♠ and 12+ HCP?

If you want to initiate a GF immediately, you can pretend you have 6 good spades and 16+ points and bid 2♠.

[aguahombre]

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 22:03, said:

In regular 2/1 how does one initiate a 2/1 GF sequence immediately when partner opens 1♥ and you hold 5X♠ and 12+ HCP?

You don't. First, 12 isn't G.F. with today's opening bids. Second, 2/1 has nothing to do with having spades when the opening is 1H. You use other tools after responding 1S with 13+.

[32519]

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 22:03, said:

In regular 2/1 how does one initiate a 2/1 GF sequence immediately when partner opens 1♥ and you hold 5X♠ and 12+ HCP?

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-07, 22:07, said:

If you want to initiate a GF immediately, you can pretend you have 6 good spades and 16+ points and bid 2♠.

 aguahombre, on 2013-May-07, 22:13, said:

You don't. First, 12 isn't G.F. with today's opening bids. Second, 2/1 has nothing to do with having spades when the opening is 1H. You use other tools after responding 1S with 13+.

So here’s a thought.

Maybe these guys are playing their bastardized 2/1 methods to make provision for these hand types. Maybe their thinking is this –
1. In an auction such as this
1♥-1♠
?-2♠ simply promises 5X♠ and less than 12 HCP
2. In an auction such as this
1♥-2♣ (alerted as 12-14 HCP)
?-2♠ is not a reverse bid (the hand is limited to 14 HCP) and shows a 5-card ♠ suit. Partner bids on appropriately?
3. 1♥-3♠ is a ♠ splinter in support of ♥?

[manudude03]

If you have 5 spades, just bid 1S, then bid checkback/nmf/whatever over 1NT and 4th suit forcing over a suit rebid. If partner rebids 2H, you either have an 8 card heart fit, or you have a second suit you can show.

[Zelandakh]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-07, 13:51, said:

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.

These 2 points (that relays are better starting with 1NT and that 2♣ as a replacement F1NT is bad) are what led me to adopting 1NT as an invite+ relay. Opener bids 2♣ with a minimum without 4 hearts; 2♦ with 4 hearts; and 2♥ or higher with extras. This way, you get the same shape information as with the 2♣ GF relay but have also started resolving Opener's strength, which saves a step or 2 later on. By including the invitational hands here you free up all of 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ for weak hands as a replacement for 1NT. But perhaps they feel the downside of not establishing an immediate GF is too high.

 32519, on 2013-May-07, 22:03, said:

In regular 2/1 how does one initiate a 2/1 GF sequence immediately when partner opens 1♥ and you hold 5X♠ and 12+ HCP?

One option I have vented here a couple of times is to play 1♥ - 1♠ as your F1NT response and 1♥ - 1NT as a GF with spades. The resulting 1♠ structure mimics the 1♥ response scheme perfectly.


Turning to the OP method, let's see if we can make something playable out of it:

 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.

Noone has mentioned SJSs. let us suppose for a moment that they play either 2NT or 3m (or both) as showing a GF with a minor suit shortage. In keeping with the craziness of the 2m responses, let's say both for now and make 1♠ - 2NT = 12-14 and 1♠ - 3m = 15+ and shortage in the other minor. So we get 1♠ - 3♣; 3♦(relay) - 3♥ = 15+ with 0-2 spades, 4 hearts, 0-1 diamonds, 6+ clubs. Seems ok. Take away the ♠Q and we have 1♠ - 2NT; 3♣(relay) - 3♥ = 12-14 with 0-2 spades, 4 hearts, 0-1 diamonds and 6+ clubs. Also fine.

So these hands can be removed as a problem. Other problems remain. Manudude's post from #11 illustrates one of these. We are Responder holding ♠Kx/ ♥xxxx/ ♦KQ9x/ ♣AKx and the bidding start 1♠ - 2♦; 3♦. What now? No idea to be honest. I do not think this is solvable. So let's assume Opener does not rebid 3♦ here without a specific hand, say 5+ diamonds and slam interest opposite a fit, or whatever. Instead, Opener is expected to relay with 2♥ and now Responder can show their hand type - 2♠ with 4 hearts and real diamonds; 2NT balanced; 3♣ for both minors; 3♦ for a one-suiter without a 3 card major; 3♥ for a one-suiter with 3 hearts; 3♠ for spade support and good diamonds. So, the given hand goes 1♠ - 2♦; 2♥ - 2NT, and we are better off than the 2/1 variant that would have started 1♠ - 2NT, so no problem here either.

In other words, it is not a great system but I think it can be made playable. These were only my first thoughts too; I daresay we could come up with something better. One major issue with these responses is the loss of 2NT as a GF raise. The only responses leftover for this are 2♥ (which I have assumed remains natural) and 3♥. I suppose one possibility would be for 1♠ - 3♥ to be a spade raise with 15+, since 12-14 hands can either respond 2♣ or make a 4 level splinter. Not pretty, sure, but still just about playable. More likely, we should play around with these jumps to make 2NT or 3♣ a GF raise. But that can be left as an exercise for the interested reader.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-May-08, 01:47, said:

One option I have vented here a couple of times is to play 1♥ - 1♠ as your F1NT response and 1♥ - 1NT as a GF with spades. The resulting 1♠ structure mimics the 1♥ response scheme perfectly.

What do you do with spades and a hand that is less than GF?

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-08, 09:07, said:

What do you do with spades and a hand that is less than GF?

Bid 1♠, exactly the same as you would bid 1NT over a 1♠ opening with hearts and less than a GF.

[JLOGIC]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-08, 09:07, said:

What do you do with spades and a hand that is less than GF?

Presumably start with 1S, you have more room so opener can show if he has 4 spades easily without reversing. 5-3 spade fits might become more of a problem but they're probably a similar problem over 1H 1S in natural.

[mikeh]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-May-08, 09:19, said:

Bid 1♠, exactly the same as you would bid 1NT over a 1♠ opening with hearts and less than a GF.

I can see some of the attractions of the proposal, but I am always concerned when I see system outlines that seem to be based on the notion that the opponents are barred from the auction.

In std, for example, 1♥ (P) 1♠ (2m) opener has the positive and negative inferences available from playing support doubles.

When responder's spade length is undefined (I don't know whether in your methods he can have as many as 7+, but he can presumably have 0), we lose the utility of the support double. I can see that double now becomes takeout, but if we had, say, 3=5=3=2 we are not really well positioned to make a takeout double of 2♦, so we pass? And now partner with 5 spades is really under pressure.

That's but one readily foreseeable issue with losing the unlimited natural 1♠ response: there may be others.

I'm not saying that on balance these things can't be made to work, and I appreciate that you aren't claiming this is a great method anyway, but, as I said, it seems to me to be incorrect to never discuss how a pet method works when the opps interfere. Artificiality is often powerful but it is also almost always rendered less powerful, and sometimes unplayable or close to unplayable, when the opps get in the auction.

[Zelandakh]

1♥ - (P) - 1♠ - (2m) works precisely the same way as 1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (2m). It is true that we are worse off than after a natural 1♠ response here, the same as we are usually worse off after 1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (2♦) than 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (2♦), where 2♣ is natural and weak, or after 1♠ - 2♥ (natural and weak).

As it is, this is not really my pet method, just one that seems to me to be simpler than natural in many ways. In particular, it allows us to use Gazilli (yes, more artificiality) after a 1♥ opening with the same structure as after a 1♠ opening, rather than having to remember 3 different structures. My own pet method is probably even more open to abuse from aggressive opponents: 1♥ - 1♠ = INV+ relay (without 4 hearts) and 1♥ - 1NT = weak with spades; 1♥ - 2m = weak and natural.

In any case, using 1♥ - 1♠ as a F1NT response like this is no more open to preemption than 1♠ - 1NT, and most experts think this works (or at least that it is a necessary evil for advantages to be had elsewhere).

[32519]

Turns out that the guys in the OP were trying to incorporate Gazzilli type responses into a 2/1 framework. Now that that is known, they can improve what they are trying to do by reversing their 2♣ and 2♦ responses as follows -

Consider these 3 auctions:
1. 1M-1NT-2♣ [2♣ is Gazzilli, 16+ HCP. You can now add on your favourite Gazzilli continuation bidding structure to the backend of this.]
2. 1M-2♣ [2♣ is a 100% artificial GF bid, 16+ HCP, this time by responder. Responder becomes the captain of the auction and opener is expected to relay out his hand pattern. So in auction 2, you can add on your favourite relay structure.]
3. 1M-2♦ [2♦ is a 100% artificial GF bid, 12-15 HCP. With auction 3, captaincy gets passed back and forth between the partnership as follows -
a) Whenever a suit gets repeated by either partner,
b) Whenever NT gets bid.
Captaincy gets passed back and forth in this way until either partner chooses to signoff in what is considered to be the most suitable game contract. Obviously slam is not excluded when the appropriate HCP holding/hand fit is found.]

Anybody want to fire the first salvo at this suggested improvement to what these two guys are trying to achieve?