[Tim Ocean]

In SAYC-like systems where we have 2♣ acol, a rebid by opener in a new suit after 1/1, for instance,
1♥-1♠
2♦
shows a very wide range - some 13-18 pts. Responder here if has minimum (6-9 pts.) can pass ♦ with ♦ preference, or bid 2♥ with ♥ preference what opener should pass.

It we assume for simplicity that we need to have 26 pts. for a game and that responder invites game with 10-12 pts. then we have a problem when 18 pts. meets 9 pts., when 18 meets 8 pts. and when 17 pts. meets 9 pts. In these cases we lose game ;/ Is there some solution to this theoretical drawback of SAYC-like systems? How do top players playing 2/1 deal with it?

[Stephen Tu]

Sometimes you are just going to miss games that strong clubbers will reach routinely. Such is life.

But to some extent, you can mitigate this by:
- making lighter "courtesy raises" of opener's 2nd suit, especially when the "impossible spade" is available after 1h-1nt-2m.
- taking "false preference" back to 2H on a doubleton when at the top of your non-invite range, to give partner another chance to invite game in case they are strong.

[DavidKok]

The traditional answer is false preference. On the example auction of 1♥-1♠; 2♦ responder is expected to bid 2♥ with a lot of hands in the 8-10 range and no good other bid. This has the benefit of letting opener bid again with, say, 16-18. Other hands with extras can bid 2♠, 2NT or 3♦ (make sure to discuss the difference between 1♥-2♠ and 1♥-1♠; <something>-2♠). By frequency this covers most of the problem.
The other two partial solutions of light courtesy raises and the impossible spade are not as vital in my opinion, but may help as well.

When I was less experienced we often showed spades on weak hands even with heart support. I no longer do that, and it simplifies this (and other) auctions a great deal. If 1♠ denies heart support unless we have a very strong hand (approximately slam interest) then we can use a runout to opener's major as a clear false preference, instead of some guess between a real fit or extra values.

If you want to approach this more systemically you could pick up Gazzilli.

Edit: I do think there are theoretical reasons why artificial systems, in particular strong club ones, can have an edge over all natural ones (and in particular over standard American). But this auction is comparatively fine.

[Tim Ocean]

 DavidKok, on 2023-October-28, 06:38, said:

The traditional answer is false preference. On the example auction of 1♥-1♠; 2♦ responder is expected to bid 2♥ with a lot of hands in the 8-10 range and no good other bid. This has the benefit of letting opener bid again with, say, 16-18.

Ok, that sounds interesting. But what if I have 5431 - 5spades, 4diamonds, 3clubs and 1 heart? I cannot pass 2♦ with 8-10 pts. So I bid 2♥. What if the partner passes with a minimum and we wind up with misfit 6-1? Should I repeat my 5 spades bidding 2♠?

[DavidKok]

You raise to 3♦ with that range and diamond support, and bid 2NT with some club length and values (say, 5=1=3=4 9-11 count). The biggest problems are 5♠5♣ hands (of any non-game-forcing strength) and the 5=1=3=4/4=1=3=5 hands that are just marginally too weak for 2NT.

[Tim Ocean]

 DavidKok, on 2023-October-28, 07:48, said:

You raise to 3♦ with that range and diamond support, and bid 2NT with some club length and values (say, 5=1=3=4 9-11 count). The biggest problems are 5♠5♣ hands (of any non-game-forcing strength) and the 5=1=3=4/4=1=3=5 hands that are just marginally too weak for 2NT.

But I would expect 10-12 pts. if partner raises diamonds ;/

[DavidKok]

3♦ is not forcing. If partner opens and you have 12 you should really force to game, especially once you have found a fit (even if it is in diamonds). The 11-counts can go either way, force to game now that you have discovered a fit or make a heavy raise.

[bluenikki]

 Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-28, 07:49, said:

But I would expect 10-12 pts. if partner raises diamonds ;/

3 pts for the singleton

[P_Marlowe]

 Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-28, 05:21, said:

In SAYC-like systems where we have 2♣ acol, a rebid by opener in a new suit after 1/1, for instance,
1♥-1♠
2♦
shows a very wide range - some 13-18 pts. Responder here if has minimum (6-9 pts.) can pass ♦ with ♦ preference, or bid 2♥ with ♥ preference what opener should pass.

The range is broader, it is 11-17/18, it could even start at 10.
Lowering your opening bid req comes with costs, the cost is broadening this range.
And yes, this is the big disadvantage of natural systems, compared to limited opening systems.
The advantage is, that you start bidding your suits at turn 1.
And I dont think art. system have an edge, ..., but art. system need lots of discussion before hand,
playing a natural system, having an indepth iscussion beforehand helps as well, but is quite often
not done with the same intensity, ..., and the difference in intensity gives those pairs an edge.

As pointed out, you can address some of the problem pairs using art. methods (Gazilli).
Another convention would be Kaplan Inversion, Flannery which addresses discovering spade fits,
after a 1H opening, or Reverse Flannery to discover major suit after minor suit openings.
Playing intermediate 2 level openings, helps as well, the cost being, that you dont have as
many 2 level preempts.

All come with a cost, and it is up to you to decide, which price you are willing to pay.

[mikeh]

 Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-28, 05:21, said:

In SAYC-like systems where we have 2♣ acol, a rebid by opener in a new suit after 1/1, for instance,
1♥-1♠
2♦
shows a very wide range - some 13-18 pts. Responder here if has minimum (6-9 pts.) can pass ♦ with ♦ preference, or bid 2♥ with ♥ preference what opener should pass.

It we assume for simplicity that we need to have 26 pts. for a game and that responder invites game with 10-12 pts. then we have a problem when 18 pts. meets 9 pts., when 18 meets 8 pts. and when 17 pts. meets 9 pts. In these cases we lose game ;/ Is there some solution to this theoretical drawback of SAYC-like systems? How do top players playing 2/1 deal with it?

Top players playing 2/1 usually have very complex agreements, which I wouldn’t recommend most play. The memory load is intense and playing complex methods without an expert level of understanding of hand evaluation will lead to disaster, imo.

Btw, a complex 2/1 method bears about as much relationship to SAYC as does a Ferrari F1 race car to a 1960 Dodge Dart. So while a good big club method is far superior to a SAYC type of method, a good big club method is probably more or less on par with a good 2/1 method. As an example on the same team, Levin-Weinstein play a 2/1 method, iirc, while Greco-Hampson use a big club approach.

Regardless of method, few experts use an arithmetical approach to hand valuation beyond as a starting point but using hcp with some adjustments for distribution is a good thing for non experts to use.

[Tim Ocean]

 mikeh, on 2023-October-30, 11:57, said:

Regardless of method, few experts use an arithmetical approach to hand valuation beyond as a starting point but using hcp with some adjustments for distribution is a good thing for non experts to use.

What method do they use?

[mikeh]

 Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-31, 11:01, said:

What method do they use?

I suspect that there is some variation from player to player. I’m not at that level but I’ve played a fair bit against players of world class ability and occasionally been on teams with such.

Most valuation is to a degree subconscious. Here are the factors I consider:

Hcp as a starting point

Are my hcp in my long suits? If so, I like my hand better than if they are in short suits

Do I have good spot cards? A109xx is better than A5432

Do I have controls? A = 2, K = 1. The 4321 point count undervalues aces and, to a lesser degree, kings while overvaluing queens and jacks (and ignores 10’s). This is more important when expecting to play in a suit contract.

Do I have shape? Especially, do I have one or more suits of at least five card length? If my hcp are borderline, are they in those suits?

As the auction proceeds, pay close attention to the information provided by each call by the other players. If I have AQxx in a suit bid by RHO, upgrade. If bid by LHO, downgrade.

Do we have a good fit in a suit? If so, upgrade side shortness. Do we seem to have a misfit? Downgrade everything.

What is my LTC (losing trick count)?

Much of this isn’t conscious, since I’ve played a lot of bridge. It really comes down to how I ‘feel’ about my hand. Do I like it in context of being say a ‘good 12 count’ or a ‘bad 12 count’. ‘Good hands’ are bid aggressively, ‘bad’ ones conservatively.

All of this, in my main partnership, is coloured by methods. We play an aggressive 2/1 with many bells and whistles.

I’m not sure how useful that is. However, if you ever get the chance to read The Bridge World, I strongly commend The Master Solvers Club section. Any of them from about 1975 on would help. Each month has 8 problems, and true expert panelists don’t just provide their answers…they provide their thinking and a WC moderator comments. You would learn a lot from this….and I suspect you’d be surprised that nobody ‘adds points for shape’, etc.

[Tim Ocean]

 mikeh, on 2023-October-31, 13:15, said:

You would learn a lot from this….and I suspect you’d be surprised that nobody ‘adds points for shape’, etc.

Maybe they're ashamed to admit it and they do it secretly?

[mikeh]

 Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-31, 13:23, said:

Maybe they're ashamed to admit it and they do it secretly?

Top experts are rarely ashamed of their game😀

[johnu]

 mikeh, on 2023-October-31, 13:15, said:

I’m not sure how useful that is. However, if you ever get the chance to read The Bridge World, I strongly commend The Master Solvers Club section. Any of them from about 1975 on would help. Each month has 8 problems, and true expert panelists don’t just provide their answers…they provide their thinking and a WC moderator comments. You would learn a lot from this….and I suspect you’d be surprised that nobody ‘adds points for shape’, etc.

I agree 100% with the Master Solvers Club suggestion as I'm a long time subscriber. At one time, there was a group in my area that regularly got together to discuss the problems, and competed to be among the top annual scorers.

Unfortunately, the Bridge World is on its last legs. Their subscriber numbers are constantly dropping, and their most recent circulation statement said that only 3255 copies of their last issue were printed. I remember at some point in the distant past, they had 25K subscribers, but I don't know what their peak circulation was. Maybe they'll have to go to an online magazine to hold on for a few more years.

[mikeh]

 johnu, on 2023-October-31, 18:19, said:

I agree 100% with the Master Solvers Club suggestion as I'm a long time subscriber. At one time, there was a group in my area that regularly got together to discuss the problems, and competed to be among the top annual scorers.

Unfortunately, the Bridge World is on its last legs. Their subscriber numbers are constantly dropping, and their most recent circulation statement said that only 3255 copies of their last issue were printed. I remember at some point in the distant past, they had 25K subscribers, but I don't know what their peak circulation was. Maybe they'll have to go to an online magazine to hold on for a few more years.

I’ll renew…I stopped subscribing more than 10 years ago, while taking an extended break from competitive bridge. One more subscriber won’t make much difference but I’ll give it a try

Edit: done. I realize that everyone’s circumstances are different and that TBW approach and focus is mostly NA oriented (although their WC coverage is great and they have non NA panelists in the MSC and some international pairs in the Challenge the Champs bidding contest) but I’d urge as many readers as possible to try a one year subscription, available at their website. Search for The Bridge World.