[sfi]

AL78, on 2023-December-02, 15:30, said:

I am not familiar with 2/1 but after 1♥ - 1♠; 2♥, could South not cue 4♣ and start a cue bidding sequence?

That's certainly a good option if it's available. But it's more common to play the jump to 4C here as a splinter with only three-card heart support.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-02, 11:54, said:

On the actual hand the slam is so-so, hinging on the onside ace of diamonds and no extreme breaks in the side suits. In the long run it is fine not to find slams like this.

mikeh, on 2023-December-02, 12:05, said:

Btw, I’d not reach slam on these hands. Yes, I see it makes most of the time. At mps, it’s probably cold. At imps, versus a strong defender, I’d expect to go down quite often.

Thanks for comments. Point taken about slam on this hand but my gripe was that if we routinely start 1♥ 1♠ with a GF major raise, we are going to have difficulty getting to the right contract.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2023-December-02, 16:57, said:

Thanks for comments. Point taken about slam on this hand but my gripe was that if we routinely start 1♥ 1♠ with a GF major raise, we are going to have difficulty getting to the right contract.

This is not quite true, because your best (and the right) contract may be the 44 in spade.
But if there is no 44, generating a forcing action with heart as trump gets very difficult.
There are method to investigate a 44 fit in the other major, after a 53 got established,
but those are not simple.

But the truth is, if you have discovered a major suit fit, tell p, and it will lead to
simpler / smother actions. In other words you give up on always finding the right contract
in favor of getting to sensible contracts most of the time.

I dont share MikeHs opion, that the 5H bid is a terrible bid, but I agree, that it is a crude
blunt method. I prefer this crude / blunt method to the messy auctions that are most likely
to happen after 3C. After 3C auctions you will have a lot of thinking / hesitation issues,
and you are not guranteed, that you will reach the right level.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

Bidding 2♣ doesn't lose a possible 4-4 spade fit, especially if you play a style where opener's 2♠ rebid does not promise extras. I don't think this is a significant reason for choosing 1♠ over 2♣.

Needing to jump to the 5-level to make a slam try is a serious downside, but as I understood it mikeh's point was even more specific. This hand is very control rich (lots of aces and kings), so partner is likely to have a fist full of quacks. This makes it likely partner will not cooperate with a slam try, at least not at first. But some specific quacks might be all we need to make slam good. It is therefore important on this hand in particular to preserve bidding space and give ourselves multiple rounds of asking partner for an evaluation of their hand. By contrast 5♥ is a point of no return, and there is a good chance that partner will get it wrong.

In my opinion there are very few downsides to bidding 2♣ on the first round and several upsides. Whether you play artificial rebids by opener, or shape first, or 'standard' (going past 2M shows extras, 2M may be a five card suit and no good bid), you should be able to find your best game and have room to explore slam.

[mw64ahw]

As North with no Aces and a 5 'quack' deficit I'd struggle to convince myself that a slam was makeable.
My auction on this one would go.
1♥-2♣ nebulous, but promises 3
2♦ Min-2♥ Shape?
2NT 6♥ unbalanced-3♣ Shortage?
3♥ ♣-3♠ control
4♥ KQ♥ no ♦ control
Now South has choice of whether to bid 5♦ showing an odd number of KCs or pass knowing the A♦ needs to be onside. Stopping in 5♥ is possible if the K♠ is absent, but could risk going 1 down

[jillybean]

Thanks all. I am not going to convince this partner to bid 2♣ with these hands so I will stop posting about this problem, I do know what I prefer.

I have just agreed with another partner to start playing transfers over 1♣ and mini (10-13) NT , I will be sure to share my progress.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2023-December-02, 15:30, said:

I am not familiar with 2/1 but after 1♥ - 1♠; 2♥, could South not cue 4♣ and start a cue bidding sequence?

In an Italian 2/1 which is oriented towards control-bidding, after this sequence Responder's only defined bids above 3H (fit INV) are 3S (6 card INV) and 4H (conclusive). Which suggests the author of the system would not have bid 1S here, although many Italians would.
Your partner almost certainly would interpret 4C as a control-bid fixing hearts, all the same.

[apollo1201]

pescetom, on 2023-December-03, 11:06, said:

In an Italian 2/1 which is oriented towards control-bidding, after this sequence Responder's only defined bids above 3H (fit INV) are 3S (6 card INV) and 4H (conclusive). Which suggests the author of the system would not have bid 1S here, although most Italians would.
Your partner almost certainly would interpret 4C as a control-bid fixing hearts, all the same.

I guess you have to agree somehow to use 2NT as an artificial game forcing relay, so that opener lets you say more in a forcing way (S or H).

After all, natural meaning is not too useful (can bid 3H with 11 pts and 2 cards), with 1-cd H you’ll have to decide…

[pescetom]

apollo1201, on 2023-December-03, 11:14, said:

I guess you have to agree somehow to use 2NT as an artificial game forcing relay, so that opener lets you say more in a forcing way (S or H).

After all, natural meaning is not too useful (can bid 3H with 11 pts and 2 cards), with 1-cd H you’ll have to decide…

That seems reasonable, but the system does define 2NT as natural here. It's not usually lacking in artificial forces when useful, so I imagine one was not meant to respond 1S with hearts fit and game+ strength.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-03, 04:30, said:

<snip>
... but as I understood it mikeh's point was even more specific. This hand is very control rich (lots of aces and kings), so partner is likely to have a fist full of quacks. This makes it likely partner will not cooperate with a slam try, at least not at first.
<snip>

I dont disagree, although 5H showes a control rich hand. For me, it asks a simple question: Do you have min in
the context of your bidding: Yes or No.
I dont think, that I can have a sensible auction after 3C, that pin points useful Quacks.

And obviously, if I can generate a game forcing auction and setting trumps below 3H, i will always follow this route.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2023-December-03, 09:47, said:

I have just agreed with another partner to start playing transfers over 1♣ and mini (10-13) NT , I will be sure to share my progress.

Good luck and enjoy! It's a fun system, but takes some experience. Especially when it comes to dealing with the 14-16 and 17-19 NT in 1♣ in competition. One nice wriggle, copied from Dutch Doubleton, is that in T-Walsh over the start 1♣*-1♦* (showing hearts); 1♥* (14-16 bal with 2-3 hearts or unbal minimum with exactly 3 hearts)-? you can play
1♠* - artificial asking bid, wide ranging
1NT* - 4=4 majors, approximately 5-8 (normally this'd be 7-11, decent prospects for 1NT but no game interest facing 11-13 bal, but the kamikaze notrump has an impact on the ranges here).

This way you can find your spade fits when responder has a minimum with both majors and preserve bidding space on stronger auctions.

P_Marlowe, on 2023-December-03, 12:36, said:

I dont disagree, although 5H showes a control rich hand. For me, it asks a simple question: Do you have min in
the context of your bidding: Yes or No.

I think on this auction partner will have a min most of the time, and some of that time slam will still be good. In fact, I think partner will pass 5♥ with such a high frequency that 4♥ might be better.

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-02, 02:51, said:

I strongly prefer 2♣ on hands like this (very strong with support, especially as it is balanced). If partner has spades we will find out, regardless I intend to support hearts next. On 1♥-1♠ there are too many auctions where I cannot both force to game cheaply and show my support on the next round, and we will likely end up quite high before I have managed to do both. Even conventions over 1♥-1♠ don't help all that much.

So really I'm just supporting what mikeh said.

This is a good hand for 2♥ as a punt, but there are also problems in that style. Personally I think that 'shape first' 2/1 has a better tradeoff between effectiveness and complexity, 2M as a punt creates several difficult problems on the next round that even experienced pairs have no good way to sort out. Of course 'everything artificial' is even better, but much more complicated.

David - I think you should put all the thought you've given to 2/1 bidding systems to good use and write a book. IMO there's a big gap in the literature for something beyond beginning 2/1 books (of which there are a few decent ones in common use). Most 2/1 books (a) gloss over some of the difficulties with 2/1 and (b) fill out their pages with other conventions that are considered part of the 2/1 system but are not the 2/1 bidding engine itself. I think there are 2-3 basic styles of 2/1 which could be explored in more depth for the intermediate player, and then you could have a separate section that delves into some of the wrinkles that experts play. (A third section briefly listing or summarizing the other conventions that you consider essential parts of a complete 2/1 system would also be OK, but I wouldn't make that a big focus.) An appendix with example system notes for each of the systems described in the intermediate section would be awesome!

[DavidKok]

Thank you for the kind words. I agree that there's a literature gap when it comes to discussing the different approaches to 2/1 sequences, especially when it comes to evaluating their relative merits. I'd never given the idea of trying to write a book myself consideration (nor really considered my opinions sufficiently thought out to publish them), and unfortunately for the foreseeable future I think it's going to be too time consuming for me to try. But I'll mull your suggestion over - maybe in a different format such as a series of articles, a blog or even a podcast. I'm not sure how in demand this would be, but if nothing else it would be nice to have an overview to point to if/when the topic comes up again.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-03, 14:33, said:

Good luck and enjoy! It's a fun system, but takes some experience. Especially when it comes to dealing with the 14-16 and 17-19 NT in 1♣ in competition. One nice wriggle, copied from Dutch Doubleton, is that in T-Walsh over the start 1♣*-1♦* (showing hearts); 1♥* (14-16 bal with 2-3 hearts or unbal minimum with exactly 3 hearts)-? you can play
1♠* - artificial asking bid, wide ranging
1NT* - 4=4 majors, approximately 5-8 (normally this'd be 7-11, decent prospects for 1NT but no game interest facing 11-13 bal, but the kamikaze notrump has an impact on the ranges here).

This way you can find your spade fits when responder has a minimum with both majors and preserve bidding space on stronger auctions.

Thanks, our 1nt structure is as follows.
1NT 10-13-
1x-1y-1nt 13+-16
1x-1y-2nt 17-19
2NT 20-21

1st and 2nd seat , 3rd seat non vulnerable, strong otherwise.

I don't understand your comments regarding transfers, I am still reading through and trying to understand our transfer notes.
Accepting a transfer at the 1 level shows 2-3 card support, 13-16 or a boring unbalanced hand.
Breaking the transfer to 1nt shows 17-19 balanced. XYZ on.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-December-05, 21:23, said:

Thanks, our 1nt structure is as follows.
1NT 10-13-
1x-1y-1nt 13+-16
1x-1y-2nt 17-19
2NT 20-21

1st and 2nd seat , 3rd seat non vulnerable, strong otherwise.

I don't understand your comments regarding transfers, I am still reading through and trying to understand our transfer notes.
Accepting a transfer at the 1 level shows 2-3 card support, 13-16 or a boring unbalanced hand.
Breaking the transfer to 1nt shows 17-19 balanced. XYZ on.

There are many ways of playing transfer responses to 1C

If you play (as I do) that accepting the transfer to 1M shows 2-3 cards, then ask what 1N means, if opener makes that call. 1C 1D 1N?

The main benefit of accepting the transfer with 2-3 (as opposed to the school of thought that says it shows 3 cards) is that you free up 1N…you no longer need it for a balanced hand out of range of a notrump opening…such a balanced hand will always have at least 2 cards in responder’s major.

Not only does this free up 1N but (because, imo, the most effective use of 1N is the 17-19 balanced hand) it also frees up 2N.

My advice: use 1C 1R 1N as 17-19. You can play xyz over that or, as we do, a slightly modified version of our strong notrump structure. The main mod is that, in response to 2C over 1N, we treat 3 cards in responder’s major as it if were 4, since we’ve denied 4.

This use of the 1N rebid is very effective. We tend, as do most expert partnerships, to pass 1C very rarely. Thus responder would bid 1H with, say, Kxxxx xxx xxx xx. He intends to pass a 1S bid by opener. Over 1N, we’d bid 2H and play in 2S. Playing a sort of standard method, if you responded, you might have to deal with a jump to 2N, leaving you feeling ill

We use 2N (1C 1R 2N) as a very strong 4 card raise…17-19. Not gf…responder can transfer over 2N…with a good 19, opener can jump to game but with 17-18, accepts the transfer. Obviously, you can do other things with 2N…we experimented with using it for some 6331 18 count type of hand, with 3 cards in responder’s major. This hand type is notoriously difficult to bid in a 2/1 or standard type method. 1C 1S and you hold AQx x Kxx AKQxxx. 3S can look awfully silly opposite xxxx in spades while 3C means you may miss a good spade contract when partner has a weakish hand with long spades

I’m sure other pairs have found other uses in addition to these. Happy experimenting. I love transfers to 1C😀

[DavidKok]

All three of us are referring to the same style

What I meant is that specifically on the auction 1♣-1♦; 1♥, so opener having accepted the transfer, natural rebids for responder are not that great. In particular, this may lose a 4=4 spade fit if responder has a somewhat weak hand. Whether you use 1♠ here as fourth suit forcing, or as a natural bid with spades, or as something else, you can improve the structure by making the 1NT rebid artificial NF and showing spades, and 1♠ an artifical asking bid. It even saves space compared to XYZ, but you can choose to retain both if you prefer.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-06, 03:40, said:

All three of us are referring to the same style

I'm glad!

DavidKok, on 2023-December-06, 03:40, said:

What I meant is that specifically on the auction 1♣-1♦; 1♥, so opener having accepted the transfer, natural rebids for responder are not that great. In particular, this may lose a 4=4 spade fit if responder has a somewhat weak hand. Whether you use 1♠ here as fourth suit forcing, or as a natural bid with spades, or as something else, you can improve the structure by making the 1NT rebid artificial NF and showing spades, and 1♠ an artifical asking bid. It even saves space compared to XYZ, but you can choose to retain both if you prefer.

So
1♣ 1♦*
1♥* 1NT* I have a minimum, 5 hearts and 4 spades, shall we play in a M or 1nt?

1♣. 1♦*
1♥ 1♠* artificial asking

How does this save space other than allowing opener to play in 1nt , wrong sided?
Opener, with a M preference is correcting to 2M in either case aren't they?
I'm obviously not understanding something.

[DavidKok]

1NT shows specifically 4 spades and 4 hearts. The 1♠ asking bid rightsides 1NT in the more common scenario where responder has any other major suit distribution, while still locating 4-4 spade fits when opener has a balanced minimum and responder has sub-invitational values. With a stronger hand responder can use an XYZ toolkit, with or without first asking for more shape information with 1♠. With a sub-invitational 4=5 in the majors I would either pass 1♥ or let opener choose between 2♥ and 2♠, I do not think it is a good idea to play 1NT with that shape.

[jillybean]

thanks. I'll come back to this once I've understood & memorized our basic transfer agreements

[mikeh]

There are almost as many uses for 1C 1D 1H 1S as there are pairs using transfer responses😀 we use a simple method that I’m sure is not theoretically optimal but it seems to work ok and has the benefit of being simple (most of our agreements are anything but simple, so this is an area where we’ve been happy not to tinker…so far).

1C 1D 1H 1S is non-forcing and non invitational, promising 4=4 majors. It’s the sort of hand on which, were one 4=5 in the majors, one would pass 1H. We use xyz over 1H, so we can have 1S less than invitational, and accepting the transfer shows a minimum range opening bid, so we haven’t missed a game.

We once had the auction of 1C 1D 1H 1S 1N 2C all pass. Responder was 4=4=1=4. That worked well, but in my main partnership we can’t do that since we now open 1C on 3=3=5=2. Btw, I don’t recommend that (1C on 5=3 or 5=2 minors) without a LOT of discussion.