[the hog]

flytoox, on Nov 8 2004, 04:20 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 7 2004, 11:42 AM, said:

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

This kind claim doesnt make much sense.

Neither does this comment.

[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Nov 8 2004, 12:57 AM, said:

~snip~ Bidding has improved out of sight in the last 10 years, so I would be very surprised if the majority of 2/1 players on the expert panel bid anything other than 2H today.

This is not a debate about Mafia methods, but as an aside, I agree with Nikos in that the Mafia philosophy is excellent. (You should look at it Jimmy.) ~snip~

i agree that *systemic* bidding may have improved, but i don't agree that judgement (ie, hand evaluation) has improved that much from '88 to now... and i know for a fact i've seen ben (and henri and many other players i respect) bid a 5 card m while holding a 4 card M and a game force hand... i don't know exactly *why*, i only know why i'd do it in certain situations - to set the game force, establish forcing pass situations, etc...

as for mafia, i used to play that way, and still do in most situations... not all though

inquiry said:

The numbers are actual votes by the panel of experts.. the percentages are unrealated to the expert votes. The percentages is what readers did.... (not the panel). I provided both panel's view (circa 1988), and what the general reader was doing.

ok, thx... in that case, the judgement of a fairly large percentage of supposedly world class players voted 2S... as in all such discussions, i can't make any statements of bidding superiority with certitude... we all make, often, arguments from authority... we all have players we look to as being our authority figures (for example, ron rightly respects klinger even tho he might not agree with him 100% of the time.. some are walsh disciples, others lawrence, still others bergen)... since it would take a very high placement in more than one sectional, regional, and/or national for me to consider myself an expert, i probablly have more authority figures than most

iow, if enough world class players (even from back 'in the day' circa 1988) judge a certain bid to be superior, i might have to begrudgingly rethink my precudices/opinions

[junyi_zhu]

inquiry, on Nov 7 2004, 02:56 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 6 2004, 04:25 PM, said:

Now that apparently the various approaches to opener's rebid seem to have been explained by the posters, it would be interesting to know if there was a specific reason (e.g. inherent to the story of this hand) why Ben started the poll 

This is a kind of hand that has always interested me. Everyone knows how to make first bids, and even most first rebids... but diverge often on later bids. But here is one where I thought there would be a lot of reasons for alternative bids.

And I was wondering if the world has "improved" (read match my choice). since this question (hand and auction) was originally published in the july 1988 master solver chargers bridge world. In 1988, the results of the MSC was (first number was number of expert votes, percentage is the percentage of readers votes who wrote in)

2S = 12, 33%
2D = 8, 21%
2H = 4, 32%
2N = 4, 13%

So in 1988, and now, the most popular vote was 2S. Surprizingly, the right vote (that is my vote) was second with the experts thne (2D), but not too popular with the readers. Then, 2H and 2S were very close among the readers but the experts. Here, in our poll, 2H is almost an after thought.

If you play 2S DOES NOT PROMISE extra value (hence, no "precison" part of the question, 2S rebid seems fine). Otherwise, I have to agree with RON and say that if you rebid 2S on this hand, you (and the 12 expert voters in 1988), don't know how to bid. BTW, someone suggested that Mike Lawarence would rebid 2S with this hand. Maybe today, but in 1988 he rebid 2H's on this one.

I agree with the group of experts who, in 1988 said 2D.. People like Larry Cohen, who said "2D, Seems to leave more room than 2S. We can still get into spades if partner has them." And Carl Hudecek who said "2D. Caters to a lot of auctions and does not overstate the heart suit". Maybe R. Wolff said it best, "2D. Least of evils."

I throw 2NT out, singleton club. I throw out 2S, as I save it for a hand with better spades or more strength. So that leaves 2H and 2D. I agree with Mauro that 2H neither promises nor denies extra values, but this hand has GREAT diamond values and I can bid 2D to show something there and wait for parnter to clarify his holding. I would love to hear a 2H or 2S rebid over 2D. I can also handle 3C, 2NT and 3D rebid without having overstated my hand with a reverse on my second bid. To me, 2D seems clear...but the results of htis poll shows me, as always, I am out of that silly iceberg by myself again. I thought more people (aka readers) would go to 2D now... it was 21% in 1988... today it is 3%, and that 3% is me. Oh well.

For the 2H bidders, you are right. To me 2H is much better bid than 2S. If the club and diamond suits were reversed, and partner had responded 2D (I now have a singleton diamond, and 3 clubs to AKx), I would rebid 2H knowing that was the right bid.

Ben

Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't.
2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds,
strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT
which actually is not as horrible as many assumed.
The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as
standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much
bid your hand naturally.
Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion.
Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show
4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,
you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by
the raise.

So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D
in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited.

However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D!

Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems.
so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length,
2N shows spades and extra value. So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness),
all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid.

Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

[inquiry]

junyi_zhu, on Nov 8 2004, 12:21 AM, said:

The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as
standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much
bid your hand naturally.
Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion.
Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show
4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,
you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by
the raise.

So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D
in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited.

However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D!

Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems.
so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length,
2N shows spades and extra value. So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness),
all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid.

Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

Quote

Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't.  2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds, strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT
which actually is not as horrible as many assumed.

Yes, the panel played 2-over-1 game forcing. This was a MasterSolver problem, using Bridge World Standard. To quote the editor "You might think this is a pretty straight foward 2-over-1, or Eastern scientific, or BWS bidding problem, or non-problem. Wrong!

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid. A number of other panelist consider it second best to their choice. I wonder how many will agree with you that it THE WORST BID EVER. You must live a perfect bridge life if you find this the worst ever.

As for reversing the meaning of 2D and 2H? Seems unnecessary to me..... allows them to double 2di for lead, or for other competitive purposes. But to each his own.

Ben

[EricK]

I am a 2♥ bidder.

I do have a nice hand, but the singleton ♣ is a negative factor, and the ♠ suit is weak. So I don't like the reverse into 2♠ or the off-shape 2NT.

I can understand why 2♦ might be popular, but I don't like it. In general, you don't need both players trying to describe their hand to their partner. It is enough that one player does. Here, if I rebid 2♦ partner will think I am taking on the describing role, so I don't want that bid to be a lie. If I rebid a waiting 2♥, partner will continue describing his hand to me. That is exactly what I want to happen.

If we were not playing 2/1, I think 2♦ would a lot more going for it.

Eric

[Chamaco]

junyi_zhu, on Nov 8 2004, 04:21 AM, said:

Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show
4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,
you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by
the raise.

Showing strength should not be a terrible problem.
I think that nowadays most serious 2/1 pairs use serious or frivolous 3NT in order to be able to discriminate fitting hands (in a major) with/without slam interest.

At least I do, despite not considering myself a serious player

So in this case after 2H waiting and pard's 3H raise, I'd have no problem bidding serious 3NT, which shows slam interest with concern for the spade suit.
If pard does not signoff (therefoe showing spades control), I'll RKCB.

---------------------
One more issue:
you refer to splintering in clubs if pard bids 2Spades after 2H waiting.

is it common to splinter in pard's 2/1 suit ?

I would play it as a honor cuebid (stiff Q or better), showing a filler for pard's source of tricks. I do believe that it is much more useful to be able to show fillers than shortness in pard's suit.
BTW I think jumping to 4C would tend to show concern for diamonds, which is the last of our worries here.

So I'd rather support spades with 3S and follow up within the serious 3NT/LTTC framework.

[luke warm]

inquiry, on Nov 8 2004, 07:01 AM, said:

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid.

ben, who were the ones who bid 2S?

[whereagles]

I fail to see what's wrong with a simple 2H. Isn't it normal to bid 2H on 5-4 hands that aren't strong enough to reverse? (Like this one, lol) Why should one have to lie about diamonds when a 2H bid is perfectly within the sytem?

Besides, if pard has a 4-5 in the minors, he may take your 2D bid too seriously and drive to a diamond slam on the moysian fit:

QTxx.......Kx
AQ9xx.....Kx
AKx.........Qxxx
x.............AKxxx

which would be an ok slam, IF you had held a spade less and a diamond more.

[joker_gib]

2♥ for me (waiting, does not deny extra's), not enough for a reverse !

(note : 2/1 is not GF in my system !)

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Nov 8 2004, 07:06 AM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 8 2004, 07:01 AM, said:

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman,  Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid.

ben, who were the ones who bid 2S?

Bidding 2H in the poll was... Biily Eisenberg, Michael Lawrence, Eric kokish, and Jeff Rubens... a very nice, although small collection. Kit Woolsey, the director and who doesn't vote, did give very strong arguements for 2H and against 2S. His arguements against 2D was that it misdescribed shape...that was it.

BTW, the 2S bidders were almost apologetic with their votes...

Among the two spade bidders was one of my favorites, Marshall Miles who would have preferred to open flannery. John Criger said of 2S... "A littel light for a reverse..but... shouldn't significantly hurt our chances of reaching the right contract." Peter Pender, who rebid 2S said, "I have extras, if not full reversing values, so why not bid naturally"

[pclayton]

So what was the complete list of 2♠ bidders; just so I can add them to my list of pigeons, the next time I play a National?

[junyi_zhu]

inquiry, on Nov 8 2004, 05:01 AM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Nov 8 2004, 12:21 AM, said:

The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as
standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much
bid your hand naturally.
Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion.
Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show
4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,
you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by
the raise.

So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D
in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited.

However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D!

Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems.
so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length,
2N shows spades and extra value.  So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness),
all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid.

Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

Quote

Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't.  2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds, strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT
which actually is not as horrible as many assumed.

Yes, the panel played 2-over-1 game forcing. This was a MasterSolver problem, using Bridge World Standard. To quote the editor "You might think this is a pretty straight foward 2-over-1, or Eastern scientific, or BWS bidding problem, or non-problem. Wrong!

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid. A number of other panelist consider it second best to their choice. I wonder how many will agree with you that it THE WORST BID EVER. You must live a perfect bridge life if you find this the worst ever.

As for reversing the meaning of 2D and 2H? Seems unnecessary to me..... allows them to double 2di for lead, or for other competitive purposes. But to each his own.

Ben

Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system.
Also, my structure is not to simply switch 2D and 2H. It's a super gain because your partner can raise you at low level and at the same time show minimum or balanced hands. Still, after such a long post, you still didn't tell me how do you feel if your partner RKC over your 2D rebid. For 2/1 GF system, it's just insane to distort your shape at the second bid I'd say and for most time, you can't even recover from that.

Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has:
1S 2C
2D(waiting) 2N(spade support, extra)
instead of 1S 2C 2S 3S
that saves a whole level of space for you to describe your hand and that also allows
responder to support his partner and show his extra at two level.

1S 2D
2N(6 or more spades, extra)
most waiting system can not show this feature at 2 level.

1S 2C
2D 3H(set up clubs as trumps and asking for cuebids)
most 2/1 GF system can not set up their 2/1 suit below 4 level over partner's waiting bids.

1S 2C
2D 2H(responder's waiting, either minimum or balanced)

then you can stop at 4 m if you find 3NT is not playable and no fit in major suits.
When both showed minimum, system allows players to stop at 4 m. No other system
ever has a clean and neat scheme to show when to stop at 4m and how to stop at 4m without messing up their slam going bids.

1S 2C
2D 3C
showing extra and 6 or more clubs,
most 2/1 system can't even afford such a desriptive bid,
if they play 2S as waiting, then 3C can't gurantee extra or they have
to bid 2NT to be responder's waiting which might not save the day either
because 2NT can be to high.

It's actually a tremendous edge over 2/1 systems nowadays and in the future, most serious 2/1 players would probably play at least a variation of my structure I predict.

So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it.

[inquiry]

junyi_zhu, on Nov 8 2004, 01:48 PM, said:

Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system.

Is BridgeWorld Standard "really" 2-over-1 Game force? Seems an immaterial question to me, the poll was posed that it 2/1 was being used. Even so, the BWS version circa 2001 is not "really" game force, the bidding can stop in responsders minor if opener fails to show extra values, but 2H and 2D are both forcing. This bidding contest was from 1988, and if memory serves me correct, it was game forcing then...but I could pull out old issues and review. It is clear, however from the values held in this hand that game (at least) will be bid, and the 2D bidders had no concern partner would pass.

Quote

Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has" ((....... framework skipped... ))"So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it

In a voting poll based upon understanding of "Standard treatments" is an inapproriate place to going deals on "your framework" (or others home grown ones). Start a new thread, and I will be glad to discuss the advantage and disadvantage of your method. You may not know it, but I too I have my own pet methods, for me, 2♣ over 1 of a major can be a lot of hands (drury, balanced - no fit, or true 2/1 GF), but for the purpose of this question, I am stuck, as should be to the issue at hand... what would a normal, 2/1 GF opener rebid with this hand.

Thus, with in this thread, I have no desire to evaluate or discuss your framework or the use of a 2D bid to be a heart rebid, or a 2H bid to show diamonds. Neither of these non-standard treatements can have any bearing on the data obatined in the poll, or the sharing of hand evaluation ideas. If polls were run where anybody could invent (or use) any bid they wanted, someone could say, I rebid 3NT here to show four modest spades, three strong hearts, a singleton club and 15/16 hcp. That of course would be a very descriptive bid with this hand. We might all agree that is a great use or a horrible use for a 3NT bid, but we couldn't argue that if you had that method, this would be a wonderful hand to use that bid on.

So in final analysis, even if you method was the best thing since sliced bread, I wouldn't get into an evaluation of it within this thread. The rules of the site require that we "Keep posts on-topic". We all know that topic drift occurs, and alternative bidding structures can be a drift, but on a poll, you are FORCED to vote for the structure proposed in that poll. You can abstain. You can offer a reason for abstaining ("my structure is better"), but a back and forth on your structure really deserves a separate thread.

If your treatement is so wonderful, simply start a new thread and gather support for it. This poll has shown that a very simple and routine 2/1 auction with a routine hand has enough interesting things to discuss and long discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of a non-standards treatment such as yours has a tendency to stiffle the purpose and intent of the orginal poll and subsequent thread. So to keep this thread on target... which is how to handle this hand in standard 2/1.

Ben

[junyi_zhu]

inquiry, on Nov 8 2004, 06:31 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Nov 8 2004, 01:48 PM, said:

Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS  is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system.

Is BridgeWorld Standard "really" 2-over-1 Game force? Seems an immaterial question to me, the poll was posed that it 2/1 was being used. Even so, the BWS version circa 2001 is not "really" game force, the bidding can stop in responsders minor if opener fails to show extra values, but 2H and 2D are both forcing. This bidding contest was from 1988, and if memory serves me correct, it was game forcing then...but I could pull out old issues and review. It is clear, however from the values held in this hand that game (at least) will be bid, and the 2D bidders had no concern partner would pass.

Quote

Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has" ((....... framework skipped... ))"So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it

In a voting poll based upon understanding of "Standard treatments" is an inapproriate place to going deals on "your framework" (or others home grown ones). Start a new thread, and I will be glad to discuss the advantage and disadvantage of your method. You may not know it, but I too I have my own pet methods, for me, 2♣ over 1 of a major can be a lot of hands (drury, balanced - no fit, or true 2/1 GF), but for the purpose of this question, I am stuck, as should be to the issue at hand... what would a normal, 2/1 GF opener rebid with this hand.

Thus, with in this thread, I have no desire to evaluate or discuss your framework or the use of a 2D bid to be a heart rebid, or a 2H bid to show diamonds. Neither of these non-standard treatements can have any bearing on the data obatined in the poll, or the sharing of hand evaluation ideas. If polls were run where anybody could invent (or use) any bid they wanted, someone could say, I rebid 3NT here to show four modest spades, three strong hearts, a singleton club and 15/16 hcp. That of course would be a very descriptive bid with this hand. We might all agree that is a great use or a horrible use for a 3NT bid, but we couldn't argue that if you had that method, this would be a wonderful hand to use that bid on.

So in final analysis, even if you method was the best thing since sliced bread, I wouldn't get into an evaluation of it within this thread. The rules of the site require that we "Keep posts on-topic". We all know that topic drift occurs, and alternative bidding structures can be a drift, but on a poll, you are FORCED to vote for the structure proposed in that poll. You can abstain. You can offer a reason for abstaining ("my structure is better"), but a back and forth on your structure really deserves a separate thread.

If your treatement is so wonderful, simply start a new thread and gather support for it. This poll has shown that a very simple and routine 2/1 auction with a routine hand has enough interesting things to discuss and long discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of a non-standards treatment such as yours has a tendency to stiffle the purpose and intent of the orginal poll and subsequent thread. So to keep this thread on target... which is how to handle this hand in standard 2/1.

Ben

First, your hand over partner's 2/1 can bid into a game doesn't mean this system is 2/1 GF. 2/1 GF and 2/1 is GF only when responder doesn't rebid his 2/1 suit are two different animals. For the latter one, some 3 card temporizing bids have to be included in their system, which is actually against the nature of 2/1 GF system, that once in 2/1 GF situations, a new suit usually shows at least 4 or more.

2/1 GF is just a framework, it's not even a fixed system and most don't play the same thing although they name what they play as 2/1 GF. That's why the votes are so different. Without talking about a fixed system, there is no way for anybody to come into the same conclusion. For some, reverse over 2/1 needs extra, for some, reverse over 2/1 doesn't, for some, reverse over 2/1 needs extra, but 14 HCP would be enough for them to reverse. Also, I am just against your comment on my 2/1 framework. It wasn't even me to start this thread to comment on my system. It was yourself.

So, when there is no standard treatment in 2/1, it's just no use to discuss about what to bid in 2/1 for the problem, because people are just playing different systems.

Even though there is no "standard" 2/1 GF system, some basic principles are still there.
One key issue of 2/1 GF is just to get rid those 3 card forcing bids in old standard systems to describe the shape of hands in a more natural and sound way and both sides don't have to worry about getting passed below games.

That is actually what you have seen in this thread. Either 2H or 2S is right in my point of view. It's a sysmic issue, not a hand evaluation issue. Also, I have stated the hand's strength in a very clear way: it's about 6.5 losers at this stage and a normal 15 HCP hand. Still, after all, a natural 2D is not a sound bid if one plays 2/1 GF, you may survive when partner doesn't hold diamond suits and a lot of extra values, but you may have a huge bidding disaster if he does. The problem can be presented in a much nicer way: Should reverse at 2 level over partner's 2/1 GF show extra? If it shows, then what's the minimum requirement for such a reverse? Now, there are just some disputes and it doesn't really go as smoothly as you expected, because you used some words like those who bids 2S doesn't know how to bid.

The last issue is about multiple meanings of 1S 2C as GF. I don't think it's a sound structure for a wide range opening bids although many top players play it. Most don't play 1S 3C as strong jumpshift, and they should always have a problem to set up their 2/1 suit as trumps because it usually goes to 4 level. 2/1 can't do very well in this area although you are in a GF situation. That means although 2C is low, you still have a lot of hand types to describe and it's no easy to include more hand types into it. I have been thinking about this problem for a long while. It's true that 2C is low, but 5C or 6C are low as well, that means you actually don't have that much space as you assumed. That's why minor suit games or slams are no easy to bid.

[mike777]

I Keep seeing statements such as "what are our agreements in this situation?"

I thought the point was to try and improve our bridge logic, not just make automatic bids.

Do not most or all of us play many or most of our BBO hands here in a somewhat new or casual partnership? Assume most of the hands we play here are not in an in -depth partnership agreement.

Assume less than 1% bridge partnerships hands on BBO have detailed agreements and often even then a situation comes up where no agreement or our understanding is forgotten or not the same as partners.


Assume the point is with 99.5% of our partners we play with at the table we do not have an agreement.

[pclayton]

My memory is that BWS84 would have been in place which played 5 card majors without 2/1 GF. 1N was semi-forcing, as it is now.

A 2/1 was a force through 2N.

[Poky]

The_Hog, on Nov 7 2004, 12:42 PM, said:

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

Agree 100%.

2♠ will I bid with a hand like:
♠ATxx
♥ATxxx
♦x
♣Kxx
or similar and stronger.

[the hog]

mike777, on Nov 9 2004, 08:26 AM, said:

I Keep seeing statements such as "what are our agreements in this situation?"

I thought the point was to try and improve our bridge logic, not just make automatic bids.

Do not most or all of us play many or most of our BBO hands here in a somewhat new or casual partnership? Assume most of the hands we play here are not in an in -depth partnership agreement.

Assume less than 1% bridge partnerships hands on BBO have detailed agreements and often even then a situation comes up where no agreement or our understanding is forgotten or not the same as partners.


Assume the point is with 99.5% of our partners we play with at the table we do not have an agreement.

Don't know about the rest of you, but in my case definitely not correct. Virtually all my bridge is played with a regular partner. With the posted problem everything depends on partnership agreement. Some 2/1 players play that a reverse here is shape showing and does not show extra values. If you have that agreement your answer will be totally different to those that don't.

In my case 2H is totally the correct bid - no alternatives possible. However, I accept that some partnerships might agree that this shows 6H, (regardless of how flawed that concept may be). Ben bids 2D and again this is impossible in my partnership as we don't bid fake suits, but it works for him - again partnership agreement!

[inquiry]

Fake suit? AKx is a nice suit. Bidding 2D just shows where I live. As an aside, I don't mind "reversing" with a little extra value but not real revesing power. Make this hand...

S-AKxx H-AQ8xx D-QTx C-x,

(that is switching the honors in the diamonds and spades), I would bid 2S, to show the concenration of honors. I happen think AKx is ok.

Ben

[junyi_zhu]

mike777, on Nov 8 2004, 10:26 PM, said:

I Keep seeing statements such as "what are our agreements in this situation?"

I thought the point was to try and improve our bridge logic, not just make automatic bids.

Do not most or all of us play many or most of our BBO hands here in a somewhat new or casual partnership? Assume most of the hands we play here are not in an in -depth partnership agreement.

Assume less than 1% bridge partnerships hands on BBO have detailed agreements and often even then a situation comes up where no agreement or our understanding is forgotten or not the same as partners.


Assume the point is with 99.5% of our partners we play with at the table we do not have an agreement.

Well, probably you shouldn't try 2/1 with any pick-up partners. With random partners, it's best to play sayc or bws. 2/1 needs a lot of systemic discussions than sayc or bws.
It's no easy, and I am sure a lot of 2/1 players don't fully understand some basic idea of 2/1 GF. I have seen professional players played so called 2/1, bid 1S 2H 2S 4S
with a broken 12 and three baby spades, which is definetely against the basic slow arrival principle of 2/1 GF.