[Tramticket]

ahydra, on 2018-June-26, 18:52, said:

I thought a "responder's reverse" was GF - at least that's how I've always played it. When the second suit is below the first, like 1C-1H; 2C-2D, it's only F1 (with less than INV, responder can pass opener's 2H).

This is a really interesting question in Acol.

As you say 1♣, 1♥; 2♣, 2♦ is not a reverse. I also play this as a one-round force like you and I think that this is the recommended modern treatment. But I am aware that old Acol texts treated this sequence as non-forcing!

Now compare 1♣, 1♥; 2♣, 2♠ - a traditional responder's reverse. Opener does not have a four-card spade suit and responder is not bidding 2♠ with the intention of playing in spades. There is little point in bidding 2♠ except as a forcing-to-game bid. I would definitely play this as forcing to game but again, old Acol texts treated this sequence as a one-round force only.

Finally we have the sequence that you asked about where responder makes a two-level response and then bids a second suit: 1♥, 2♣; 2♥, 2♠. I think that this is different and I'm not sure that I think of it as a reverse. The usual advice in Acol is that responder should by-pass a four-card major only if worth two bids - normally suggested as 11+ HCP. But if you are going to take this approach with a mis-fitting 11-count, this is clearly not enough to force to game opposite a minimum opener. On this basis I think that it is standard for the sequence to be forcing for one round only, but I have encountered players who play the sequence as forcing to game. I don't have a strong view either way - as long as partner and I are agreed.


Sorry to hijack the thread with this post which has little to do with the opening post and is probably boring if you don't play Acol!

[rhm]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-24, 21:22, said:

You were correct in your assessment that it is a good hand for big clubs systems - which explains why this hand is difficult otherwise, because the second thing you have to do is play catchup with hand strength, wasting a level of space in the process.

I think the issue is that we have 2 trends in modern standard bidding which have a cost

1) opening bids got lighter
2) exalted requirements for opening with a game forcing 2♣.

Together they create a rather wide range of hands to be handled after one-level opening bids.

I understand not opening 2♣ when a hand may be difficult to describe.
However, one-suiter are not difficult to describe after opening 2♣ and playing tricks is not the most important requirement, slam potential being much more important.
I do not see why it should be difficult to reach slam once you decide that this hand is good enough to open 2♣.
I think the risk of getting too high with this hand by opening 2♣ is negligible.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2018-June-28, 05:44, said:

I think the issue is that we have 2 trends in modern standard bidding which have a cost

1) opening bids got lighter
2) exalted requirements for opening with a game forcing 2♣.

Together they create a rather wide range of hands to be handled after one-level opening bids.

I understand not opening 2♣ when a hand may be difficult to describe.
However, one-suiter are not difficult to describe after opening 2♣ and playing tricks is not the most important requirement, slam potential being much more important.
I do not see why it should be difficult to reach slam once you decide that this hand is good enough to open 2♣.
I think the risk of getting too high with this hand by opening 2♣ is negligible.

Rainer Herrmann

I disagree with this, but it's methods dependent over 2♣. We play 2♣ and a positive response is F4N unless a suit is known to be open, which has a lot of advantages, but means you need more playing strength than this for 2♣. We also play 2♣ as FG unless followed by 2N, so it's easy to go overboard, and Kokish so if pard bids 2♦ you only get to show hearts properly at 3♥.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-28, 06:09, said:

We also play 2♣ as FG unless followed by 2N, so it's easy to go overboard, and Kokish so if pard bids 2♦ you only get to show hearts properly at 3♥.

Kokish doesn't push you any higher even when trumps are ♥, because your 3-level bid is essentially the same one you would have made without playing Kokish. But you lose the possibility to "open" 3♥ which reduces incisivity of slam seeking.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2018-June-28, 06:40, said:

Kokish doesn't push you any higher even when trumps are ♥, because your 3-level bid is essentially the same one you would have made without playing Kokish. But you lose the possibility to "open" 3♥ which reduces incisivity of slam seeking.

It kinda does because you have no info about partner's hand, in a standard auction without Kokish you have whatever partner would have bid instead of 2♠ over 2♣-2♦-2♥ to go on and would have had the chance to raise their suit.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-28, 07:23, said:

It kinda does because you have no info about partner's hand, in a standard auction without Kokish you have whatever partner would have bid instead of 2♠ over 2♣-2♦-2♥ to go on and would have had the chance to raise their suit.

That doesn't happen often for us because most strong 5-card hands are going to go through some level of 2NT. And in the case you mention but with Kokish then you are probably going to bid his suit yourself at 3-level anyway, and partner can then raise it (he might also learn about a double fit that would otherwise have remained hidden). But yes you do find the fit in second suit one level higher, although still in time for RKCB or other slam seeking toys.

[akwoo]

Sorry if this is a hijack. How do you stop at 3!H playing Kokish?

Without Kokish, I play that

2C - 2D
2H - 3C (second negative)
3H

is non-forcing.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2018-June-28, 11:55, said:

Sorry if this is a hijack. How do you stop at 3!H playing Kokish?

Without Kokish, I play that

2C - 2D
2H - 3C (second negative)
3H

is non-forcing.

You don't but for many in the UK the only 2♣ auction that is not FG is 2♣-2♦-2N (for us Kokish-2N is also NF).

[JanisW]

I guess, whether

2♣-2♦
2♥-3♣
3♥

is forcing, depends on what constitutes a second negative in your system.

What other bid is responder supposed to invent, besides 4♥, if 3♣ already denied any values (0-3HCP)?
Well he could cue-bid a king if he had one and bid 4♥ otherwise. You'd trade to be able to stop in 3♥ for slams where you only need one specific King. Might be reasonable. I cannot imagine playing responders 3rd bid to be natural?

IF 3♣ just denied suitable values (Fit/Controls) in the context of a 2♥-rebid and could still be something like Jxx,x,Qxxx,QJxxx then 3♥ has to be forcing. But I guess forcing this decent 6count to go through 3♣ leads to other problems.

On the actual Hand:
You have to choose your poison before opening this Hand.
It's either 2♣, because you are too strong for a 3♥-rebid and the suit is too bad for a 4♥-rebid.
The other option is to fake a Jumpshift with 3♦, which has ist own problems.

[rhm]

akwoo, on 2018-June-28, 11:55, said:

Sorry if this is a hijack. How do you stop at 3!H playing Kokish?

Without Kokish, I play that

2C - 2D
2H - 3C (second negative)
3H

is non-forcing.

Why are you so keen stopping one trick below game?

I do not care for these very rare occurences and consider 2♣ game forcing except for a 2NT rebid.
No other exception.
It makes life so much easier.
Yes I sometimes go down in game when I open 2♣, but I do go down in game 20 times more often when I do not open 2♣.
Big deal.

But if you play Kokish it is a good idea after 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ to exchange the meaning of 3♣ and 3♥

So

2♣-2♦
2♥-2♠

3♣: one suiter in hearts
3♥: two suiter hearts and clubs

A one-suiter is much more frequent than a specific two suiter.

You could now agree that 3♥ after

2♣-2♦
2♥-2♠
3♣

by responder is nonforcing and 4♣ or 4♦ agrees hearts and is an invite to more.
As I said I do not care.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-28, 06:09, said:

I disagree with this, but it's methods dependent over 2♣. We play 2♣ and a positive response is F4N unless a suit is known to be open, which has a lot of advantages, but means you need more playing strength than this for 2♣. We also play 2♣ as FG unless followed by 2N, so it's easy to go overboard, and Kokish so if pard bids 2♦ you only get to show hearts properly at 3♥.

My point was, once you have a very powerful hand with lots of slam potential like the one here (♠43,♥AKT742,♦AKT,♣A8) it is very unlikely that you can not even make game.
I agree it happens, but catering for this scenario costs more than it gains.
And of course it is easy to construct bidding sequences after opening with a one-level, which lead to the right contract when looking at both hands.
At the table where you do not have this advantage the outcome is not always the same, not to mention that opponents sometimes interfere with your bidding.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2018-June-29, 06:00, said:

My point was, once you have a very powerful hand with lots of slam potential like the one here (♠43,♥AKT742,♦AKT,♣A8) it is very unlikely that you can not even make game.
I agree it happens, but catering for this scenario costs more than it gains.
And of course it is easy to construct bidding sequences after opening with a one-level, which lead to the right contract when looking at both hands.
At the table where you do not have this advantage the outcome is not always the same, not to mention that opponents sometimes interfere with your bidding.

Rainer Herrmann

I think you overestimate how good this hand is, partner can easily have a 6 count where you can't make 3 (and potentially can't make 2) QJxx, x, xxxx, QJxx, and I don't want to force to game opposite a zero count. Once partner bids at the 2 level and has 2 hearts, sure it's great, but I would open this an Acol/Benji strong 2, but not 2♣. Also how much are you going to enjoy it if the auction is at 4♠ by the time you bid again without having shown a suit.

[pescetom]

I too play 2♣ as a game force except when followed by 2NT.

rhm, on 2018-June-29, 05:46, said:

But if you play Kokish it is a good idea after 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ to exchange the meaning of 3♣ and 3♥

So

2♣-2♦
2♥-2♠

3♣: one suiter in hearts
3♥: two suiter hearts and clubs

Thanks, I'll think about that idea.
What meaning do you assign to the responses to 3♣ one suiter in ♥?

[steve2005]

helene_t, on 2018-June-24, 19:47, said:

Steve, Wank was referring to 3h after a 2c response. That's certainly forcing.

Wank is referring to a bidding sequence that starts with 1♥. I stand by my post.
Why would anyone feel the need to say 3♥ after 2♣ is forcing? Even 2♥ is forcing.
If you open this hand 2♣ your standards for opening 2♣ is way below the norm.

[bluerib]

shevek, on 2018-June-23, 23:56, said:

Dealer East, IMPs

---

12 out of 14 pairs played 4♥ in a recent, decent club game, IMPs.
Presumably after

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥ - 4♥

East was dealer.
Can you do better?
(Okay, it's a good hand for a strong club system)

I prefer the following bidding sequence, assuming SAYC system.

1♥ - 2♣ (10 plus points, 5-card ♣; 1♠ to 1♥ must promise 5 cards!) - 3♥ (17 plus points, 6 plus cards) - 3♠ (second suit) - 4♣ (support/cue?) - 4♠ (cue) - 5♦ (cue) - 5♠ (cue) - 6♦ (cue) - 6♥ (end).

There can be other bidding sequences. But, it's clear that, after the first response of 2♣, promising 10 plus points and a five-card ♣ suit, declarer can re-evaluate his hand to 21 points (18 HCPs, plus 3 distributional points: 1 for the ♠ doubleton, 2 for the long ♥ suit, making a total of more than 32 points for a small slam. Moreover, declarer's hand is so solid in terms of "controls" (8 out of 12 of the whole card deck!).

As far as the suits break normally (6322 for ♥ and 5332 for ♣), the slam will make.

As the cards lie, there can be another playing line: The ♦ suit can be ruffed out to make the slam if only the ♥ suit breaks 6322.

[P_Marlowe]

bluerib, on 2018-July-10, 22:27, said:

I prefer the following bidding sequence, assuming SAYC system.

1♥ - 2♣ (10 plus points, 5-card ♣; 1♠ to 1♥ must promise 5 cards!) - 3♥ (17 plus points, 6 plus cards) - 3♠ (second suit) - 4♣ (support/cue?) - 4♠ (cue) - 5♦ (cue) - 5♠ (cue) - 6♦ (cue) - 6♥ (end).

There can be other bidding sequences. But, it's clear that, after the first response of 2♣, promising 10 plus points and a five-card ♣ suit, declarer can re-evaluate his hand to 21 points (18 HCPs, plus 3 distributional points: 1 for the ♠ doubleton, 2 for the long ♥ suit, making a total of more than 32 points for a small slam. Moreover, declarer's hand is so solid in terms of "controls" (8 out of 12 of the whole card deck!).

As far as the suits break normally (6322 for ♥ and 5332 for ♣), the slam will make.

As the cards lie, there can be another playing line: The ♦ suit can be ruffed out to make the slam if only the ♥ suit breaks 6322.

#1 if you require, that a 1S response to a 1H opening showes 5+, you play Flannery?
we can talk all day, but I dont think Flannery is part of an default SAYC system (whatever this means)
#2 2C showing 5+ is certainly playable, ..., but again, what do you bid with various 44 hands (spade/ club, minors),
that dont have the strength to bid 2NT / 3NT, ... again, this is solvable using some artifical meaning of a 1NT
response, but claiming this to be SAYC?

[Dumoti]

Personally, I would not open the east hand with 2♣.

East has 39 ZPs or even at Goren points it's 20. I think that the 3♥ is an underbid.
West has 26 ZPs even without the Jack. This is a full opener. Even playing 2/1, I think it is worth a 2♣ response.

So I figure both sides are to blame.

The exact methods would depend on your style. Like everyone else in the room, I would have difficulty agreeing on the trump suit and getting the cue bids in. So I cannot guarantee that I would reach the slam.