[junyi_zhu]

bluecalm, on Apr 30 2010, 07:22 AM, said:

Quote

Oh, we didn't have much in the way of sophistication. For example, with:

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx

we would respond 2♦ to 1♠. I don't know what you would do, but it seems to me that you must have to perform some contortions if 2♦ "delivered a 5 card suit".

2♣ for me (because it contains balanced gf hand by agreement). Actually I consider 2♦ just a bad bid/system design.
You will have a chance to play in ♦ if partner have 4 of them anyway and there is no reason to design system in such a way that you tell opponents what you have without much benefits for your side.

In hand in question I bid 3♦ which I hope promises extras. If it doesn't promise extras I guess I will go with 3♣.

The largest benefit is that 2D shows your shape well. You just can't say a bid that forces to game and shows 4 or more in that suit doesn't benefit your bidding. The huge problem for 2C to put all the balanced hands in is that 2 C isn't as low as many perceive. 2C is low, but 5C 6C 7C are all low. So if you really have a club fit, it becomes very slow to find the club fit, cuebid and ask for KC at a relative low level with acceptable bidding accuracies. Even complicated relay sequences can't solve many the problems. In that sense, once a gameforcing sequence is set up, nothing is really low IMO. 2C is relatively low comparing with 2D/2H, but 2C is high enough comparing with 5C/6C and 7C.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

I don't like raising diamonds directly not only because a 4-4 club fit might be better but because we could just have a longer club fit, like partner is 5-5 in the minors. x Ax Kxxxx KQxxx?

I agree, bidding 2S will solve this problem. Really don't understand the hate for 2S, it's not a sprint, you don't have to blow your wad immediately. There are no bad rebids from partner over 2S. The worst is 3S because we haven't described much about our hand, but we're still well positioned to find out about partner's hand and then offer 6/7D in that case.

If partner bids 3C or 3D that's awesome. Otherwise he will probably bid 2N and then 3D doesn't sound like a 4 card fit. I guess the main gain in the construction is that you can distinguish between 3 and 4 card raises which is obv very useful. Even if he bids 3H we have learned a ton about his hand and are not poorly positioned at all.

But I guess my point with all of this is not how awesome having to bid 2S with this hand is, it's more that:

1) Bidding 3D with 4 diamonds is awesome.
2) Bidding 3C with 5 clubs is awesome.
3) If you can do neither of those then the "downside" of 1 and 2 is that you have to bid 2S on this hand. I don't really see why it's a downside though. I'd rather bid 2S than a poorly defined 3D or 3C anyways.

We just don't have that much room and if we bid 2S as often as possible eliminating some key hand types, and then partner bids 2N as often as possible over that eliminating some key hand types, we can get down to business without having lost any room. To me this makes a lot of sense.

[jdonn]

Hey I wasn't one of those who railed against 2♠.

[cherdanno]

Well if we have the agreement that 3♣ shows 5 clubs then of course I don't bid 3♣ with this hand. But I see many auctions where you can't really show this hand after 2♠ but can show it pretty well after 3♣.
2S 2N 3D 3H - I guess 4C is a cue for clubs now but we haven't shown our heart shortness; compare with 3C 3H 4D.
2S 2N 3D 3N - I guess we have to bid 4C now but is 4C really a side suit now, rather than a cue with, say, a strong 6232 hand? On the other hand, I think after 3C 3N we can pass as we have shown extra values and partner has shown a good stop in hearts. Or we can bid on with 4D and again have described our hand pretty well.
I guess on many other auctions we will come out even, e.g. if partner rebids diamonds I guess we can just force to keycard.

[Jlall]

Yes I would bid 3C if it showed 4+ clubs and extras and if 2D showed only 4+ fwiw.

If 3D or 3H only promised 3 diamonds and 2D promised I might choose that also.

I guess what I'm saying is I think this should come down to a matter of system not style, and in my preferred type of system this would bid a 2S bid. Not ideal.

If this hand really comes down to style and 2S 3C 3D 3H are all possible bids in my system, I'd like to define my system more tightly.

[aguahombre]

So many of the alleged "disputes" on these fora depend on everything else involved in one's style, and would not be disputes at all if all our styles were the same.

This sounds like an inane truism....but the heated disagreements are often talking about a whole different set of inferences (apples and oranges).

2/1 is especially prone to this problem. What does a 2/1 bid promise in regard to length? What can a forcing NT show? Do we play J2N? Do we play constructive raises? Do we use Bergen? In no way can we agree on judgement calls if we don't have a style agreement.

Edit: the big point of all this is: some posters recognize style differences; others just dismiss certain choices and call them awful, or other adjectives --without understanding the context. JLALL seems to go out of his way to recognize style differences, and others as well.

[awm]

My style here is that 2♦ shows four, raising to 3♦ shows four-card support. The "high reverse" into 3♣ can be made on four cards, but I'd prefer to have a more pure hand with less interest in playing a diamond contract. It will be hard to back into diamonds if partner bids 3♠ or 4♣ over my 3♣ rebid (I play 4♦ in both those cases as a cue). While the sequence of 1♠...3♣...4♦ does show shape nicely (assuming partner's second bid is such that 4♦ would be natural), it also means you start cuebidding at a pretty high level; temporizing with 2♠ will often let me set diamonds at the three-level which makes for easier cuebidding (although less pattern bidding).

[gnasher]

If you're going to raise diamonds immediately, I don't understand 3♦ rather than 3♥. If the trumps are good enough for 3♦, why aren't they good enough for 3♥?

[y66]

I think a splinter by opener should provide 4-card trump support even when responder promises 5 or more diamonds.

[aguahombre]

again depends on your partnership style. If Splinter bids do not show extra values, just four-card support ---in a 2/1 situation, then that seems to be the best use of that space consuming rebid. Ours guarantee 4, even though 2D was 5.

That is just us. And it works well for us not to cram the bidding with hands which have extra values. That is how we think 2/1 was meant to work. We don't care if others think it should be different.

In our opinion this hand is too strong for the splinter, and has one too few diamonds.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Apr 30 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

If you're going to raise diamonds immediately, I don't understand 3♦ rather than 3♥. If the trumps are good enough for 3♦, why aren't they good enough for 3♥?

The value of the 4th trump is more crucial when opener has shortness?

[bluecalm]

Quote

It does not bother me at all when someone like you calls the common Western US style "amateur standard".

I didn't mean to bother you at all. I expressed my opinion about this style. Exchanging opinions on internet forum = good thing.

Quote

I don't think you are watching the right players.

Well, I am vugraph junkie. I saw thousands of hands of Italians, MR, Greco - Hampson, Balicki Zmudzinski and some from other famous players.
Unless my memory is deceiving me none of them would ever bid 2♦ on 4 diamonds and balanced hand.

Quote

I don't know who dburn was playing with here, but he's certainly a world class player e.g. I bet he has more Olympiad medals than you do.

I wasn't claiming I had more medals (as I have 0 it would be pretty optimistic), was smarter, understood bidding better or had some magic powers to say which agreement is better. I am amateur player without much experience. I know quite a bit about bidding systems of best world pairs though unless they are playing differently for vugraph than they do on day to day basis...
I was just expressing my opinion based on my little bridge experience and quite a lot of reading/watching/thinking that bidding 2♦ on 4 diamonds balanced violates basic bidding principles and is just bad.

Quote

The largest benefit is that 2D shows your shape well

I don't think it shows shape well. Partner can't count tricks if he isn't sure you have 5 of them and there will be often one card more in side suits which he won't get rid of also finding 5-3 fit will be quite difficult as will be assessing value of holdings like ♦Kx.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Edit: the big point of all this is: some posters recognize style differences; others just dismiss certain choices and call them awful, or other adjectives --without understanding the context. JLALL seems to go out of his way to recognize style differences, and others as well.

WTF ? Some styles are worse than others that's life.
If I think something is awful I am expressing this opinion. If someone doesn't think so he/she will express his opinion too and maybe we will learn something.
I think just saying it's "different style they are all equal" is counter productive.

[aguahombre]

Bluecalm: no one is saying that different styles are equal to one another. But answers to bidding questions which are based on different premises than yours might be equally workable for the different style. To judge such an answer "awful" is not helpful, and might distract the reader from what you really are trying to say.

You can get the same point across by showing how, within that person's style, their solution is not optimum.

I am trying to improve my previously conceived sarcastic tone. Maybe you can work on your blanket judgements without regard to context.

[peachy]

bluecalm, on May 1 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

Quote

It does not bother me at all when someone like you calls the common Western US style "amateur standard".

I didn't mean to bother you at all. I expressed my opinion about this style. Exchanging opinions on internet forum = good thing.

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough...

[Phil]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

But I guess my point with all of this is not how awesome having to bid 2S with this hand is, it's more that:

1) Bidding 3D with 4 diamonds is awesome.
2) Bidding 3C with 5 clubs is awesome.
3) If you can do neither of those then the "downside" of 1 and 2 is that you have to bid 2S on this hand. I don't really see why it's a downside though. I'd rather bid 2S than a poorly defined 3D or 3C anyways.

I've never heard of this style but it sounds very interesting.

Does 3♦ tend to show a min or balanced since we didn't splinter?

How much extras does 3♣ promise?

Is 2N the default with 5332 or is this also defined?

[jdonn]

I have played 3♣ promises 5 when playing a strong club. It always felt to me like I was putting too many hands into 2♠ if I did it when playing standard but I can see how it could easily work.

[Bbradley62]

junyi_zhu, on Apr 30 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

dburn, on Apr 30 2010, 02:23 AM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> AKJ53 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> J </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Q96 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> AJ43 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->
You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

I'd bid 3C, the most natural bid available. If partner rebids 3D, you can probably RKC IMO. If partner bids 3S, you should make quite a few slam tries. If partner bid 3NT, you can bid 4D to show your pattern and slam interest. So you are well prepared IMO. When 3C shows both your pattern and strength, I don't see any reasons not to bid it. A natural bid which also narrows down your strength range is the reason we play a quite natural system, instead of relays systems.

Since OP did not specify partnership agreements such as "2♦ shows five" or "3♣ would show five", we should presume that those agreements are not in force, and he is looking for guidance within the constraints of his system. Given the parameters, junyi_zhu's analysis seems exactly correct.

[bluecalm]

Quote

and he is looking for guidance within the constraints of his system.

Yeah, but how do we know what system is that ?

[Jlall]

bluecalm, on May 1 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

Quote

and he is looking for guidance within the constraints of his system.

Yeah, but how do we know what system is that ?

Heh I mean if you call someones style bad/amateur standard/nonsensical you're gonna get these types of reactions. If you don't care about that then it's all good (I don't really care, I'm used to it). If you do care then just be more PC, but it's never gonna happen that you can make a statement like that and not get some strong reactions. Personally I think it's a shame everyone is so PC, but others think it's a shame that I am "rude" so w/e.

I will say that I agree with you that some styles are definitely. bad, and bidding 2D with 4 is one of them in my opinion. I agree with you that it is a minority way to play at the higher levels, but people definitely play it (dburn obviously being one of them).

I will also say that bidding 3C with 5-4 and extras is a huge majority position and that I would probably be considered a fringe weirdo on this one, but I still think I'm right that it should be 5-5 (shocking!).

@Jdonn: Most of the extra hands that you include in 2S now that you wouldn't in strong club are the 5-4 17+ hands. Those hands can all drive to 4N or whatever, so you are not really overloading your 2S bid. Hands that can drive past game should not be worried about because they will easily be able to show their strength later. The 16 counts can be awkward sometimes as the old 16 opp 16 problem is always there and bidding 3C on 5-4 16 solves that, but I really wouldn't worry about it so much to change my system from non strong club to strong club.

Frankly I think it should be auto that the highest bid eg 1S 2H 3D and 1H 2D 3C show 5-5 since they need to be bid so infrequently and are so bad, and I think 1S-2D-3C definitely falls into that camp. Yes you have 3H available to deal with some of the awkwardness but it's really not enough.

@Phil: I mean you can get totally artificial and that would be a big improvement, but if we are sticking with natural means then I would just bid 2N on positional hands and 2S on anti positional hands. I don't know what a minimum 3C bid is...AKxxx x xx AQxxx can't be too far off either way.