[phil_20686]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-04, 15:41, said:

?

its the normal bid in acol with 3-4-3-3, since 1S-2H should promise 5.

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-04, 15:41, said:

?

Not sure what the question mark is for.

As an example of what I mean, assume one set of possibilities (others exist):

Limit raises
Invitational 2NT response
3NT response as 13-15

That might be the structure, but maybe something else. Whatever else, you still end up with sequence gaps.

In the exact example, after a 1♠ opening, with 3-4-3-3 and either too much to bid 3NT or an agreement that 3NT denies three spades, you respond 2♣.

Hence, 2♣ generally is 3+. Even if it is 4+ because all gaps have been filled, 4+ is hardly a six-bagger, which needs repeating to show.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2011-December-04, 16:40, said:

Hence, 2♣ generally is 3+. Even if it is 4+ because all gaps have been filled, 4+ is hardly a six-bagger, which needs repeating to show.

This is so rare though; in practice 2♣ should be assumed by partner to seldom be as short as 4.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-04, 17:26, said:

This is so rare though; in practice 2♣ should be assumed by partner to seldom be as short as 4.

Unless you have another way to show a balanced hand then a 2♣ response in standard is most likely to be balanced with four (three) clubs.

[kenrexford]

Whether 2♣ shows 3 or 4, the point is still the same.'

The partscore battle is not improved simply because your auction was

1♠-2♣
2x-3♣

instead of

1♠-3♣

or

1♠-1NT
2x-3♣

Something about the differing auctions might be interesting. But, why is there an assumption that 2/1 suffers in partscore battles simply because 1NT is nebulous? A nebulous call is not necessarily a problem. In fact, nebulous can be good. In practice, it seems to me that a nebulous 1NT still results in an approach where Opener's shape is primarily defined whereas a 2/1 non-GF is an approach where desription on each side is partial. In that environment, of partials back and forth, things can get messy at times.

Again, we are talking about a Responder in the just-under GF range. Let's give him 11 HCP, no fit for Opener's spades, and precisely five hearts.

Playing 2/1 NGF, the auction starts 1♠-P-2♥, which seems easy for Responder. But, Opener with any hand that lacks support and lacks values to make a high reverse (where the partscore battle is relevant) will likely rebid 2♠ or 2NT, and little is known about Opener's hand.

With 2/1 GF, the auction might start 1♠-1NT, 2♣. If it starts that way, then Responder could bid 2♦ artificially and find out more about Opener's shape and strength. When Opener lacks three hearts (where the partscore matters), he might play 2♥ on the 5-2 (which perhaps beats the non-GF folks), but he can also now afford to make that "high reverse," as his values were already limited by the 2♣ rebid.

There's obviously a lot to the question. But, the thought that 2/1 NGF is easier for partscores is not necessarily convincing either.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-December-04, 17:38, said:

Unless you have another way to show a balanced hand then a 2♣ response in standard is most likely to be balanced with four (three) clubs.

I'm not saying it's impossible; it's just that my experience has been different from yours. In many years of playing an Acol style with 5-card majors, I have never had to bid 2♣ on a 2-card suit, and I don't remember bidding it on 3, but it may have happened once in thousands of boards. Maybe playing weak NT helps, because there are many more 1NT openers and fewer 2/1s in general. I don't know.

kenrexford, on 2011-December-04, 17:55, said:

The partscore battle is not improved simply because your auction was

1♠-2♣
2x-3♣

instead of

1♠-3♣

Well, in the first auction clubs have got in a round earlier, allowing opener to raise, and with the opponents bidding some other suit(s) the possibility of the club suit being shorter than expected is decreased. The second one may be too high on a misfit and gives up the possibility of playing Bergen Raises (maybe to many this is not a big cost, but I like them).

Quote

or

1♠-1NT
2x-3♣

My point about the partscore "battle" is that the opponents will be in the auction, so it may not be possible to bid the clubs at a convenient level; also, if "x" is a red suit, 3♣ may again be offering a suit at a high level in a possible misfit.

Quote

With 2/1 GF, the auction might start 1♠-1NT, 2♣. If it starts that way, then Responder could bid 2♦ artificially and find out more about Opener's shape and strength.

2/1 GF can really benefit from toys like you mention here and above, but I don't think they are part of the basic system and that most people use them.

Quote

When Opener lacks three hearts (where the partscore matters), he might play 2♥ on the 5-2 (which perhaps beats the non-GF folks), but he can also now afford to make that "high reverse," as his values were already limited by the 2♣ rebid.

I'm afraid I do not follow. What "high reverse"? 3♣? Is this wise when both partners are limited and may have no decent fit? Being able to stop in 2♥ on a hand like you describe is good.

[gnasher]

Ken, one of the defining characteristics of a battle is that there are two (or more) sides.

If it's a partscore deal, an auction that starts

1♠ pass 2♦ 2♥

is better for the opening side than

1♠ pass 1NT 2♥

[kenrexford]

Of course there are differences, depending upon what happens next. But, again, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Results determine whether the differences are costly or not.

I mean, sure. 1♠-P-2♦-2♥ looks worse than 1♠-P-1NT-2♥, because the diamonds have not been mentioned. However, is that clear?

When the 2♥ competition hits, the 2/1 GF folks have an established max for Responder, whereas the 2/1 NGF have an established min. Which is better? I'm not sure unless I see results.

Consider, though, the different issues for Responder. If his call was 1NT, he has the ability with a maximum to aggressively show patterns, whereas if the call was 2♦ he has a minimum and is somewhat compelled to slow auctions down, which limits his ability to show patterns.

Consider also the job for Opener. If Responder's call showed values, he is at liberty to bid with partner's values, but then his calls do not define his strength as well. In contrast, if Responder only bid 1NT, then Opener's calls are less enabled but conversely then more descriptive of held strength.

[Jinksy]

han, on 2011-December-03, 06:07, said:

Given a sensible system, it is very hard to construct a pair of hands where you can't bid to the optimal spot seeing both hands. Adam's hand above is a good example where 2/1 makes it easier to bid the grand. But Jinsky, if you are stubborn and you want to convince yourself that your sensible NF2/1 system is better, it should be easy to find a sequence in your system where you would do just as well.

That's not what I'm looking for. I'm after a sense of the kind of hands on which 2/1 helps, and why. (and thanks to those who've provided them)

[Jinksy]

kenrexford, on 2011-December-04, 11:18, said:

The way in which non-GF would in a theoretical discussion possibly have an edge over 2/1 GF would be in that sliver of hands appropriate for a 2/1 non-GF stuck into 2/1 GF's 1NT.

That's not true. Every time you have the auction 1M 1N you've benefited, since you now know more about responder's hand. So actually it's only on hands where responder does have a GF that you clearly benefit, which must be well under 50%.

[phil_20686]

Jinksy, on 2011-December-05, 07:16, said:

That's not true. Every time you have the auction 1M 1N you've benefited, since you now know more about responder's hand. So actually it's only on hands where responder does have a GF that you clearly benefit, which must be well under 50%.

Your missing the key point - you are only losing where partner has a weak hand and the opponents cannot bid. This is really quite rare in expert bidding. In fact I would say that in over half on auctions where you have invitational auctions the opponents will get into the auction. If the opps get into the auction immediately, then both systems are the same. Talking about constructive methods when the opposition is silent is sensible when you and your partner hold the balance of points. When the points are close to 50-50 you are living in a dream world if you imagine you are having the auction to yourself.


Sometimes you gain because partner kept the bidding lower when he has, for example, and invitational NT hand. When I open 1 spade and partner responds 2N with Qx KQx xxxx KJxx, as is common in old school acol, I am not well placed when partner has

AKxxx Axx - AQxxx

if partner bid 1N, and I could bid 3C GF 5-5 I am much happier.

A more common example is when you can play 1N instead of 2N when I open with KQTxx AJx Axx xx and it goes 1S-1N AP, when in std it might go 1s-2c-2s-2n AP.

[Flem72]

Another common situation: Hands where O has a max-below-jump shift rebid hand and R has a good game raise, and must jump to 4M to show it, stealing slam investigation space.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2011-December-05, 06:28, said:

I mean, sure. 1♠-P-2♦-2♥ looks worse than 1♠-P-1NT-2♥, because the diamonds have not been mentioned. However, is that clear?

When the 2♥ competition hits, the 2/1 GF folks have an established max for Responder, whereas the 2/1 NGF have an established min. Which is better? I'm not sure unless I see results.

Did you say that backwards?

[Cascade]

Flem72, on 2011-December-05, 09:10, said:

Another common situation: Hands where O has a max-below-jump shift rebid hand and R has a good game raise, and must jump to 4M to show it, stealing slam investigation space.

What auctions are you talking about?

Is responder bidding a 2/1?

1♠ 2♣
2♦ 4♠

There is some loss of space on this auction but a good system should never or at least very seldom need to jump to game here. For example we play 3♠ is forcing.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-05, 10:06, said:

Did you say that backwards?

No, he didn't... but I am not sure he is correct. Is there really a theoretical maximum for the forcing NT?

[Flem72]

Cascade, on 2011-December-05, 11:40, said:

What auctions are you talking about?

Is responder bidding a 2/1?

1♠ 2♣
2♦ 4♠

There is some loss of space on this auction but a good system should never or at least very seldom need to jump to game here. For example we play 3♠ is forcing.

Sure--good pairs will always recognize systemic problems and try to figure out ways around them. But that seems to be a bit beyond the OP question, which I think should be understood to address very basic structures, since both 2/1 and SA can be tricked-out in detail? And there is always 1S-2X/2S-? and 1M-2X/2N-?.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2011-December-05, 06:28, said:

When the 2♥ competition hits, the 2/1 GF folks have an established max for Responder, whereas the 2/1 NGF have an established min. Which is better? I'm not sure unless I see results.

aguahombre, on 2011-December-05, 10:06, said:

Did you say that backwards?

Vampyr, on 2011-December-05, 11:57, said:

No, he didn't...

O.k. Let us start from the basics. 2/1 G.F. establishes a minimum for responder's game force (The short term is "min", not "max"). If the rest of the points in the deck are the maximim, then I guess it establishes a maximum also. For NGF people 1NT establishes a maximum of less than game force, the minimum is probably around 6 HCP.

If the above is not true on other planets, then Ken did not say it backwards.

[mike777]

One recent hand in the ACBL magazine bidding quiz was too much for us. It appears to be a hole for us that we live with.


opener has a minimum hand with spades and diamonds and 3h say 5341 and responder has a solid invite with 5h.


1s=1nt
2d=2nt
p


2nt was down off the top while 4h makes.

--


Some deals where responder is weak with a long minor can be an issue at times if the opp are silent which granted is rare.

--

I think there are some minor suit slams that are a bit easier bid in non 2/1 systems.

--


We play a sf nt where we throw alot of hands with quite a wide range into sf1nt combined where one level openings are often a bit light.

that means a basic auction such as:

1h=1nt
2m=2h can be pretty wide. so far this does not seem to be that big of an issue at the table but one you need to be willing to play

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2011-December-05, 12:25, said:

One recent hand in the ACBL magazine bidding quiz was too much for us. It appears to be a hole for us that we live with.


opener has a minimum hand with spades and diamonds and 3h say 5341 and responder has a solid invite with 5h.


1s=1nt
2d=2nt
p

It is a hole when opener is not accepting the 2NT invite; we play in 2N instead of 3H. It is not a hole if game is being accepted, because experienced players have learned to bid 3H while accepting.

IMO, it is no worse to live with than when people rebid 1NT after a 1H response with 4 in the spade suit and lose the spade partial or have to overburden checkback methods to recover.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-05, 12:10, said:

O.k. Let us start from the basics. 2/1 G.F. establishes a minimum for responder's game force (The short term is "min", not "max"). If the rest of the points in the deck are the maximim, then I guess it establishes a maximum also. For NGF people 1NT establishes a maximum of less than game force, the minimum is probably around 6 HCP.

If the above is not true on other planets, then Ken did not say it backwards.

In the given auction, the 2/1GF pair bid 1NT, which establishes a maximum (though I wonder just what that is). The non-GF pair have bid 2/1, establishing a minimum of 9 or 10 points for responder.