[Phil]

I still like 2♥, but I don't hate 2N. I detest 3♦ for most of the reasons Josh mentions, especially the idea we can't sort out black suit stoppers.

2♥ still lets pard bid out a 5♠/6♦ hand whereas 2N does not.

Our hearts are pretty good. Its quite easy to construct hands where a 5-2 is way better than 3N. Most of the time, pard will be endplayed into 3N over 2N.

In spite of the 'range drift' of 1N that seems quite popular here, 2N for me shows real black suit stoppers or a good 13-14 5M332. This control rich minimum still wants to look for a suit, at least for now, especially without a diamond filler.

[y66]

In the Mike Lawrence 2/1 style, opener rebids 2N here to show a balanced hand with stoppers (12-14 OR 18-19).

In their new book on 2/1, Rodwell and Grant also recommend this style. Excerpt here.

Have to laugh at Han's comment about pet styles and data. I agree completely, but since when have proliferators of methods ever felt compelled to support their pet ideas with data? In bridge, "science" is a euphemism for complexity; it has nothing to do with empirical testing unfortunately.

In Modern American Bidding (2003), Beverly Kraft and Eric Kokish put minimum balanced hands in the 2M catchall. In this style, 2N shows 15+, balanced hands with stoppers. In BWS 2001, which they helped edit, 2N shows a minimum balanced hand. Would really like to know why they changed this. Perhaps, David_C's post accounts for this. Have not seen a better explanation.

[hanp]

y66, on Mar 13 2009, 08:46 AM, said:

Have to laugh at Han's comment about pet styles and data. I agree completely, but  since when have proliferators of methods ever felt compelled to support their pet ideas with data? In bridge, "science" is a euphemism for complexity; it has nothing to do with empirical testing unfortunately.

In retrospect I think I was overreacting. Unfortunately it is quite common for people to say that their method works well for them and usually it means nothing more than that they play it and are happy doing so. Of course that's fine.

I remember Edmunte similarly (though less aggressively) recommending rebidding clubs on ace-empty-fifth in another thread, and I reacted to that as well. I must say that Edmunte's recommendation seems a lot more reasonable to me than raising diamonds with this hand, but I can't really prove that bidding 3D is that bad. All I can do is duplicate Josh's effort of summing up all the problems with that style plus my own experience with auctions starting 1M-2m-3m.

In general I'd say that constructive auctions where a minor is bid and raised are more difficult than auctions where a major is raised, because in the case of a major that usually determines the strain while in the case of a minor it does not. That's why I think it is so important to distinguish the flat minimal hands from the hands that are much more suitable to play in 5D or 6D.

Also, given how descriptive 2NT is (5332 with stoppers in both unbid suits) and how much room there is left, bid_em_up would need to bring a very large friend to convince me that it is wrong.

[hanp]

Phil said:

Quote

2♥ still lets pard bid out a 5♠/6♦ hand whereas 2N does not.

1H -2D
2NT - 3S
4D - ??

I think we have to raise diamonds even though we have only 2 HCP in partner's suits. 3S should show a very distributional hand (at least 4-6 but one could argue it should show 5-6). With a 18-19 count we should bid 4C (with diamond support) or 4H (with 3 spades and no diamond support). I think that 4S would show something like KJx Axxxx Kx Qxx: a minimal hand with 3 spades (of course) suitable for playing in spades. If partner doesn't want us to bid 3NT with that he shouldn't bid spades.

Partner knows so much about our hand now (3532 or 2533 with 12-14 points and a stopper in each black suit) that it should be easy for him whether to offer 4S, ask for keycards, sign off in 5D or try for slam with 4H or 5C.

Let's compare with a 2H rebid:

1H - 2D
2H - 2S
3D - 3S
4S

Surely we have to show our diamond support now right? What does partner know about our hand? I think that partner actually knows less about our hand. We could have something nice like Kxx AJxxxx AJx x or something ugly like the actual hand. Well, no we can't because we would rebid 2NT with that .

[whereagles]

y66, on Mar 13 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

In their new book on 2/1, Rodwell and Grant also recommend this style. Excerpt here.

Guess I'll have to disagree with Rodwell. I firmly believe this strategy is wrong.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Mar 13 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

y66, on Mar 13 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

In their new book on 2/1, Rodwell and Grant also recommend this style. Excerpt here.

Guess I'll have to disagree with Rodwell. I firmly believe this strategy is wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have said why you believe that yet?

I guess anyone can disagree with Rodwell if they want, but I would hope they have a reason, other than that they take pride in it being impossible to convince them of anything.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 13 2009, 11:48 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have said why you believe that yet?

That is correct. I might say why tomorrow or the day after, if I bother. Right now I'm just going to get some sleep.

You know how dangerous it is to post when sleepy