[gnasher]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

We use other major as slam try in transferred suit. It obviously comes at a price of losing one way to show major 2 suiter which may hurt if you play pupper stayman.
That would make bidding this somewhat easier here though.

Shouldn't you be telling us that the answer is not to play a system which requires you to skip two levels of bidding on good hands?

[bluecalm]

Quote

Shouldn't you be telling us that the answer is not to play a system which requires you to skip two levels of bidding on good hands?

Why ?
I bashed some very bad methods in other threads but it doesn't mean I bash every convention there is.
It's not like there is some easy improvement over standard agreements after strong 2nt opener.

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

Quote

Shouldn't you be telling us that the answer is not to play a system which requires you to skip two levels of bidding on good hands?

Why ?
I bashed some very bad methods in other threads but it doesn't mean I bash every convention there is.
It's not like there is some easy improvement over standard agreements after strong 2nt opener.

I meant that it's an improvement to play a system where strong hands open 1♣ rather than 2NT.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I meant that it's an improvement to play a system where strong hands open 1♣ rather than 2NT.

I don't consider it to be obvious improvement at all.
Most of my bridge experience is from playing playing a system where all strong bal hands open 1♣ and I like strong 2NT now.

I mean at least strong 2NT make it easier in different areas. It's also what majority of elite players play.
Case with jumping around with 2card suits to show 17 count is completely different

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

With that knowledge, partner may, with an exceptional hand, bid 7♠, but he's not particularly invited to do so.

I agree with this, isn't that what we want to do? I have a balanced 13 count I'm not particularly inclined to invite 7 except if partner has some exceptional hand with 3 or 4 spades (over a super accept we can keycard of course).

I think partner with 3 trumps and a good source of tricks can bid 7 on this auction which is what we want, not just a random max with 3 trumps.

I admit if partner's source of tricks is diamonds, he won't know to bid 7 as we have the fitting AKx, but at least NT should be fine in that case. I fully expect to get to 7S oppoiste like AKQxx of clubs though and Kxx of spades.

[fred]

Sorry if someone mentioned this already...

A clever idea (that was invented by Rodwell I think) works well for hands like this:

Bid Jacoby and then auto-respond to RKCB at the 5-level (5S in this case).

This means: "I am 5332 with enough strength to force to 6NT. We may have a grand slam. You now know how many keycards I have. Do something intelligent."

If partner's idea of something intelligent is to ask for Kings, you can now show your King of diamonds.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 03:07 PM, said:

Quote

I meant that it's an improvement to play a system where strong hands open 1♣ rather than 2NT.

I don't consider it to be obvious improvement at all.
Most of my bridge experience is from playing playing a system where all strong bal hands open 1♣ and I like strong 2NT now.

I mean at least strong 2NT make it easier in different areas. It's also what majority of elite players play.
Case with jumping around with 2card suits to show 17 count is completely different

I let this go in the other thread, but you play a strange form of NA standard if you think that it is normal to open 1♦ and 'jump around with 2 card suits' with a 17 count.

It's one thing to criticize a method: it is something else, and either less honest or at least misleading, to begin by distorting the method and then criticizing that part that you have distorted.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

With that knowledge, partner may, with an exceptional hand, bid 7♠, but he's not particularly invited to do so.

I agree with this, isn't that what we want to do?

Yes, if it's a choice between making that or make a stronger, but equally non-specific, invitation. I just think it would be nice to be able to get to 7♠ when he doesn't have an exceptional hand but it is making because of how our cards mesh.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

With that knowledge, partner may, with an exceptional hand, bid 7♠, but he's not particularly invited to do so.

I agree with this, isn't that what we want to do?

Yes, if it's a choice between making that or make a stronger, but equally non-specific, invitation. I just think it would be nice to be able to get to 7♠ when he doesn't have an exceptional hand but it is making because of how our cards mesh.

Ya I agree. Fred's suggestion is the best if you play it, 3H then 5S then 6D over 5N describes our entire hand.

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 09:07 PM, said:

I don't consider it to be obvious improvement at all.
Most of my bridge experience is from playing playing a system where all strong bal hands open 1♣ and I like strong 2NT now.

I mean at least strong 2NT make it easier in different areas.

That's the only reason to play it any system. You can't actually like opening 2NT - it's awful. Game bidding is no more sophisticated than counting your trumps; slam bidding is the same except that sometimes you get to count your points as well.

I'm surprised that playing Polish club you need to play a natural 2NT opening. Can't you bid 1♣-1♦;1NT with 18-20 and 1♣-1♦;2NT with 21-22/3? Rebidding 2NT opposite a negative is significantly better than opening it; even if your game-bidding isn't much improved, at least you haven't messed up the slam auctions.

Quote

It's also what majority of elite players play.

So what? What matters is how good it is, not who plays it.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

With that knowledge, partner may, with an exceptional hand, bid 7♠, but he's not particularly invited to do so.

I agree with this, isn't that what we want to do?

Yes, if it's a choice between making that or make a stronger, but equally non-specific, invitation. I just think it would be nice to be able to get to 7♠ when he doesn't have an exceptional hand but it is making because of how our cards mesh.

Ya I agree. Fred's suggestion is the best if you play it, 3H then 5S then 6D over 5N describes our entire hand.

Indeed!

Opener has a very good sense of where to place the contract across from ♠AQ-5th, ♦AK...

[bluecalm]

Quote

I'm surprised that playing Polish club you need to play a natural 2NT opening. Can't you bid 1♣-1♦;1NT with 18-20 and 1♣-1♦;2NT with 21-22/3?

You can play that way and most polish players do that. I playd that way for most of my bridge life. It's very hard to untangle and lead to problems every time opener is just 18+ (1c - 1s -2nt - ? and you are lost with 10-11hcp balanced for example). It's for sure playable though I just don't like it.

I like the idea Fred mentioned. It seems that bids at 5 level are not used for anything frequent anyway, especially if you have some to show slam try in a major.
I think it came up recently in some other thread (about bidding after 1NT and transfer with flat strong hand). Rodwell should really write a book and sell it for like 500$/copy like those poker guys do...

[rhm]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

Quote

I'm surprised that playing Polish club you need to play a natural 2NT opening. Can't you bid 1♣-1♦;1NT with 18-20 and 1♣-1♦;2NT with 21-22/3?

You can play that way and most polish players do that. I playd that way for most of my bridge life. It's very hard to untangle and lead to problems every time opener is just 18+ (1c - 1s -2nt - ? and you are lost with 10-11hcp balanced for example). It's for sure playable though I just don't like it.

I like the idea Fred mentioned. It seems that bids at 5 level are not used for anything frequent anyway, especially if you have some to show slam try in a major.
I think it came up recently in some other thread (about bidding after 1NT and transfer with flat strong hand). Rodwell should really write a book and sell it for like 500$/copy like those poker guys do...

I am not Polish, but I play that way. I would be interested to understand your point better. Let's take your example 1♣-1♠-2NT and what I believe is fairly standard Polish club:

At this point you are at 2NT in a game forcing sequence. Responder has shown 7+ points and at least 4 cards in ♠
Opener is known to hold 18+ (unlimited), but his distribution tends to be better defined:
Opener holds almost always a doubleton ♠ (xxx in a flat hand possible), at most a 4 card ♥ suit, a 5 card ♣ suit, or (rarely) a six card ♦ suit. Opener is balanced unless he holds a ♦ suit, in which case he might be semi balanced.
(1♣-1♠-3♥ shows 18+; 5 ♦, 4 ♥ and (1♣-1♠-3NT shows 18-20; 1=3=5=4 and these distributions tend to be excluded from 2NT, as are semi balanced hands with a ♣ suit)
Note that responder rebids can be natural over 1♣-1♠-2NT, no need for check-back Stayman etc, 3♠ simply shows a six card ♠ suit, 3♥ promises 5 ♠ and at least 4 cards in ♥. In particular responder can investigate minor suit contracts by simply bidding 3♣ or 3♦. (Of course you can also agree to play something more sophisticated here, for example 3♣ could be played as Puppet Stayman, but for the minors).

Compare this with a standard 2NT opening.

Here opener is severely limited in HCP, but his distribution is balanced or semi-balanced (including 5 card majors or six card minors). Nothing else is known.
Nothing is known about responders hand.
Minor suit bids (3♣, 3♦) by responder are geared to investigate major suit contracts. This means that responder must take an immediate decision, whether to risk bypassing 3NT to investigate minor suit contracts with little to guide him except openers overall strength. This frequently leads to bad guesses.

Do you really believe standard is in a better position here?
My impression is rather different: The many difficulties over standard 2NT have led to a lot of discussions, like the one here, what the optimal structure is over 2NT (Muppet Stayman etc.), while few Polish players bother to invest a similar amount of effort in their superior system over a 2NT rebid. There is of course much less need for that.

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

Quote

1♣-1♠-3♥ shows 18+; 5 ♦, 4 ♥ and (1♣-1♠-3NT shows 18-20

Yep. Those are new things though. Be aware that there are by no means standard in polish club yet.

Quote

Do you really believe standard is in a better position here?

The point is that in:

1♣ - 1M
2NT responder has problems because he doesn't know when to invite the slam. If he holds say 10-11 hcp it's very difficult to bid. Responder may want to be in 3NT opposite 18-19 but invite slam (maybe in minor) opposite stronger hand. He would like to just bid 3NT but he is afraid partner is say 21 and then he would like to make a slam try which will put partnership too high opposite minimum. Same goes for opener who doesn't know if his 20-21 is worth another move opposite signoff or not. Those occur not only in NT auctions. Even if it goes: 1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT - 3♦ - 4♦ for example you still don't know how much you can expect from opener and it makes making informed slam decisions difficult (and you by passed 3NT which sucks at MP's).
Even if it goes:
1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT - 3♠ - 4♣ (cue) you still don't know where you are the situation is again more comfortable if you could assume opener is just 18-19.


Compare this to situation from polish club with strong 2NT

1♣ - 1M
2NT = 18-19 or 22+; now responder is very comfortable. He just bid assuming 18-19 and if partner has 22+ he will make another move himself.

Also sequence from pc or precision:
1♣ - 1♦
1NT/2NT is very bad in pc because 1NT has very wide range: 18-21, 2NT = 22-23. It makes it difficult to bid and you often wind up in bad 2NT contract.
If 1NT is just 18-19 and 2NT is 22-23 the situation is much more comfortable.

In competitive auctions it comes back again, for example:

1♣ - 2♥ - dbl - pass

and now if you are 18+ balanced it's again very difficult to make slam decision for responder. If you can't be 20-21; then you bid 3NT with 18-19, 4NT with 22-23; easy game.

Another point is that I don't think 2NT sucks that much itself. People tend to remember disasters but tend to not noticing gains (because most fields everywhere plays strong 2NT so you don't notice what would field do not playing that).
I happen to mostly play in fields where majority of people don't use strong 2NT and I am very happy every time I can open it because I just shut down all the lead directing overcalls and I won't give too much information to them on my way to game.
If you start with 1♣ then they have a lot of space to both make lead directing overcalls and clatter your bidding.

Last point is that Meckwell stretch to open 2NT on every excuse making the bid practically 19-21 in their system. I am pretty sure they could handle those hands easily in their sophisticated system after 1♣ but still many 19's and almost all 20-21 resembling balanced shape (many 5-4's, 6-3-3-2's) go straight to 2NT.
Also in Poland many young pairs switched back to strong 2NT. For example Buras - Narkiewicz who were out leading pair in last ME.

[rhm]

bluecalm, on Aug 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

Also sequence from pc or precision:
1♣ - 1♦
1NT/2NT is very bad in pc because 1NT has very wide range: 18-21, 2NT = 22-23. It makes it difficult to bid and you often wind up in bad 2NT contract.
If 1NT is just 18-19 and 2NT is 22-23 the situation is much more comfortable.

You make some interesting points.

Curiously I always thought the above sequence was a strength not a weakness of pc by allowing you to stop in 1NT when partner is broke and you got 20 HCP.

Of course your sequence is even more comfortable when the sequence occurs for you, but it means you will be in 2NT (or higher) willy-nilly when you hold 20-21 HCP opposite a weak hand.

Whether to rebid 1NT over 1♣-1♦ or 2NT is a trade-off between playing the 1NT rebid wide ranging (bad) and staying low (not only in 1NT but also in 2 of a major or 3 of a minor) in case partner is weak (good) and having more room to find the best contract.

Initially the risk that partner is broke may be small, but not any more after the 1♦ response.
Still, I personally do not think the trade-off is worthwhile, because 21-HCP occur so much less often than say 18 HCP. (A balanced 18 HCP hand occurs about 10 times more often than a balanced 21 count)

So I keep my range 18-20 HCP, though I may downgrade a bad 21 HCP, but usually bid 2NT with 21-22 and force to game with 23 HCP. Your chances of running into trouble that way exists, but is much lower. For example a balanced 23 count opposite a balanced 0-1 count, where I will be in game, where some others may stop in 2NT occurs less than once per 40,000 deals. I have to worry about more frequent issues. (A balanced 20 count opposite a balanced 0-4 will occur once in 2000 deals and a balanced 21 count opposite a balanced 0-3 will occur once in 5000 deals)

But this is a trade-off where overall pc looks superior to me.
If you open with 2NT you give up this advantage.

With regard to Meckwell all I hear is hearsay, because they themselves keep their mouth shut about their motives. But I think the problems over precision 1♣ are different, because of the lower start of 1♣ and they may be unable to stop in 1NT anyway with 20-21 HCP.

Rainer Herrmann