[aguahombre]

fuburules3, on 2012-February-22, 13:52, said:

What is partner has a strong hand with a not so great heart suit, say

S: AK
H: Axxxxx
D: AKx
C: Qx

What will he bid over 4D (or will he not open 1H?)?

ArtK78, on 2012-February-22, 13:53, said:

I am sure some players (not me) would open 2NT. I would open 1H, but my rebid would be 2NT.

Yeh, Partner doesn't always respond 1S when I open this one 1H. If she does, I rebid 2NT. On a better day she will respond 1NT, and I can rebid 3NT which shows the sixth heart.

[ArtK78]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-22, 13:54, said:

Yeah 9 tricks, sorry. The point is that you have a hand which want to bid one suited GF an there is no such bid in sayc or 2/1.

ArtK78, on 2012-February-22, 13:29, said:

don't mince words - tell us how you really feel

I didn't. BBO filter did for me

How I feel about it:
There is something very wrong with teaching bridge. People are taught inferior illogical, hard to apply stupid system in the name of "standard" or "natural". Then they are faced with impossible problems like the hand given. Then when they come up with logical simple solution: "let's open 2C at least we are in GF auction now so we can exchange some information instead of jump rebidding 3card suits" they are told the hand "doesn't meet standards" for 2C opener.
People are taught "natural" but when:
1H- 1S
3D comes up they are told they shouldn't raise with support lightly because hey, that could be 3 cards (or 1 card...) because some 'experts' said so.

Suffice it to say that I don't open 2♣ on a hand like the 9 trick hand I used as an example. If I am playing NAMYATS, I would use it. Otherwise, I open 1♥.

Bidding after 2♣ openings, especially if responder has values, is awkward enough as it is. Adding strong one suited hands with many tricks but short on high-cards to the 2♣ basket makes bidding after the 2♣ opening even more difficult.

This seems to be an argument for strong club systems or other non-Standard systems. And maybe it is. I am learning Modified Fantunes for the BBF Pairs event this coming Sunday, and I would rather bid this hand in Modified Fantunes than in Standard. Sometimes it is nice to open 1♥ and know that partner cannot pass.

[bluecalm]

Quote

This seems to be an argument for strong club systems or other non-Standard systems.

I don't think it is.
It's argument for some solution to problems which are now solved in very inneficient way.
Old Polish solution is to bid 2N which is multimeaning and game forcing (either 5-4 GF or one suited GF). This is not perfect but at least clear and let the jumps be what they should be: 5-5 hands.
Other solution is to place many strong hands in multimeaning 2C rebid (Gazilli and similar) which might be very simple or very complicated depending on how you make it. Some other solution are transfers for example but those are a bit complicated.

The problem with "standard" is that in effect there is very inefficient artificial gadget: jump to 3m which means:
1H - 1S
3D = either 5+-5+ or 5-4/6-4 or one suited and clubs better than diamonds
3D = either 5+-5+ or 5-4/6-4 or one suited and diamonds better than clubs

This is obviously very bad design. Why is it promoted as "standard" and why it's called "natural bidding" instead of what it really is beyond me really.
For some reason though this illogical system is taught to beginners and intermediate players just because some guys in the past who didn't have much clue about bidding thought it's good way to play and couldn't conceive of better solutions.

If you really like standard structure you could at least agree that all one suited GF's go to 3C and 3D is normal and natural. Then introduce some kind of relay after 3C and maybe it's playable somehow.

[whereagles]

I find 4H as a "choice of games" bid, intending to "fix" the phony 3D jump shift, an even more agricultural bid than 3D itself. These so-called standard methods are beginning to border on the ridiculous and it's no wonder new people get confused.

[whereagles]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-22, 13:54, said:

you have a hand which want to bid one suited GF an there is no such bid in sayc or 2/1. (...) How I feel about it: There is something very wrong with teaching bridge.

The teaching is wrong because people teach technically wrong stuff. You need a systemic way to show a strong 2 type of hand and sayc and 2/1 don't have one. Everything is done on case-by-case basis. It's no wonder stuff becomes highly ambiguous.

There are some systemic ways out, say 1x-1y-3NT or opening 2C. I don't consider 1x-1y-3z a solution. It's more like sweeping the problem under a new rug (3z) than a solution.

My opinion is that you should just dump those hands into the strong 2C. That opening can take a beating and it's easy to adjust the system to cater for a lighter 2C. But then again people have silly prejudices. They think 2C must show the world and beyond.

[the hog]

johnu, on 2012-February-21, 03:57, said:

IIRC, there was a Bridge World Master Solver's problem from several years ago where the top score went to a jump shift on a singleton ace. A 3 card suit doesn't look so bad

Does this mean its good? Surely there are better ways to solve this problem.

[Statto]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-22, 14:23, said:

Adding strong one suited hands with many tricks but short on high-cards to the 2♣ basket makes bidding after the 2♣ opening even more difficult.

Your basket will usually be empty. "Not buying anything today, sir?"

Acol with 3 weak 2s is becoming increasingly popular in the UK. With these type of 9-9.5 playing trick hands with a big suit where you want to discover if partner has the relevant key cards for slam, you start with 2♣. A positive (non-2♦) response doesn't show HCP, as Quacks are likely to be useless, rather it shows a hand with some good control cards, a good suit (2/3 top honours) etc. After 2♣-2♦ with the quoted 9 trick hand, opener will probably sign off in 4♥ as it's unlikely partner will have the cards for slam. With the 9.5 trick hand in the other thread the rebid might be 3♥ setting trumps and inviting cue bidding. Sometimes you'll end up in a phantom game, other times you'll find the slam, but it means you don't have to corrupt and convolute your natural sequences so much.

PS. I'd bid 4♣ as 1st round control agreeing ♦ here.

[the hog]

Statto, on 2012-February-22, 18:25, said:

Your basket will usually be empty. "Not buying anything today, sir?"

Acol with 3 weak 2s is becoming increasingly popular in the UK. With these type of 9-9.5 playing trick hands with a big suit where you want to discover if partner has the relevant key cards for slam, you start with 2♣. A positive (non-2♦) response doesn't show HCP, as Quacks are likely to be useless, rather it shows a hand with some good control cards, a good suit (2/3 top honours) etc. After 2♣-2♦ with the quoted 9 trick hand, opener will probably sign off in 4♥ as it's unlikely partner will have the cards for slam. With the 9.5 trick hand in the other thread the rebid might be 3♥ setting trumps and inviting cue bidding. Sometimes you'll end up in a phantom game, other times you'll find the slam, but it means you don't have to corrupt and convolute your natural sequences so much.

PS. I'd bid 4♣ as 1st round control agreeing ♦ here.

And when your 2C opening based on this playing strength hand is pre empted, what does your partner do? Roll over and die?

2C (4S) X
Whoops sorry pd, I thought you had a 2C opening based on high cards.

[Statto]

the hog, on 2012-February-22, 19:49, said:

And when your 2C opening based on this playing strength hand is pre empted, what does your partner do? Roll over and die?

Ideally they'll table dummy before doing so. I bid 5♥ next whether pass or X. If NAMYATS were available I'd bid it on this hand, but I'm working on the premise it isn't.

Edit: I wouldn't have NAMYATS available, I find the 4m preempts very useful...

Edit2: You could make the same argument against Strong ♣ systems, it doesn't mean they are bad methods. On grounds of frequency this won't happen often. But on grounds of frequency if I have to wait until I have 10 solid tricks in hand before opening 2♣, I may as well play 4 weak twos...

[Cthulhu D]

I presume you just pull the double yeah, if you've decided to incorporate the extremely high playing strength hands into 2C, you will presumably discuss what 2C (4S) X (P) 5H shows. Though not sure a straight penalty double is the best bid there, it should be convertible values or similar and now the pull is clear.