[Jinksy]

A lot of the stronger players here prefer to bid a decent side suit in preference to showing a 4-card raise of P's major more often than I suspect I would - but I think there's a lot of disagreement among them about when?

Anyway, I'm looking for some general principles about when to prefer one over the other. Is it based primarily on the quality of the side suit, or are other factors (eg the quality of the trump suit/overall strength/shape of the hand etc) equally as important?

[Trick13]

Good question. Useful discussion about responding with a singleton here.

I have also wondered whether it is better to show a solid suit to partner compared to a semi-solid suit missing, say, one of the top three so that partner knows his side suit hono(u)r has struck gold.

I await enlightenment.

[jallerton]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-04, 14:11, said:

A lot of the stronger players here prefer to bid a decent side suit in preference to showing a 4-card raise of P's major more often than I suspect I would - but I think there's a lot of disagreement among them about when?

Anyway, I'm looking for some general principles about when to prefer one over the other. Is it based primarily on the quality of the side suit, or are other factors (eg the quality of the trump suit/overall strength/shape of the hand etc) equally as important?

A lot depends on system and style.

With one partner I play an old-fashioned system with strong jump shifts and space consuming continuations after 1M-2NT. With this partner it makes sense to show a decent side suit on the first round and then the support.

With other partners, when I can expect to have a sensible auction after a forcing raise, I prefer to show the 4-card support immediately. If you play 2/1 FG, what would partner expect you to hold if you bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠? Many play it as showing good clubs, but does it show 4-card support or can it be 3? Alternatively, Opener might rebid 2♠ or 2NT over 2♣. Now it's hard to see how Responder can distinguish between 3- and 4- card support.

[mikeh]

jallerton, on 2015-June-04, 16:48, said:

A lot depends on system and style.

If you play 2/1 FG, what would partner expect you to hold if you bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠? Many play it as showing good clubs, but does it show 4-card support or can it be 3? Alternatively, Opener might rebid 2♠ or 2NT over 2♣. Now it's hard to see how Responder can distinguish between 3- and 4- card support.

My experience is that it usually doesn't matter.

I think the focus on identifying responder's trump length is misguided in 2/1 auctions.

Put another way: with good support (3+) for opener's 5 card major and values for game, we have (at least) 3 initial plans: splinter, 2/1 in side suit, or J2N.

We can use splinter for minimum hcp value hands with 4+ trump and a stiff.

We can use J2N when we feel that, given our J2N structure, we are best placed to take control.

By definition, then, we use a 2/1 new suit for all hands on which we think a conversational approach to bidding is likely to be the best.

1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ is, for me, 3+ support....I can fake a 2♥ rebid on hands on which 2N or 3m is ill-advised.

I would never jump to 3♠, altho on thinking about it, maybe we can dedicate this to 4 card support, and maybe even some limited shape, such as 4=2=2=5.

When we establish at least a 5-3 fit in a gf auction at the 2-level, we have lots and lots of space in which to describe our respective interest in slams.

I think it far more useful for the partnership, in such auctions, to exchange information about slam interest than it is to specify how may trump we have. Of course, the better one's trump holding, the more inclined one is to be slam-positive. If I hold only 3 card support, especially modest cards in the suit, I will be more conservative in my slam probing than if I held, say, KQxx.

Thus we are influenced in our decision making by trump holdings, and a well-tuned partnership doesn't, imo, need to ask specific trump length questions in these sequences.

Another way of looking at it is that if our 4+ trump length is the best feature of our hand, then we should splinter or Jacoby.

[akwoo]

4+ trump length is less important when declarer's losers can be discarded on dummy's running side suit rather than ruffed.

Of course there are instances that declarer has so many losers that both are needed.

[aguahombre]

I have the misguided idea that contracts are about taking tricks, and believe bidding 2/1 with a 5+ side suit and major suit support gets our side rolling just fine.

The problem with J2N as I see it is that it is the default way of setting trumps with four of them and mere game interest; then Opener provides leakage about the hand which will be declaring -- the majority of the time useless to responder who just wanted to get to game. Kudos to those who use J2n only when they have slam aspirations and want to be in charge of the whole auction.

[mike777]

1) using the splinter option is often pretty easy. I assume splinter is limited hand.
The problem is when many play it unlimited.
2) 2nt in general asks partner to describe their hand in much more detail
3) bidding a side suit describes your hand but not the extra trump length.

On the forums many players prefer option 3 over option 2.
As a nonexpert player I tend to prefer option 2 over option 3. Option3 tends to much more complicated/judgement bids. I think the debate is open as to which wins more often but the more expert player tends towards option3.
------------
--------------

bottom line I think this is still an open question but a very important question to ask and discuss/argue/debate.

I suppose we can fall back on the old but true point that play of the hand and defense is still a more important question for the vast number of bridge players (me).

[blackshoe]

If you have a balanced minimum game force, say 12-15 or so, with four trumps, you can Swiss instead of Jacoby. You can't use the 4m bids for splinters then, but you can use three of the other major (Bergen) or 3over and 3under (Hardy) to show a splinter somewhere and sort it out later. Then you don't use Jacoby unless you've got at least a good 15 or more, which should help with slam bidding.

[WesleyC]

I've asked quite a few top players this question and based on the variety of responses, if you play natural 2/1s, it probably doesn't matter a huge amount, both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Decide what style you prefer and make sure you have good system to deal with it.

However, over the next few years I think that a 2/1 structure which incorporates 1M - 2C as the start of fully artificial relay sequence (including some hands with 4c support) is likely to become standard at the highest levels of bridge. Many world class pairs already use something like this idea, and I'd be surpised if it doesn't continue to gain popularity.

[mike777]

I have posted Chip's method of 1M=2c over the years. Chip got if from others.
He feels this is a very important method.

My notes are from 2010.

No doubt there have been improvements.

[Jinksy]

mikeh, on 2015-June-04, 17:34, said:

1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ is, for me, 3+ support....I can fake a 2♥ rebid on hands on which 2N or 3m is ill-advised.

I would never jump to 3♠, altho on thinking about it, maybe we can dedicate this to 4 card support, and maybe even some limited shape, such as 4=2=2=5.

What about (eg) 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 2♠? - ie where opener has no room for a cheap 4sf bid? Is 2♠ now normal 2-card preference? Would you now jump to 3 more frequently?

[aguahombre]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-05, 06:03, said:

What about (eg) 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 2♠? - ie where opener has no room for a cheap 4sf bid? Is 2♠ now normal 2-card preference? Would you now jump to 3 more frequently?

I guess you should have stipulated at the beginning whether you were playing standard or 2/1.

Your "normal" 2-card preference thing only applies if the 2C bid was some 10+ noise. In 2/1, after making a 2C g.f. bid a 2S continuation shows real spade support.

[ArtK78]

This issue has been discussed a number of times. I always return to this:

1) If I am likely to be in a position to determine the best contract by the answers that I get if I bid Jacoby 2NT, then that is the way I go. This is often true with a very strong responding hand.

2) If I can describe my hand precisely (for example, by splintering with a 4441 hand with 12-14 HCP and no honor in my short suit) so that partner will be in a good position to place the contract accurately, then that is the way I go.

3) If neither of these options appears to be best, then a cooperative auction (such as a 2/1 in a good 5 card suit) is probably the way to go.

Sometimes you cannot determine which is the best course. In that case, make your best guess and hope it turns out well.

[mikeh]

WesleyC, on 2015-June-05, 00:00, said:

I've asked quite a few top players this question and based on the variety of responses, if you play natural 2/1s, it probably doesn't matter a huge amount, both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Decide what style you prefer and make sure you have good system to deal with it.

However, over the next few years I think that a 2/1 structure which incorporates 1M - 2C as the start of fully artificial relay sequence (including some hands with 4c support) is likely to become standard at the highest levels of bridge. Many world class pairs already use something like this idea, and I'd be surpised if it doesn't continue to gain popularity.

I played a relay method in which a 2♣ response to 1M (or 1♦ for that matter) was artificial, gf, with relay responses, and it was extremely powerful. However, it was then and still is unplayable in most ACBL competitions, which means that for those of us who are not professional players, playing in events like the Spingold or Vanderbilt, etc, it makes little sense. It requires a tremendous amount of memory and if you only play the method once in a while, for enjoyment, it is difficult to justify the investment of effort.

As long as the ACBL's goal is to make life easy for the 98% of its membership who don't like to work at the game, these methods will be confined to other areas of the world or the tiny segment of players in NA who have the luxury of playing a lot of high level bridge (i.e. top pros and their clients).

[gszes]

aguahombre, on 2015-June-04, 21:32, said:

I have the misguided idea that contracts are about taking tricks, and believe bidding 2/1 with a 5+ side suit and major suit support gets our side rolling just fine.

The problem with J2N as I see it is that it is the default way of setting trumps with four of them and mere game interest; then Opener provides leakage about the hand which will be declaring -- the majority of the time useless to responder who just wanted to get to game. Kudos to those who use J2n only when they have slam aspirations and want to be in charge of the whole auction.

I am curious, if you decide to limit your use of J2N to these limited "kudos" circumstances how do you go about getting to major suit games <without providing "leakage">?

[jallerton]

aguahombre, on 2015-June-04, 21:32, said:

I have the misguided idea that contracts are about taking tricks, and believe bidding 2/1 with a 5+ side suit and major suit support gets our side rolling just fine.

The problem with advantage of J2N is that it is the default way of setting trumps with four of them and mere game interest; then Opener provides leakage does not give away unnecessary information about the hand which will be declaring -- the majority of the time useless to responder who just wanted to get to game. Kudos to those who use J2n only when they have slam aspirations and want to be in charge of the whole auction.

FYP.

On a hand where I would bid 1♥-2NT (limited Jacoby, as I play with one partner)-4♥-Pass or 1♥-2NT(any strength Jacoby, as I play with many others)-3♣(any minimum)-4♥-Pass, your 2/1 auction will allow Opener to show his side suit (or lack thereof) on the second round.

MikeH explains that there's lots of room after an auction starts something like 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥. How does he take advantage of the extra room? Some play that Opener patterns out on the third round. That's very helpful on routine game hands, very helpful for the defenders that is.

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-04, 14:11, said:

A lot of the stronger players here prefer to bid a decent side suit in preference to showing a 4-card raise of P's major more often than I suspect I would - but I think there's a lot of disagreement among them about when? Anyway, I'm looking for some general principles about when to prefer one over the other. Is it based primarily on the quality of the side suit, or are other factors (eg the quality of the trump suit/overall strength/shape of the hand etc) equally as important?

Acol players used to employ the so-called Delayed Game Raise [DGR]. With 4-card support, game values, and a good side-suit, they would first bid the side-suit and then raise to game e.g.
♠ K Q J x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ A Q J x x
Sometimes when opener had a secondary fit (e.g. ♣ K x, here), the DGR would facilitate reaching a slam on minimal values.
To disambiguate the DGR, the rule was that with other raises (e.g. jump-preference with 3 cards), you interposed another bid (e.g. 4SF). This was called taking the sting out of the delayed game raise.

[kuhchung]

nige1, on 2015-June-05, 17:01, said:

Acol players used to employ the so-called Delayed Game Raise [DGR]. With 4-card support, and a good side-suit, they would first bid the side-suit and then raise to game e.g.
♠ K Q J x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ A Q J x x
Sometimes when opener had a secondary fit (e.g. ♣ K x), the DGR would facilitate reaching a slam on minimal values.
To disambiguate the DGR, the rule was that with other raises (e.g. jump-preference with 3 cards), you interposed another bid (e.g. 4SF). This was called taking the sting out of the delayed game raise.

Modern players call this a picture bid.

[awm]

Here are the guidelines I generally use:

1. Four-card support, no five-card side suit. Always Jacoby (or splinter).
2. Three-card support. Always 2/1. I think the distinction between 3- and 4- support is important in slam bidding for a couple reasons. First, the queen of trump is really important in an eight-card fit, not so important in a 9+card fit. Second, void in the long trump hand is a huge asset in a 9-card fit but the tap is dangerous in an 8-card fit.
3. Four-card support with five-card side suit. If the side suit has two top honors the fitting honor from partner is of huge importance and I will make a 2/1 bid to try and emphasize this. You can make pretty light slams with say Kxxx Ax xx AQJxx opposite Axxxx xxx Ax Kxx for example. If the five card suit is weaker than this I'll bid Jacoby (or splinter).
4. When deciding between Jacoby and a splinter bid (with 4-support and shortness obviously) I tend to splinter with weaker hands (where I need a bit extra and the right holding opposite the shortage) or with hands where I can basically force slam if not off two keycards. The "in the middle" hands Jacoby.

Whether 2♣ relay solves these issues is not clear to me; it seems that relay has the same weaknesses as Jacoby when responder has a hand with a long suit and really needs to find that fitting honor. Relay saves you some space (and is a huge winner on balanced non-fit hands) but against this announcing the fit right away can be valuable if fourth hand decides to bid.

[aguahombre]

gszes, on 2015-June-05, 13:14, said:

I am curious, if you decide to limit your use of J2N to these limited "kudos" circumstances how do you go about getting to major suit games <without providing "leakage">?

We don't use J2N at all. Our focus is on Responder showing his/her size and shape. A direct 2NT response is old-fashioned presumed to be balanced and forcing with 2-card support for the major. Responder might have 3-card support and a quant bigger than shown, and thus show the major support next time.

The garden variety 13-16 balanced with 4 trumps bids an old-fashioned 3NT in response to 1M. Opener doesn't have to provide leakage, and is in charge.

The rare hand which wants to just set the major as trump and Wood, bids 3NT and then Woods; or he can splinter and then Wood for a space-saving exclusion (once every couple of years).