[blackshoe]

Point taken, and there are some hands I would take that approach, but I would rather have a better club suit. Hm. Maybe the hand with the better club suit should splinter. I'll have to think about that.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2012-April-16, 17:36, said:

I am not sure, but I would actually be surprised to find out that repeating a major with a 5-card suit is deemed "standard" in a 2/1 context. I understand that there is a lot of popularity to that approach, but "standard" seems to imply either majority or majority in the context of mainstream or at least expected in the context of "no discussion." In running a Google search on this, I ran into Larry Cohen claiming that a rebid promises 6 and Eric Rodwell saying that it promises six. If I recall correctly, the basic difference is between Hardy and Lawrence, with lawrence thinking being along the "nopt necessarily GF" strain and hence not 2/1. Something similar, but not true 2/1GF, as the lack of the GF makes it not GF.

My point, though, was not that Mike made an assumption (apparently a Lawrence assumption) but that my assumption (Hardy/Cohen/Rodwell?) was attacked as some sort of trolling or something.

That said, I remain questioning as to whether 5+ is in fact "standard" for 2/1. I would expect 6+ to be "standard."

I think 1S-2C, 2S is almost certainly a 6-cd suit but 1S-2D, 2S and even more so 1S-2H, 2S may easily be 5-cd suits. The tighter the space, the more care one should take using it.

For example, 1S-2H, 2S leaves responder a temporizing bid of 2N. 1S-2H, 2S-3N can be used to show a strong NT strength.

[32519]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 20:13, said:

I don't get around to reading all of the threads so I have missed the other discussions, or forgotten. If anyone can post links to them it would be appreciated, I'm not great at finding old threads.

Jacoby 2NT: Recommended Continuation Bidding Structures

I’m Convinced – It’s Time to Dump Jacoby 2NT

The second thread picked up a lot of flack.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 14:47, said:

I would always bid 2N with this hand, never 2♣ so this is a very interesting discussion. I would not splinter here, my hand is a little too strong.

As phil_20686 touches on, I play 2C/1M as gf clubs or balanced, most often a 3 card M raise and this is not a hand I would have made a gf 'clubs' bid on. How does this agreement affect this appraoch? Partner does not know I have clubs until later, 2♣/1M I could be as few as 2. (yes, we alert)

Ken , fwiw I play 1M 2m 2M as 5+

The meaning of a 2C response has an effect, and also to be taken into account is your J2N response
structure.

Bidding 2C is providing information to partner, bidding J2N is asking for further information.

So the strength and weakneses of the involved players has also an effect.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Flameous]

I don't have way to show 4th trump after 2/1 so I don't use it unless I know the fourth trump is close to meaningless.

Here the fourth trump is really relevant so I must let partner know about it. I'm lucky playing fitjumps so I'd go with 3♣. I think I'd prefer appropriate strength splinter before J2NT with this hand.

[broze]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-16, 18:03, said:

How do you get 2C to always show 5 after 1S? I play the others as 5, but 2C is clubs or balanced because otherwise I am doomed with hands like:

S: Ax
H: Axxx
D: Axxx
C: AKx

Or is it (4)5+?

For balanced GF hands over 2♠ specifically, we use 2NT as 13-15 HCP balanced (or 19+ - as in the hand you post) and 3♦ as 16-18 balanced, both with relay continuations. Over 2♥ we use 2♠ and 3♣ respectively. Some might call this wasteful and no doubt the 2♣ bid covering all balanced hands is better, but this has worked very well for us, and as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

the hog, on 2012-April-16, 22:48, said:

True, however your partner will know that you have a decent 5 card suit and will be able to value the Qx of ♣
2C is a far superior bid, (as is a splinter for that matter.) Mike commented that the hand was too strong for a splinter, however you can of course, play 2 ranges of splinter. (eg over 1S 3NT = 13-14 any, and 4? = 10-12). I still prefer 2C and think jacoby is a joke on this hand.

Out of curiosity, do you bother with reading the whole thread before your post. Everything you've written has been said already (almost verbatim).

[phil_20686]

Re splinters:

It seems that there are several competing concerns here. Firstly, if they are unlimited, they are poorly defined, and its hard for partner to judge intelligently what to do. If they are too narrowly defined they become uncommon. Even if narrowly defined, one should ask what range will most commonly lead to good slams. I would imagine most slams occur with points roughly evenly balanced, so for a narrow range 12-14 is probably the most helpful. Further, if you are shortening the splinter range, you must put a bunch of those hands into jacoby.

I would guess that the 9-12 range arises out of a desire to keep jacoby as 12+. However, in this part of the world, many have moved to playing jacoby as invitational+, this treatment has many advantages, as the opponents find it more difficult to interfere over 2N when it is an invitation, as they need to keep constructive over calls. Moreover it fits naturally into the style of having 3c=minimum. It raises some difficulties when partner shows extras, as you have a wider range to differentiate, but since his most common bids show shortage and those shortages might generate wastage, you have to deal with these strength of hands anyway.

Thus, I think that the splinter is best used to remove the weaker hands with shortage from jacoby completely, and play it as 10-14 ish, so hands which always want to be in game, but not so strong that they can largely take control of the auction.

Re 2C vs 2N/splinter

I am not a huge fan of the positions put out onthis thread about a "trick source" and bidding 2C when you have a really good suit. It seems to me that AKxxx plays well opposite just about any holding except xxx, and partner will not be ecstatic about xxx in any suit where I have not shown shortage. It seems much more logical to go the suit then support route when you have a broken suit like KJxxxx where you really want partner to devalue x and xx, and upgrade Qx Ax AQx in your suit. I think a hand like Axxx x Ax KJxxxx is perfect for a 2C bid then support.

Bidding two clubs will only help partner make a good decision if it gets him to correctly value his holding. There are no bad holdings opposite AKxxx(x) except xxx which he will always devalue, so what am I achieving? If he signs of because he has a stiff in my suit will I be happy? Qx is a great holding in a side suit opposite a splinter. so is QJx, you are happy if partner splinters has he has turned soft values into cards that are always working. Same with KJx heart. If partner holds Axxxx AKJ xxxx x why will will he realise he has a great hand after 1S-2c-2d-2S? Surely he has a clear downgrade as both people have shortage in their partners suits, Axxxx trumps opposite three card support doesnt seem great. This auction could easily go 1S-2c-2d-2s-4s from opener to show a minimum (if that is allowed in your system). Is that unlucky?

It just seems to me that bidding 2C with a suit that plays well opposite almost any holding will not improve partners decision making.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

the hog, on 2012-April-16, 22:48, said:

(snip)...... your partner will know that you have a decent 5 card suit and will be able to value the Qx of ♣
2C is a far superior bid....

This is another good point for 2C on this hand:

I don't know all of the nuances in KenRex's cue bidding, but even if there is NOT a double-fit auction ( my post # 31 ), if Opener cue bids Clubs, it shows 1 of the top 3 in partner's suit; or if Responder cue bids Clubs it shows TWO of top 3 .

1M - 2C!
2NT - 3M
4C! ( 1 of top 3 )

or
1M - 2C!
2NT - 3M
3NT - 4C! ( 2 of top 3 )

[Flem72]

Seems funny to me that no one has mentioned this typical form of (unopposed) 2/1 major-suit auction:

1S-2C/2D or 2H-3S, 1S-2D/2H-3S, 1H-2C/2D-3H

usually defined as 5+C, 4+ good M, therefore either 2-2 or 3-1 or 4-0. I realize that these forms

1M-2m/2M-3M

are now cloudy with respect to shape and quality of support, but 1M-2m/2M-4short is also possible here. Further, I really like the traditional "bid around the stiff' approach with unbalanced hands with strong support; this is a problem with 2/1 structures where responder denies primary support if s/he doesn't bid it at the rebid. Other forms, something like

1M-2m/2M-3om/3N-4M, 1H-2C/2H-2S/2N-4H,

can also be used to show this hand type. On the main issue, I would rather reserve J2NT for balanced, HCP kinds of hands; show source-of-trick suits with the 2/1 response; and splinter with less robust side-suits with good support and a control in the 3rd suit.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Jilly asked:

Quote

I don't get around to reading all of the threads so I have missed the other discussions, or forgotten. If anyone can post links to them it would be appreciated, I'm not great at finding old threads.

Here is another one from January which also has a "double-fit" in ♣ :

http://www.bridgebas...by-2nt-or-what/

Opener
KJ6
K9843
A
KJ52

Responder
void
AQ62
K865
AQ974

1H - 2C!
3C - 3H

Although Zelandakh is "big on relays" ( to say the least ) and also has a Splinter system for this type of hand,
he also showed the use of 6 Ace-RKC , Exclusion ( ♠-void ) for the above sequence ... to reach 7H.... in his post # 20 .
( Meckwell uses 4S! as kickback when ♥ are trump and 4NT! as Voidwood - ecluding ♠ )

After - 3H
3S - 4NT (X6KCB of course )
5D - 7H

[pooltuna]

If partner is obligated to show ♣ shortage over 2NT (or some shortage) I would prefer that call as it allows me to better evaluate the usefulness of my ♣ suit an acceptable alternative would be a call that shows my ♣ so partner is able to better evaluate his hand

[kenrexford]

pooltuna, on 2012-April-17, 09:47, said:

If partner is obligated to show ♣ shortage over 2NT (or some shortage) I would prefer that call as it allows me to better evaluate the usefulness of my ♣ suit an acceptable alternative would be a call that shows my ♣ so partner is able to better evaluate his hand

FWIW, Opener might be able to show a stiff club even if you bid 2♣.

Give partner something like 5431 or 5341 pattern. After your 2♣ call, he will bid his 4-card red suit. You then agree spades with 2♠.

Opener has two main ways to now show shortness in clubs.

First, regadless of your methods, Opener presumably could jump to 4♣:

1♠-2♣
2(redsuit)-2♠
4♣!

The second means to show a stiff clubs depends on methods. If Opener completes pattern:

1♠-2♣
2♦-2♠
3♥ or

1♠-2♣
2♥-2♠
3♦

If, instead, Opener cuebids after 2♠, then shortness also could be shown. One possible example sequence (using my cuebidding methods):

1♠-2♣
2♥-2♠
3♦(good trumps, none of the top three clubs, diamond control)-3♠(no heart control, the missing third spade honor)
4♣(non-serious interest contextually, control in hearts, control in clubs*)

*With none of the top three honors in clubs, the "control" must be shortness.

[the hog]

broze, on 2012-April-17, 02:51, said:

For balanced GF hands over 2♠ specifically, we use 2NT as 13-15 HCP balanced (or 19+ - as in the hand you post) and 3♦ as 16-18 balanced, both with relay continuations. Over 2♥ we use 2♠ and 3♣ respectively. Some might call this wasteful and no doubt the 2♣ bid covering all balanced hands is better, but this has worked very well for us, and as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.




Out of curiosity, do you bother with reading the whole thread before your post. Everything you've written has been said already (almost verbatim).

No, I only read those posters i deem worthy of being read. I made an exception in this case.

[the hog]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-17, 06:38, said:

Re splinters:

It seems that there are several competing concerns here. Firstly, if they are unlimited, they are poorly defined, and its hard for partner to judge intelligently what to do. If they are too narrowly defined they become uncommon. Even if narrowly defined, one should ask what range will most commonly lead to good slams. I would imagine most slams occur with points roughly evenly balanced, so for a narrow range 12-14 is probably the most helpful. Further, if you are shortening the splinter range, you must put a bunch of those hands into jacoby.

I would guess that the 9-12 range arises out of a desire to keep jacoby as 12+. However, in this part of the world, many have moved to playing jacoby as invitational+, this treatment has many advantages, as the opponents find it more difficult to interfere over 2N when it is an invitation, as they need to keep constructive over calls. Moreover it fits naturally into the style of having 3c=minimum. It raises some difficulties when partner shows extras, as you have a wider range to differentiate, but since his most common bids show shortage and those shortages might generate wastage, you have to deal with these strength of hands anyway.

Thus, I think that the splinter is best used to remove the weaker hands with shortage from jacoby completely, and play it as 10-14 ish, so hands which always want to be in game, but not so strong that they can largely take control of the auction.

Re 2C vs 2N/splinter

I am not a huge fan of the positions put out onthis thread about a "trick source" and bidding 2C when you have a really good suit. It seems to me that AKxxx plays well opposite just about any holding except xxx, and partner will not be ecstatic about xxx in any suit where I have not shown shortage. It seems much more logical to go the suit then support route when you have a broken suit like KJxxxx where you really want partner to devalue x and xx, and upgrade Qx Ax AQx in your suit. I think a hand like Axxx x Ax KJxxxx is perfect for a 2C bid then support.

Bidding two clubs will only help partner make a good decision if it gets him to correctly value his holding. There are no bad holdings opposite AKxxx(x) except xxx which he will always devalue, so what am I achieving? If he signs of because he has a stiff in my suit will I be happy? Qx is a great holding in a side suit opposite a splinter. so is QJx, you are happy if partner splinters has he has turned soft values into cards that are always working. Same with KJx heart. If partner holds Axxxx AKJ xxxx x why will will he realise he has a great hand after 1S-2c-2d-2S? Surely he has a clear downgrade as both people have shortage in their partners suits, Axxxx trumps opposite three card support doesnt seem great. This auction could easily go 1S-2c-2d-2s-4s from opener to show a minimum (if that is allowed in your system). Is that unlucky?

It just seems to me that bidding 2C with a suit that plays well opposite almost any holding will not improve partners decision making.

What are you missing? The fact that Qx opposite AKxxx amy give you 5 tricks and should give you 4. Now Qx opposite Kxx(x) will give you how many?

[32519]

Here is another hand that someone else posted where a ♣ slam was lost due to the fixation of bidding Jacoby 2NT. In post 3 to this thread (bottom of the post) Ken Rexford gave his opinion on Jacoby 2NT.
What I like about comments such as this is:
1. It gets us to re-evaluate mainstream accepted bridge conventions, and
2. It forces us to reassess whether our bidding agreements are optimal or not.

Go Ken!

[CSGibson]

Flem72, on 2012-April-17, 09:01, said:

Seems funny to me that no one has mentioned this typical form of (unopposed) 2/1 major-suit auction:

1S-2C/2D or 2H-3S, 1S-2D/2H-3S, 1H-2C/2D-3H

usually defined as 5+C, 4+ good M, therefore either 2-2 or 3-1 or 4-0.

See reply #12

[phil_20686]

the hog, on 2012-April-17, 18:23, said:

What are you missing? The fact that Qx opposite AKxxx amy give you 5 tricks and should give you 4. Now Qx opposite Kxx(x) will give you how many?

I am not "missing it" I just think its not as important as all the times that partner will devalue his hand based on having a stiff in your suit. How will you differentiate this hand later from

Kxx Axxx x KJxxx

AQxxx Kxx Axxx x


Compared to
Kxxx Axx x AKxxx


AQxxx Kxx Axxx x

On the first one we want south to devalue his hand for a singleton in partners suit, on the second one south has the same hand and the same sequence, but is now meant to ignore it. If you start with 1s-2c-2d-2s on these hands, how can you expect south to make good decisions in both cases? Now will north's bidding differ now so as to make clear that souths club singleton is valuable in one and rubbish in the other? How will north reveal his ninth trump to south, who can then upgrade his diamond holding, as an extra trump is surely an extra trick opposite this diamond holding.

I'd like to see some constructions where bidding 2C actually matters with a club holding of AKxxx and a 4315 shape? Cause I honestly can't think of any where partner doesnt make good decisions after a splinter.

[Cyberyeti]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-18, 03:53, said:

I'd like to see some constructions where bidding 2C actually matters with a club holding of AKxxx and a 4315 shape? Cause I honestly can't think of any where partner doesnt make good decisions after a splinter.

There can be hands with a stiff ♦ where you need to distinguish between ♥Qxx ♣AKxxx and ♥Qxxxx ♣AKx particularly opposite say ♥A ♣Q ♦AKQ where in the former case all the losers disappear, but not in the latter.

[phil_20686]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-18, 04:07, said:

There can be hands with a stiff ♦ where you need to distinguish between ♥Qxx ♣AKxxx and ♥Qxxxx ♣AKx particularly opposite say ♥A ♣Q ♦AKQ where in the former case all the losers disappear, but not in the latter.

Obviously, but the important question is, can you distinguish it. I want to see a believable construction with a 4315 shape and AKxxx clubs.

Besides which, the question we are trying to answer is whether bidding 2c works better than splinter when you hold specifically AKxxx. I think bidding a suit works much better when the suit is poor, like Qxxxx♥ in your example. Then you really do need partner to provide some cards there to give you any tricks at all. If you ahve that agreement, then a splinter may contain a long good suit, but never a long poor suit, so these are distinguished by implication.

[Cyberyeti]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-18, 04:14, said:

Obviously, but the important question is, can you distinguish it. I want to see a believable construction with a 4315 shape and AKxxx clubs.

Besides which, the question we are trying to answer is whether bidding 2c works better than splinter when you hold specifically AKxxx. I think bidding a suit works much better when the suit is poor, like Qxxxx♥ in your example. Then you really do need partner to provide some cards there to give you any tricks at all. If you ahve that agreement, then a splinter may contain a long good suit, but never a long poor suit, so these are distinguished by implication.

Sorry, my edit to my post crossed with yours.

Where it works better than splinter would be:

AQxxx, Axx, Ax, QJx where you need to know about the 5th club to dispose of the third heart