From: milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Brian Bankler)
Subject: Re: bidding
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:18:30 GMT

In article <16310@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel) writes:
>
>  There has been some discussion of the meaning of 1H-2D-3C
>playing a 2/1 system. I believe that most experts play this
>in one of two ways: i) to show extra values and 4+ clubs;
> ii) to show 5 clubs, need not have extras. My guess is that
>the first is most common. The second has been advocated by
>Marty Bergen in the ACBL bulletin.
>Very few would bid 3C on a minimum 5-4 hand systemically. 

	I took up the arguement that some people do play i).  That doesn't 
mean I believe it.  Quite a few players I have seen play in the Baltimore/DC
area (and quite a few in San Antonio) routinely bid with minimum 5-4.

>There are several sound reasons for this style. First it is not
>a good idea to make a space consuming bid which does not closely
>define your strength or distribution (and also which leaves several
>possible strains open and does not convey critical information).

  	Yes, 3C consumes space, but the real question comes down to ...
"What is necessary to _closely_ define a hand?"  I grant that hands
that are 5-5 (method ii) you have a definite gain, but what about the much
more common 5-4s?

>oN a more general note, if you play 2/1, but have almost no way to
>show extra strength below 3NT then you will have a difficult time
>bidding slams when both hands have moderate extra values.

	Hurm.  That is a touchy subject, and depends on 1) opening NT style
(Do you open 1NT with KJxxx AQ Kxx Kxx or the like?  Or do you play that
1M-2m*-3N shows 15-17 with a 5 card major and probably only 2 in the other
major?  Or maybe just shows 5M and balanced.)  2) Style of scoring (obviously
at matchpoints the slam arguement isn't important, 3) Opening light and
as a corolarry _Is your 2/1 100% GF?_  I mean 13+ HCP can't stop below 3N
or heaven help you.


>wITh regard to one example hand given by Ted Ying: x/AKxxx/Qxx/Kxxx,
>If you bid 1H-2D-3C you must either correct 3N to 4D, or never show
>your diamond support. Raising directly to 3D or rebidding 2H (planning
>to support diamonds next) are both better plans (however, I will admit
>that you will never be fully comfortable choosing between diamonds and
>notrump without showing your stiff spade).
>
>It is also worth noting that if you insist on having a 2H rebid show 6
>after 1H-2D you will be forced into some unattractive rebids. With
>xxx/AKJxx/Jx/Axx you must rebid a stopperless and unpositional 2N.
>Once you accept that you will be pretty much forced to bid 1H-2D-2H on
>some hands with five, it then becomes very attractive to use this
>as a catchall bid for most minimums (and some non-minimums which are
>flawed for strong bids).

	You may be right, but you just have to look at what you've given
up.  The ability to tell between a 5 or 6 card major has to be worth something.
And, if you plan on rebidding your suit at the 3 level to let this info know,
then all that I know (as responder) is you have a 6 card major.  And an opening
count.  What do you do with AKxxxx x xx KQxx.  You rebid 2H.  Now, if partner
rebids 2N what do you do?  And over 3D you have no way to show the hand below
3NT.
	As for stopperless NTs, this is a personal matter.  All hands are going
to have rebid problems.  I would bid 2N with the above xxx AKJxx Jx Axx.  Of 
course, if I felt like it, maybe I would manufacture a 3C bid.  At matchpoints
I bet that 80% of the time partner will bid 3NT after that (remember, my 3C
doesn't show extras).  And, even if he doesn't, if the reason that I don't bid
NT is that the hand is too suit  oriented, how far wrong can I be if I mention
my "second suit".

	I think that a lot of the differences come from style of 2/1, but even
so, I think that the 5-4 minimum hands will be much more common than either
the extra values (presumably 15+) _that won't be opened 1NT_ (that is stylistic,of course) or the 5-5 hands. 

	And, as a final note, all systems are going to have "problem hands"
Yours, Mine, and Buddhas.  Really we just have to settle down and compare
which losses least (or gains the most).  

				Brian

[As for Ted Yings Hand, yes, I would pass 3NT after 3C.  Partner never heard
me declare a spade stop.  Even if he has only 1 and I don't have the help he
wants, I do have help in diamonds, and presumably he plans on tricks from one
of our suits...at IMPS I might do the same, but I would be less sure about it.]


>Chip Martel
>UC Davis


-- 
Crowley -- An Angel who did not so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards
	*** Brian Bankler milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ***
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge