From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:28:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1e9h4iINNcvh@sol.deakin.OZ.AU>, doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands) writes:
> In article <1e8q0vINN835@transfer.stratus.com: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
> :In article <9211160837.aa19948@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
> :> Playing 2/1 GF and no opposition how do you
> :> recommend bidding the following hands.
> :> 
> :> Opener:  KQxx,A,AQxxx,109x
> :> Responder: Ax,Qxx,10xx,AKQJ8
> :
> :     1D   2C (1)
> :     2S   3C (2)
> :     4C   4S
> :     6C   P
> 
> It seems to me that opener is not strong enough to reverse and you are also in
> murky water saying 3C is still gf.

These are system questions, and my annotations were intended to indicate that
in my preferred 2/1 system, 1D-2C really is game forcing, even if responder
rebids 3C.

In Hardy 2/1, 1D-2C is game forcing regardless of continuation (well, it could
possibly die in four of a minor if both hands are minimum and there's no fit),
and 1D-2C-2M does not show extra values.  In Lawrence 2/1, 1D-2C is only
invitational if responder rebids 2N or 3C, and 1D-2C-2M does show extra values.

This hand is an example of why I prefer to treat 1D-2C as strictly game forcing
-- I don't know how to bid this fine slam if it isn't.  (Note that this
treatment requires that 1D-2N and 1D-3C both show about 9+ - 12-.)

> I would have thought that it should start
> 
>        1D    2C
>        2D          this clarifies the diamonds and responder probably
>                    shouldn't support diamonds without an honor especially
>                    with a stop in both majors.

Opener's hand is worth 16 or 17 points.  Isn't that enough for a reverse that
promises extra values?

>              2N

Not forcing, according to Lawrence!  (1D-2C,2S-2N is forcing, since opener
has shown extra values.)

>        ...

The basic premise of the 2/1 system is that auctions starting with a truly
game forcing 2/1 become much simpler because both partners can bid without
worrying about which continuations are forcing.  This hand seems like a fine
example.  If 1D-2C doesn't create a game force, all sorts of problems emerge.
If 1D-2C does create a game force, then opener can simply bid his
second suit, responder can simply rebid his stellar five-card suit, opener
can show three-card support below game, responder can suggest a slam by
cuebidding below game, and opener, with extra values and control of the
other two side suits, can accept.

Defining all 2/1 sequences as game forcing requires several special agreements
to handle hands that would start with 2/1 in Standard American but aren't good
enough to force game.  Lawrence doesn't like some of those special agreements,
so he avoids them by making some 2/1 sequences not game forcing.  He gives up
easier auctions on some hands that are good enough to force game in exchange
for easier auctions on some hands that aren't good enough to force game.  He
also gives up the simplicity of the agreement that 2/1 is game forcing.  One
result:  he needs fifty-some pages in his book to discuss 1D-2C auctions (it's
much the longest chapter)!


                                    Tim