From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:49:10 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: levelland.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug25.201830.17065@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Brian Bankler) writes:
>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 is probably a difference in the respective definitions of
"expert" here.  Most of the better club players in my area who
use 2/1 also bid 1H-2D; 3C with a minimum 5-4.  These things are
relative.

>>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?

I don't follow this.  Is there a disagreement with the principle?
And we will see that as Bankler plays, the 3C rebid isn't very
well defined at all.

>>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.

Again, I don't follow.  Martel states a pretty obvious fact.  If
both players go about making minimum forcing bids on hands a trick
better than minimum until they reach game, slams will be missed.
Last I checked, getting to a good slam that the rest of the field
misses is worth about 70% of the matchpoints on average (top when
it makes, near bottom when it doesn't).  And missing good slams that
the rest of the field bids (although that's unlikely in the good
old US, where this approach to matchpoint bidding is widespread) is
a disaster.

>>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.

This one's easy.  The correct way to show a good 6-4 hand is to bid
first suit, second suit, first suit.  I do *not* rebid 2H on that
hand.  I rebid 3C.  "Extras" need not be high-card points.  This hand
is a mini-monster, and partner has shown [close to] an opening hand.
I wonder who has all the hearts.  Either the opponents are awfully
weak or partner was planning to reverse (which amount to the same
thing).

By bidding 2H and then 3D or 3H you show your distribution after
limiting the hand, since the immediate 3-level bid would presumably
have been stronger.  Since you're in a forcing situation you will 
have another bid.

>	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.

So what does 3C show?  A stopper in a minimum hand?  I admit that *I*
like to manufacture a 3C bid on Axx, but not on 13 HCP 5332.  It should
be because I want to say something -- in this case, the hand is too strong
to limit by a lower bid.

>	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. 

So it's an advantage that a space-consuming bid be both frequent and
poorly defined?  If that's the point, I disagree.

>	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).  

Finally something I agree with.  But we really *can't* compare gains
and losses, at least not directly.  If we could the system wars would
be over.  One thing I do is use one author's example hands with another
author's system, but even that has some problems.  There's a lot to
be said for arguing from basic principles.  I think I understand Martel's 
principles.  I'm sure I don't understand Bankler's.

In order to clarify what I *think* we are arguing about, I know of
three main approaches to the rebid of 2 of opener's major after a
2/1:

1. Old-fashioned (including K-S).  2M is strictly limited, to about
   14 HCP or the equivalent.  K-S tends to manufacture a bid in a
   3-card minor with hands that are too strong for a 2M rebid and
   not suitable for another bid, whereas Goren would rebid 2M on a
   wider range.

2. A particular style of 5-card majors, including a few 2/1 folks.
   2M is bid on all hands with 6 of the major not strong enough for
   a 3M rebid.  I've never seen this advocated in a book, but there
   may be one somewhere.  (I have actually heard the auction 1H-2D;
   3C-3D; Pass!  This auction seems a logical consequence of using
   "2M guarantees 6" when a 2/1 is not an absolute game force.)

3. 2M is a waiting bid made on a hand not suitable for any other
   call.

My own feeling is that #2 is best only when the opponents belatedly
enter the auction.  My major problem with #3 is that after 1H-2D;
2H, 4H is generally described as "Fast Arrival" (both Hardy and
Lawrence).  The range is about a trick.  Opener with a bit better
than half a trick above a minimum must guess whether to bid on.
Passing will miss some *easy* slams, and bidding will sometimes
get you a trick too high.  The problem with #1 is that you have to
become very good at playing 4-3 club slams or very cautious about
raising partner's 3C rebid.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)