[shevek]

Assuming this is some 2-suiter, how is it best played?

Can play it as any 2-suiter, with 5m responses pass/correct.
One problem with that is missing a 5-5 heart fit when responder has, say
♠xxx  ♥xxxxx  ♦xx  ♣xxx
This looks like a 5♣ response but you'll feel silly if partner has hearts & clubs.

Another thought is 4NT as diamonds & another, so initially minors correcting with reds.
Again that risks missing a big heart fit when responder prefers diamonds to clubs.

Partly to avoid this, my partner reckons 4NT should be hearts & another. That gives up on both minors but you should be able to find your best fit otherwise. Have people heard of this? Does anyone play it?

He also reckons a sequence like
(1♠)   2♣   (2♠)   no
(no)   2NT

should 4♥s & 6♣s, not 4-6 minors as commonly played.

This post has been edited by shevek: 2009-December-30, 07:04

[gwnn]

4-6 in the minors? huh? I've never heard about that treatment. it shows a good hand with relatively short spades.

about the other treatments I agree it's bad but it's probably best. i mean what will I bid with my 1156 hand? I will have to guess, no thanks.

[whereagles]

Assuming this is some 2-suiter, how is it best played?
Can play it as any 2-suiter, with 5m responses pass/correct.

Yes.


One problem with that is missing a 5-5 heart fit when responder has, say
♠xxx ♥xxxxx ♦xx ♣xxx
This looks like a 5♣ response but you'll feel silly if partner has hearts & clubs.

Tough luck. At least you're in a game


Partly to avoid this, my partner reckons 4NT should be hearts & another. That gives up on both minors but you should be able to find your best fit otherwise. Have people heard of this?

No.

[shevek]

gwnn, on Dec 30 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

4-6 in the minors? huh? I've never heard about that treatment. it shows a good hand with relatively short spades.

about the other treatments I agree it's bad but it's probably best. i mean what will I bid with my 1156 hand? I will have to guess, no thanks.

Sorry, meant delayed 2NT. I'll edit

[dake50]

Would X suggest H+2nd with DT(of course) then 4NT D+C?
Would 5S Q-bid take some shapes when strong enough?

[jdonn]

The point isn't to find your best fit. The point is

- to be able to show all combinations of suits so you can enter the auction (relatively) safely whenever you want to
- to avoid your worst fit so you don't have a disaster

The current method that you are suggesting changing does both of those things. Your partner's method does not do the first. It is worse.

[kenrexford]

Let's see. Can this be structured differently?

Let's start with the idea that 4NT is used as a relay to 5♣, with one possibility being just long clubs. Using that approach, the person bidding 4NT could then pull 5♣ to 5♦ or 5♥, all as one-suiters.

Then, 5♣ and 5♦ could operate as two-suiters. 5♦ obviously would show the red suits, such that 5♣ would need to handle clubs and a red suit.

This seems to be superior, in that all one-suited hands are handled, you always play in the ideal fit when you have both reds, and you only get to the wrong suit when you have clubs and a red suit, with Responder preferring clubs to one of the two red suits but preferring the other red suit to clubs, and only if the red suit preference would actually be the superior strain.

There is a secondary benefit, however, in that you can then have two ways to bid 5♥. You either bid 4NT...5♥ or bid 5♥ directly. If both show one-suited hands, then one is stronger than the other. Alternatively, one could show a two-suited hand that is very strong, hearts and a minor, passable but strongly encouraging.

[jdonn]

This really really hurts me to say Ken. But, other than that it's just one auction and I could never get used to it, that seems like a good idea! In other words just play DONT on this auction, but 4NT = double.

[gnasher]

shevek, on Dec 30 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

He also reckons a sequence like
(1♠)   2♣   (2♠)   no
(no)   2NT

should 4♥s & 6♣s, not 4-6 minors as commonly played.

I think it's most commonly played as 6-4 with either red suit, but maybe that's a geographical thing.

I agree with your partner that it's a good idea to play 2NT as specifically hearts, with double covering both xx46 and 1336. It would apply also if you've overcalled in diamonds, and when you've opened a minor and the opponents have made their way to 2♠.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

This really really hurts me to say Ken. But, other than that it's just one auction and I could never get used to it, that seems like a good idea! In other words just play DONT on this auction, but 4NT = double.

Sometimes the opponents bid 5S you know

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Dec 30 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

This really really hurts me to say Ken. But, other than that it's just one auction and I could never get used to it, that seems like a good idea! In other words just play DONT on this auction, but 4NT = double.

Sometimes the opponents bid 5S you know

Isn't that bad whether you have an unspecified 1 suiter or 2 suiter? Even if it is worse with a 1 suiter, that could still be a good tradeoff for all the times they don't bid 5♠, which is more often than when they do bid it...

And I don't get it, sorry if I'm being picky but if you have a problem with the idea then why did you quote me agreeing with Ken instead of quoting Ken lol.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 30 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

This really really hurts me to say Ken. But, other than that it's just one auction and I could never get used to it, that seems like a good idea! In other words just play DONT on this auction, but 4NT = double.

Sometimes the opponents bid 5S you know

Isn't that bad whether you have an unspecified 1 suiter or 2 suiter? Even if it is worse with a 1 suiter, that could still be a good tradeoff for all the times they don't bid 5♠, which is more often than when they do bid it...

And I don't get it, sorry if I'm being picky but if you have a problem with the idea then why did you quote me agreeing with Ken instead of quoting Ken lol.

Yes it is bad whether you have an unspecified 2 suiter, but it is way worse if you have an unspecified one suiter. If partner is going to go to slam, he often has a fit for 2 of the 3 suits anyways. If you have shown a 1 suiter he can very rarely bid slam, even if he fits 2 suits you rate to have the third. I would view it as a complete disaster every time it went 4S 4N 5S and 4N had shown a 1 suiter, even if partner doesn't have a slam decision he won't know whether or not to double a lot of the times since he doesn't even know your suit.

I feel like the fact that you think kens idea is good means you are underrating how bad it will be when we are 1 suited and LHO is going to bid, that is why my post addressed you and not ken.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Dec 30 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 30 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

This really really hurts me to say Ken. But, other than that it's just one auction and I could never get used to it, that seems like a good idea! In other words just play DONT on this auction, but 4NT = double.

Sometimes the opponents bid 5S you know

Isn't that bad whether you have an unspecified 1 suiter or 2 suiter? Even if it is worse with a 1 suiter, that could still be a good tradeoff for all the times they don't bid 5♠, which is more often than when they do bid it...

And I don't get it, sorry if I'm being picky but if you have a problem with the idea then why did you quote me agreeing with Ken instead of quoting Ken lol.

Yes it is bad whether you have an unspecified 2 suiter, but it is way worse if you have an unspecified one suiter. If partner is going to go to slam, he often has a fit for 2 of the 3 suits anyways. If you have shown a 1 suiter he can very rarely bid slam, even if he fits 2 suits you rate to have the third. I would view it as a complete disaster every time it went 4S 4N 5S and 4N had shown a 1 suiter, even if partner doesn't have a slam decision he won't know whether or not to double a lot of the times since he doesn't even know your suit.

I feel like the fact that you think kens idea is good means you are underrating how bad it will be when we are 1 suited and LHO is going to bid, that is why my post addressed you and not ken.

Oh, yeah? Well, your feet stink!

Um...

All of this is true. A 5♠ call sucks. However, I'm not sure that I buy the premise.

First of all, my gut tells me that slam will be available more often in the two-suit situation than in the one-suit situation. hence, we may want to improve two-suit sequences as more economical.

However, there is also another principle at work. Two-suiters are more fit-dependent by nature. However, with one-suiters, the necessary internal contribution is minor. Looking at this simply, if I have a bunch of "stuff," I feel OK raising to the six-level with just about any predicatble hand, because I won't need much support to fit with a one-suiter good enough to bid at the five-level as a one-suiter. Second, I probably have a fit anyway, if the opponents bid to the five-level. I just don't need as much to "fit" properly.

Third, only my method actually allows distinguishing whether a one-suiter in hearts is big or not big.

On that last note, though, you could perhaps do better in isolating the one-suiter:

4NT = a minor
5♥ = hearts
5♣ = clubs and a red suit
5♦ = reds

That way, you always name the heart suit before 5♠, and you zero in on "a minor" in the 4NT sequence, which is perhaps better for Advancer.