junyi_zhu, on May 20 2010, 11:26 AM, said:
jdonn, on May 20 2010, 02:19 AM, said:
Omg, as much as I love saving the space rebidding 2NT is sooooooo baddddddd. Even the stopper itself isn't a good reason since it's anti-positional (in both red suits!)
Well, some bids may not look pretty, but they are more effective than you perceive. How to judge whether a bid is good or bad is not based on whether it looks pretty, right sided, blalba, it should be based on whether it is effective. Here, 2NT to show a stopper is certainly effective when partner holds club support, because it would save 3C for partner and allow you to bid your pattern out, and even allow you to rkc with a void as shown in this case. I am not saying position issue isn't important. However when partner didn't make a certain number of NT bid in the second round, it becomes a minor issue.
Still, traditional 4th suit gameforcing isn't very effective. However, within the ineffective framework, some bidding accuracies can still be achieved. Anyway, improving bridge bidding really need an open mind IMO.
I agree with the sentiment that one should evaluate system choices (such as whether to rebid 2N on 4=0=3=6 with Axx in diamonds) on how effective the choice is, compared to alternatives.
Where I may differ from you is that I see 2N as usually ineffective. I concede: it is effective opposite AQx Axxx xx AQJx, but I think you will agree that that hand type is rare.
I also suspect that you would agree that you'd bid 2N with 4=2=2=5 shape where you chose not to rebid 1N...maybe because you generally show the 9 black cards rather than bid 1N or because, perhaps, you are out of range (15-16 as examples) and with 4=1=3=5.
Partner will usually just blast 3N over 2N with most hands with 3 good clubs. Thus, for example, we'd likely play 3N opposite AQx Qxxx xxx AQx. I think you'd agree that your 2N was ineffective, even if you get lucky and make it.
Now, I see that your 3
♣ call showed 3+ clubs, so you may argue that N should bid 3
♣ rather than 3N....but opposite the usual 2N, why on earth would anyone look for an 11 trick contract, or a club slam, with 3=4=3=3 13-14 hcp opposite most 4=2=2=5/4=1=3=5 shapes? And you cannot effectively argue that he should bid 3
♣ just in case partner has 6 clubs and a heart void. Firstly, that seems improbable even if allowable systemically, and secondly, you need to reserve these 3-level probing auctions for hands on which responder has uncertainty re either or both of level and strain opposite the more common 2N hand-types.
In addition, since the way most play 2N, partner can infer that you are not void in hearts, so may insist on playing in hearts. Or he may be coming in spades, with weak hearts, and you may never get to show either your 6th club (a source of tricks in a spade slam) or your void heart (a control in hearts plus maybe ruffing tricks).
In short, I think that 2N is an incredibly bad choice precisely because I like to maximize the effectiveness of my bidding choices over the range of hands partner might hold, rather than the hand he actually held on the problem posted.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
