[AL78]

---

We are playing 5 card majors, but not 2/1, so 2♥ is 9+ HCP with a five card suit. I made 11 tricks, not the double dummy way of taking the double spade finesse, but by cashing the top trumps after a diamond lead then throwing the losing heart on the third diamond. This was worth 21%.

Partner claimed I should have jumped to 3♠ on my second bid. I thought with a potentially useless ♦Q, a singleton in partners long suit and six losers my hand wasn't good enough. What do you think?

[nige1]

AL78 'We are playing 5 card majors, but not 2/1, so 2♥ is 9+ HCP with a five card suit. I made 11 tricks, not the double dummy way of taking the double spade finesse, but by cashing the top trumps after a diamond lead then throwing the losing heart on the third diamond. This was worth 21%.Partner claimed I should have jumped to 3♠ on my second bid. I thought with a potentially useless ♦Q, a singleton in partners long suit and six losers my hand wasn't good enough. What do you think?'
++++++++++++++++++++
Agree with AL78. Both partners were pessimistic. On a ♦ lead, you could try ♦QKA discarding a ♥, ♣KA, ruff a ♣, ruff a ♥, attempt to ruff a ♣.

---

[morecharac]

 AL78, on 2020-December-13, 07:14, said:

---

We are playing 5 card majors, but not 2/1, so 2♥ is 9+ HCP with a five card suit. I made 11 tricks, not the double dummy way of taking the double spade finesse, but by cashing the top trumps after a diamond lead then throwing the losing heart on the third diamond. This was worth 21%.

Partner claimed I should have jumped to 3♠ on my second bid. I thought with a potentially useless ♦Q, a singleton in partners long suit and six losers my hand wasn't good enough. What do you think?

I'd lay the blame squarely on partner.

Ignoring Losing Trick Count (I highly recommended it, BTW), partner has 12 HCP, an opener in its own right, and you've shown six spades and a minimum. Partner not raising to 3♠ with that hand is inexcusable; raising to 4♠ would be preferable.

[nige1]

 morecharac, on 2020-December-13, 10:45, said:

I'd lay the blame squarely on partner. Ignoring Losing Trick Count (I highly recommended it, BTW), partner has 12 HCP, an opener in its own right, and you've shown six spades and a minimum. Partner not raising to 3♠ with that hand is inexcusable; raising to 4♠ would be preferable.

Opener often rebids 2♠ with a weak 5233 or 51(43) but responder is probably still worth an effort. Perhaps 2N is more flexible than 3♠

[TylerE]

Seems like the 2 partners deserve each other. Very timid all around.

[morecharac]

 nige1, on 2020-December-13, 10:53, said:

Opener often rebids 2♠ with a weak 5233 or 51(43) but responder is probably still worth an effort. Perhaps 2N is more flexible than 3♠

The ever-popular (with BBO dealing algorithms) least-bad-lie hand.

Rebidding 2♠ with a minimum 5=2=3=3 over 2♥ is foolhardy. 2N at least leaves open the chance to find a fit in the minors or even 3N with a decent responder hand. If nothing else it at least leaves open the option of failing in 2N and blaming partner for not pulling to 3♥.

I'd consider this a 2½♠ hand, so I might well rebid 3C intending to pull back to 3S (depends on mood). This would produce 1♠-2♥-3♣-3♦-3♠ and p, with more information than I have, can place properly.

If p rebids 3♥ rather than 3♦ get p some remedial bidding lessons.

[smerriman]

In SAYC, even though 2♥ isn't game forcing, 2♠ is still forcing; you simply can't pass.

If opener has to jump to show a good 13 or 14 that would make game opposite an 11 count, then something seems to be wrong with the system.

[Zelandakh]

2♠ is correct. As West I would rebid 2NT (although I notice that that only happened at one of the nine tables where 2♠ was bid and that East continued with the illogical 3♠).

Put frankly, there is a reason why your NGS rating is 58.07 and your partner's 48.36. She would do well to try and learn from you rather than insisting on inferior methods. Does she really think it is good system design to jump on around 60-70% of the range and make the simple rebid with 30-40%? Because of invites, you actually want it to the reverse of this. Consider laying out to her the following hands:-

1.♠AJT872 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣Q863
2.♠AQT872 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣Q863
3.♠AQT872 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣K863
4.♠AQT872 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣A863
5.♠AKT872 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣A863
6.♠AKJT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣A863
7.♠AKJT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣AJ83
8.♠AKJT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣AQ83
9.♠AKJT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣AQJ8
10.♠AKJT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣AKJ8
11.♠AKQT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣AKJ8
12.♠AKQT72 ♥J ♦Q3 ♣AKQ8

That should more or less cover your opening range. Ask her how she would bid each of them. At the end collate up how many she is rebidding 2♠. There should be around twice as many hands for 2♠ as for 3♠ or 3♣. For reference, assuming Benji, I consider the last 4 hands (9-12) 2m openings and the first a preempt. 2-5 are 2♠ rebids and 7-8 clear 3♣ calls. The tipping point for me is hand 6. From a theoretical point of view I think 2♠ is probably right but you do need the right partner for that, so with a random I might go for 3♣. The final ratio of 4:3 though is not really very good - 5:2 would be much better. If you take the OP hand and move it to the "strong" category, you get 3:4, which is completely hopeless.

But perhaps you play a method where 2m has a particularly low threshold and open much lighter. In that case your ranges will be different. Most likely she has just never really thought about it. Or she was just resulting and defending her auction. If she knows that you are much better than her, she might also be fearful of you dropping her and trying to talk herself up. Whatever the reason, if she understood a little of the way bidding systems are put together, it can hardly hurt.

[helene_t]

I see auctions like this all the time when playing in England, where most pairs play Acol so the 2♠ is not forcing. Some might consider a 3♣ rebid as East and some might consider a 2NT rebid as West, here both partners chose the timid route.

The upside of this style is that you would have avoided 3♠ when either partner had a dead minimum, and stayed in a comfortable 2♠.

If you open most shapy 11-counts, East has enough to rebid 3♣. On the other hand, if you open sound, West needs to do more. Arguably West needs to do more anyway, unless you open very light.

So probably one or both of you need to adjust a bit, and it's good to have a discussion about. Try to deal a number of hands with East having 11-14 points and West having 9-12 points and discuss how they should be bid, so you develop a common style.

It is important to preserve partnership trust, you don't want either partner to start thinking "partner always underbids so I have to overbid to compensate".

[mikeh]

I haven’t played Acol or Standard American in 40 years, for good reason. However, my take on the auction is that, within the system constraints, neither player did anything ‘wrong’.

All systems have ‘seams’, where the hand is on the border, or seam, between aggressive or conservative action. Nobody gets these right all or even most of the time. By definition these are situations in which about half the time the aggressive action works and 50% where the conservative action does.

What the improving player ought to do, in conjunction with a willing partner, is look into other bidding methods, where the seams are different.

2/1 is far from perfect, but the auction would be fairly easy on this hand.

1S - 1N
2S - 3S
4S - P


I’ve always felt that Acol, in particular, has enormous problems with light 2/1 responses, that do not promise another bid, and the need, then, for opener to jump or make another strong call with only slight ‘extra’ values, oppression risk missing game...with the corresponding price that responder, with modest extras, has no clue as to whether to go looking for slam, since opener may or may not have an actual strong hand.

Consider this: when did a pair playing Acol or SA last win a major international event? Why do very few (I’d say no, but I’m usually wrong when I over-generalize) top pairs play such methods?

That should be a hint.

[Zelandakh]

 mikeh, on 2020-December-13, 20:39, said:

Consider this: when did a pair playing Acol or SA last win a major international event? Why do very few (I’d say no, but I’m usually wrong when I over-generalize) top pairs play such methods?

I think it is fair to regard the Hel's system as a modern version of expert Acol even if they themselves would not. So 2007 for the BB but 2015 if you also include the Transnational Teams. What it proves is that most pairs in a position to win a world championship represent countries where Acol is almost never played. I could equally ask when the last time was that a pair playing Forcing Pass won a world championship and use that to argue that FP is a poor method. Similarly for Strong Diamond; or IMPrecision for that matter. I trust you would regard none of these as bad systems just because of their lack of representation amongst the US/Italian elite.

[morecharac]

 smerriman, on 2020-December-13, 18:16, said:

In SAYC, even though 2♥ isn't game forcing, 2♠ is still forcing; you simply can't pass.

If opener has to jump to show a good 13 or 14 that would make game opposite an 11 count, then something seems to be wrong with the system.

Say what? Repeating one's opening suit at the lowest level possible is forcing? That's ludicrous.

The words Standard American Yellow Stain come to mind.

[helene_t]

 morecharac, on 2020-December-13, 21:53, said:

Say what? Repeating one's opening suit at the lowest level possible is forcing?

That's quite normal. Same in SEF and Forum-D, for example.

[smerriman]

 morecharac, on 2020-December-13, 21:53, said:

Say what? Repeating one's opening suit at the lowest level possible is forcing? That's ludicrous.

While I don't play SAYC, why is it ludicrous? The 2/1 promises enough strength to force to 2NT, so (as already mentioned above), it's ludicrous that opener has to jump with a 14 count.

[helene_t]

By the way, suppose it starts
-- 1♠
2♥-2♠
2NT-?
What now? 3♣ sounds like a weak hand with 5-5. 3♠ is a minimum. 3NT is possible but doesn't show anything. 4♣ is weird, it does give West the chance to show doubleton spades support but leads to nowhere otherwise. 4♠ isn't good as partner could have a singleton spade.

Fortunately, on this hand it doesn't matter so much if you bid 3NT or 4♠, both contracts are fine.

[mikeh]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-December-13, 21:01, said:

I think it is fair to regard the Hel's system as a modern version of expert Acol even if they themselves would not. So 2007 for the BB but 2015 if you also include the Transnational Teams. What it proves is that most pairs in a position to win a world championship represent countries where Acol is almost never played. I could equally ask when the last time was that a pair playing Forcing Pass won a world championship and use that to argue that FP is a poor method. Similarly for Strong Diamond; or IMPrecision for that matter. I trust you would regard none of these as bad systems just because of their lack of representation amongst the US/Italian elite.

If you tweak a system sufficiently, it is no longer whatever name one gives the system on which it is based. Just as Meckwell or Meckwell lite are no longer Precision.

As for FP, I’m not sure it’s legal anymore. If it is, then I would argue that the fact that no good pair plays it shows that it’s a bad method. As I recall, when it did enjoy success, it was primarily through the lack of good counter-measures. The system ‘worked’ by exploiting its novelty, not because it has intrinsic merit. At least, such was my impression from reading various versions and reading the Bridge World tournament reports.

Same with Strong Diamond. Imo big diamond methods are inherently inferior to big club methods because of the seemingly modest but actually serious consumption of 1-level bidding space.

While my view is that high level competition is a true crucible that allows good methods to flourish and flawed methods to fall away, I’m am not usually a believer in arguments from authority. I’ve spent a lot of time on system design and theory. I’m no Kokish or Roswell, but I do try to judge methods by their use of space, ease of memory, and ability to handle numerous hand types. Obviously your views on any topic may differ from mine, and I respect that

[morecharac]

 smerriman, on 2020-December-13, 22:01, said:

While I don't play SAYC, why is it ludicrous? The 2/1 promises enough strength to force to 2NT, so (as already mentioned above), it's ludicrous that opener has to jump with a 14 count.

Mentioned earlier was that the 2♥ promised only 9 HCP. Not a game force. Not even close.

Yet another reason to avoid 2/1.

[smerriman]

 morecharac, on 2020-December-14, 00:21, said:

Mentioned earlier was that the 2♥ promised only 9 HCP. Not a game force. Not even close.

Yet another reason to avoid 2/1.

Huh? You're making no sense at all. The OP is not playing SAYC; I was using SAYC as an example. In SAYC, a 2/1 bid shows 10+, and promises a rebid. Which you said was ludicrous (despite being similar to other systems when a 2/1 is not game forcing), when it is not.

No idea what you mean by 'another reason to avoid 2/1'; does that mean you'd bid 1NT, which is the only non-2/1 bid over 1♠?

[morecharac]

 smerriman, on 2020-December-14, 01:48, said:

Huh? You're making no sense at all. The OP is not playing SAYC; I was using SAYC as an example. In SAYC, a 2/1 bid shows 10+, and promises a rebid. Which you said was ludicrous (despite being similar to other systems when a 2/1 is not game forcing), when it is not.

No idea what you mean by 'another reason to avoid 2/1'; does that mean you'd bid 1NT, which is the only non-2/1 bid over 1♠?

I remember SAYC; read a loaned book on it and dropped it like a hot potato before even trying it.

I don't consider 9 HCP opposite a minimum opener and no known fit (all that's been guaranteed in this auction) to be a hand worthy of 2NT. Heresy, I know.

I don't play 2/1 because it produces too many clumsy auctions, missed partials, and lost low-point games for my taste. YMMV.

For our SA variant*, 1♠-2♥-2♠ can be passed if responder sees no reason to go further. Give responder something like 1=5=4=3 and 10 HCP and playing a 6-1 fit at the two level may be the best contract possible.

* I know every SA system is a variant. There's a reason the introductory booklet for ACBL members used to describe it as nebulous.

[Cyberyeti]

 morecharac, on 2020-December-13, 17:57, said:

The ever-popular (with BBO dealing algorithms) least-bad-lie hand.

Rebidding 2♠ with a minimum 5=2=3=3 over 2♥ is foolhardy. 2N at least leaves open the chance to find a fit in the minors or even 3N with a decent responder hand. If nothing else it at least leaves open the option of failing in 2N and blaming partner for not pulling to 3♥.

I'd consider this a 2½♠ hand, so I might well rebid 3C intending to pull back to 3S (depends on mood). This would produce 1♠-2♥-3♣-3♦-3♠ and p, with more information than I have, can place properly.

If p rebids 3♥ rather than 3♦ get p some remedial bidding lessons.

The opener hasn't said what the system is, but I suspect it's Acol so you're playing a weak NT and 2N is 15+ GF, but you may well have opened 1N if 5233, 3♣ is a better hand than this and GF.

The reason game makes is that partner has nothing in hearts which is not what is going on most of the time, where do you want to be opposite for example x, KQxxx, KJxx, xxx ?