Complex hands....

[khokan]

The following is a hand from the 2005 NOT:

AKJ10x AKJ A xxxx

You open 1S and partner responds 1NT.

Would your answer be any different if the hand was:

AKJ10x AKJ x Axxx?

It would be good to know if anyone has any methods to deal with these hand types - transfer rebids anyone? It's seems to me that the big clubbers have it all over the natural bidders on these hands.

Khokan

[HughG]

One possibility would be to play 2NT as forcing. This makes it much easier to handle unbalanced GF type hands. A jump to 3 of a suit promises 5-5 while all other unbalanced GFs bid 2NT. Obviously you now need to find a way to handle hands just short of a GF, maybe play 2C as a catchall type bid that would include up to 18 balanced.

[khokan]

2NT forcing to game might work here if it specifically shows clubs. Then, you could show the heart fragment. However, if 2NT shows any non-5/5 unbalanced game force, I don't know how you show this hand type.

Partner's hand was x 10xxxx 109xx AK10.

Incidentally, how do people playing 2NT FG show 6-4s?

[ish]

I have been playing 2NT forcing with Boye after 1 major 1NT. It has been working extremely well including bidding a grand when the other table bid 1S-1NT-3NT!! Here is the basic structure:
2 NT after 1H/S - 1 NT:

Artificial game force with 5+ cards in the major.


1H - 1 NT
2 NT - 3C: 5+ card clubs
3?: 5+ card diamonds
3H: 3-2-4-4 minimum
3S: 3-2-4-4 maximum
3 NT: 5-5 in the minors
4C/?: Control-bid with 3 card hearts
4H: Minimum with 3 card hearts


1S - 1 NT
2 NT - 3C: 5+ card minor
3?: 5+ card hearts
3H: 4 card hearts
3S: 2-3-4-4
3 NT: 5-5 in the minors
4C/?/H: Control-bid with 3 card spades
4S: Minimum with 3 card spades

Over 3C opener can ask with 3? about which minor the responder has. 3H shows clubs and 3S shows diamonds (?lower bid for lower suit? if we can?t bid the suit naturally).


NOTE:
1S - 1 NT
2 NT - 3C
3H - 3S: Club suit
3 NT: Diamond suit
4C: 4 card heart support and club suit
4?: 4 card heart support and diamond suit

[itinerant]

after 1M:1NT and 1H:1S, some of the italians play 2C = 17+ any or min, 2major rebid. lots of different versions, all seem to be plenty of imps ahead of natural continuations.

[sartaj]

transfer rebids anyone?
Khokan

tony and i play transfers after 1M-1NT.
The method has been a great success as we are able to pinpoint shortages with the 5431 and 6331 hands. Also, the jump shift to the 3 level now guarantees a classical 5-5 shape facilitating slam bidding as the responder is not worried after a 1S -1NT;3C start to the auction ?bout whether or not opener has real clubs.

The only payout is we dont have a natural rebid of 2C available.

The italians have used the 2C = strong, artifical enquiry with great success as well. There was a hand in the NEC with 18 opposite 5/6 HCP where 2S made 110 in one room and 2NT would have gone down 3 vulnerable.
(at the table, 2NT got raised to 3 due to Kx of spades and went down 4).

[Nigel]

Most people play openers change of suit as forcing after a suit response so why not play it after a 1NT response and keep the jump rebid as good 5/5s

[Kieran]

Most people play openers change of suit as forcing after a suit response so why not play it after a 1NT response and keep the jump rebid as good 5/5s

I assume that by "most people" you mean less than 2% of experts worldwide. This eccentric treatment is played by a minority of Australian experts and practically nobody else anywhere.

[revert2b]

after 1M:1NT and 1H:1S, some of the italians play 2C = 17+ any or min, 2major rebid. lots of different versions, all seem to be plenty of imps ahead of natural continuations.

Garozzo plays 2c as either natural or 17+ any - 2d response is gf opposite the 17+ and 2h then is the natural weak 2c rebid.
They also play this in 1h 1s auctions.

i have a copy of system notes if anyone is interested - probably out of date by now - they seem to change most of it every 6 months.

[Nigel]

Kiren I am not sure what your point is.
Nigel

[khokan]

As 1NT is limited, it makes sense to play a simple rebid as NF. This is a bit different to rebidding after an unlimited 1/1 response.

Anyway, I think that you'll get overboard on "normal" hands too often to make up for getting it right with the good hands if a simple rebid over 1NT is F1.

[Kieran]

Kiren I am not sure what your point is.
Nigel

The suggestion that most people play a new suit by opener as forcing is news to me. It would be similarly surprising to the roughly 100% of world experts who play the suit rebid as non-forcing.

Tiggrr

[Nigel]

Kieren, you have no point to make. I am sure there are many things that you will not agree with, especially comments I make. However that is not relevent. Playing change of suit forcing after a non forcing one no-trump is very playable and preferable to a lot of methods. Whether you agree is not relevent to the discussion. Khokan is looking for possible solutions. Perhaps you should offer one!
Nigel :confused:

[Kieran]

A forcing 2NT is OK - with 18-19 balanced you have to bite the bullet and almost force to game. If responder can transfer over this, you have a way out of the game force when responder has a 1642 3-count opposite a 1S opening with no special fit.

Transfers by opener might be OK, but you lose a lot of space with major-club hands. Maybe Roman 2M openers are in order here. (5M, 4+c, limited opening).

I loathe the philosphy that responder has a choice of passing a 1-bid (possibly with game possible in other strains) and being forced to make a second bid with no values and no fit. Like a 1543 4-count opposite a 1S opening - you respond in the first place because game might be possible in hearts, and then have to dredge up another bid over 2C? Ugh. It's vile enough that Qxxxx,x,xxxx,Qxx is offered a choice between passing 1H (possibly missing a spade game, and very likely playing the wrong partial) or being forced again over 2C.

Roth-Stone had a better idea here - 2C showed extras, but then he rebid 1NT with hands which didn't want to force, and played 3C as a weak 5-5. There's also an antique K-S treatment that a 2C rebid was semi-artificial and strength-showing, like a reverse. I'm not sure if it was forcing, but it could be bid without much length in clubs. A more modern treatment is Cole - an artificial 2C rebid over a major suit response including a bunch of three card raises, as well as club rebids.

But lots of people who play opener's new suit as forcing don't adjust their rebids to compensate. Opener bids 1H (making very few promises, nowadays), responder bids 1S (again, making few promises), and opener rebids 2C, promising no more than a 5/4 11-count...but somehow responder, potentially with (lets be charitable here) a 5143 6-count, is forced to find another bid. And opener, who might well have extra strength, still won't know anything more from responder's second bid, since responder might have been forced to prefer with a singleton, raise the second suit with three, rebid his suit with five or bid 2NT with a 7-count.

I'm all for opener not jumping around with good hands, but that's partly because I respond so light that a 20-count opposite isn't sure of game. And as responder, I don't go out of my way to pass at my second turn if my hand looks promising. But I don't sign suicide pacts with my partner and keep auctions moving to infinity when I know they should come to a sudden stop.

[TimC]

Kieren I am not sure what your point is.
Nigel

Kieran's point is that every debate/ argument/ discussion has two sides: his point of view or just being plain wrong.

Tim Clarke

[BGN]

One of the big dangers of computer bulletin boards is that you can't see the other person smile when he says something light hearted.

We were all warned at the beginning about the dangers of temperamental bridge players. ;)

Please please please let's try and respect each other and get on with the job of improving Australian bridge at the top level.

Two things to remember - if your natural style tends towards "in people's faces", you need to be a little more careful about how you express things in an online environment. And, if you bristle when you read someone else's comment, give it a day before you respond ... maybe they didn't mean it as harshly as you took it!!

After all - we're all big boys now!!! :)

[David Morgan]

Hands like the one Khokan cited are the bane of natural systems: I'll bet EOK would just have rebid 2C, hoping (virtually certain?) of another chance to show shape and strength.

Gazzilli and 2N as a game force (GF) are well-recognised and effective solutions (there are others like Truscott's artificial 3C rebid that are not), though both come with a price (the loss of 2C or 2N as a natural bid). That price may well be worth paying: it depends in part on how well your partnership copes with the memory load.

Transfers are OK but require some careful followup work: how does opener distinguish between a game invitational (GI) and a GF hand with (say) 5=4=3=1 shape? In standard methods, the sequence
1S 1N
2H 2S
3D
shows about 17 HCP but is NF. If this now (substituting a TFR to 2H) is GF how does opener show these GI hands? And if the sequence is GI, then is 2N (or something else) an artificial GF?

One adjunct to opener's 2N rebid as GF: it's often a good idea to play
1S 1N
3H
as only GI with at least 55. Advantages include that this is one of the hardest shapes to bid as responder has fewer non-GI noises he can make over a simple 2H rebid (compared to a 2m rebid when opener has 55 and GI strength), and game in opener's second suit (4H) is a more likely contract when opener's second suit is hearts than when it is a minor (so it's not necessary to play 3m as showing similar shape and strength). Disadvantages include opener's not being able to show GF strength and his shape below 3N (a 3H rebid after responder bids 3C is usually played as showing only four; however, if responder were to deny four hearts by bidding 3C -- instead responding 3H -- then that 3H-rerebid would promise five).



<snip>

But lots of people who play opener's new suit as forcing don't adjust their rebids to compensate. Opener bids 1H (making very few promises, nowadays), responder bids 1S (again, making few promises), and opener rebids 2C, promising no more than a 5/4 11-count...but somehow responder, potentially with (lets be charitable here) a 5143 6-count, is forced to find another bid. And opener, who might well have extra strength, still won't know anything more from responder's second bid, since responder might have been forced to prefer with a singleton, raise the second suit with three, rebid his suit with five or bid 2NT with a 7-count.



True but that's because so few advocates of the method have ever addressed the issue in their writings. A sensible approach is to play a rebid of opener's M as the default rebid (so it promises only a singleton; rarely, even a void); all other rebids promise the shape and values they normally would. This gives you many advantages at a small price (IMO). The real issue, though, is the frequent unethical behaviour by practitioners of change-of-suit forcing: even some very good players hesitate significantly before making some forced response with an awkward hand, giving partner a bucketload of UI which is, alas, occasionally not ignored.


David