BBO Discussion Forums: playing 2/1 - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

playing 2/1

#1 User is offline   sceptic 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,343
  • Joined: 2004-January-03

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:15


Scoring: IMP


West North East South

- 1 Pass 2
Pass 4 Pass Pass
Pass


can you give me comments on the 2 spade raise ( at best a poor 6 hcp, could have been down graded to a 1NT forcing response I suppose)

then if you think 2 spades is ok, can you give me comments on the 4 spade raise

if you think 2 spades is diabolical can you tell me what style a 2 spade raise is if it comes under the 8/9 hcp range and is constructive
0

#2 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:27

I understand that IMP bidding is aggressive, but Wow!

I'd 1NT...2 the South hand.

I can sympathize with the 4 call if Opener is expecting a constructive raise, but it still seems a tad aggressive.

South should have this hand plus some shortness, as a minimum. Put the diamond Jack and club King in the same suit and give South a doubleton somewhere, and this is about a dead minimum. Give South, for instance, Qxx KJxx xxxx xx. Now, 4 will almost assuredly fail, but it comes close. South will reject the GT by North.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#3 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,679
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:27

The 2 bid is pushy. Obviously if you agree to play "constructive raises" where a single raise shows something like 8-10 points in support of opener then this is way under strength.

I don't think constructive raises are a "standard" part of 2/1. However, with the 4333 shape and the 10.5 losers it is still better to start with 1NT (forcing) or even to pass 1 rather than raise.

The 4 bid is very pushy also (unless playing the aforementioned constructive raises); with only 15 hcp and a six-loser hand there is no particular reason to think you will make game opposite a normal single raise. Give partner A instead of K and there is still no particular play for the spade game.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#4 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:31

I consider the 2 bid on the South hand to be fairly normal. The hand is worth one bid.

I know that some prefer to bid 1NT then 2 on minimum hands with no shortness, but that is not my style. To me, 1NT followed by 2 is a preference bid, usually made on a doubleton spade.

The 4 bid on the North hand is a big overbid. Opposite a normal 2 bid, game is extremely remote. At most, the North hand is an invite.
0

#5 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:38

ArtK78, on Jun 3 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

I know that some prefer to bid 1NT then 2 on minimum hands with no shortness, but that is not my style. To me, 1NT followed by 2 is a preference bid, usually made on a doubleton spade.

To everyone it is, but that's the point. If partner thinks you have a doubleton he won't bid as much, but if he thinks you have three there is great risk of him bidding on and going down at the 3 or 4 level.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#6 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:40

Wow, even I wouldn't have bid game with the north hand. I would have bid 2S with the south hand (barely).
0

#7 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,682
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:42

Definitely not a 2 raise. I play a 2 as 7-10 points, 9 to 10 losers, but even if I was thinking this was borderline, the flat shape would downgrade it.

For me 2 is constructive, and one that would not be too averse to partner making a trial bid and playing in 3. A ten and a half loser hand does not come into that category !

With this hand I would bid 1NT and then 2, this showing 6-10 with a doubleton (ie preference) or 3 card support weaker than a 7 count 10 loser.
0

#8 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,682
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:52

awm, on Jun 3 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

I don't think constructive raises are a "standard" part of 2/1.

The 4 bid is very pushy also (unless playing the aforementioned constructive raises)...

I am under the impression that constructive raises are the norm in 2/1, but even then the north hand is not a clear game bid. A trial bid is all I'd make.
0

#9 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2008-June-03, 15:59

The definition of a single raise of a major suit in Standard (and, therefore, in 2/1) is 6-9 HCP with 3 card support.

If you play higher ranges, fine. You don't have to bid 2 on these cards. But that is a matter of your partnership agreement, not Standard bidding.

I play Bergen, so my single raises promise exactly 3 card support unless I have 4333 distribution. So I have less reluctance to bid 2 on these cards.
0

#10 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2008-June-03, 19:39

South's bidding is fine if you haven't agreed to play constructive raises. North needs to make a game try, not blast.
Chris Gibson
0

#11 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2008-June-03, 20:57

ArtK78, on Jun 3 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

The definition of a single raise of a major suit in Standard (and, therefore, in 2/1) is 6-9 HCP with 3 card support.

This is about the dumbest logic argument I've seen in a while.

Um...

"Standard" does not equal "2/1," unless you are re-naming "2/1" as "Standard."

If you do that, then your initial premise that "Standard," meaning "2/1," has a definition of a single raise as 6-9 is incorrect.

The typical idea is that systems (like 2/1 and K-S) which employ a forcing 1NT call very typically use a constructive raise approach. That may not be your preference, but it is the "typical" agreement, at least as I understand it.

I just checked "Two Over One Game Force," the 1991 edition that I have, wherein Hardy expressed a distaste for constructive raises. A more modern approach, BWS 2001, shows "moderately constructive," however. Bridge Base Advanced, which is probably quite relevant here, has a single raise as a constructive raise.

Thus, there is a debate. There is not a definition.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#12 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 18,033
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-June-03, 21:52

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

"Standard" does not equal "2/1," unless you are re-naming "2/1" as "Standard."

Why not? Max Hardy did. :)

Don't disagree with the rest of your post - though like Max, I don't like constructive raises much either.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#13 User is offline   SoTired 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,016
  • Joined: 2005-June-20
  • Location:Lovettsville, VA

Posted 2008-June-04, 09:16

I don't use "Standard" except for those things that Goren advocated and still in wide practice today. I think a less charged word is "Common" for those things that most people play.
It costs nothing to be nice -- my better half
0

#14 User is offline   andy_h 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,962
  • Joined: 2007-September-14
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:The Universe, Traveling, Squash, and Scandinavia.

Posted 2008-June-04, 09:59

If constructive raises were agreed, then South's hand isn't worth one so I'd take the 1NT-->2S route.
- Andy -

We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
0

#15 User is offline   neilkaz 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,568
  • Joined: 2006-June-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Barrington IL USA
  • Interests:Backgammon, Bridge, Hockey

Posted 2008-June-04, 10:00

Responder's hand is trashy but if you pass 1 you're missing some games unless you play a system that can stretch to open 2, but even then you can miss a game. That being said, if the fitting Q of trumps were in H, I'd not criticize a pass.

Responder has no ruffing values and 6 scattered HCP and really should go out of his way to not excite opner. Due to no ruffing values, even if not playing constructive raises, I'd likely try 1NTF then 2 which should end the auction unless the opps come in.

Opener's jump to 4 is too pushy for sure ! Stiff aces sometimes are opposite something like Qxxx or other useless holdings, and the hand just isn't good enough to expect to make 4 opposite a minimum raise. I'd make a game try after 2.
0

#16 User is offline   brianshark 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 2006-May-13
  • Location:Dublin
  • Interests:Artificial Intelligence, Computer Games, Satire, Football, Rugby... and Bridge I suppose.

Posted 2008-June-04, 10:15

I might have lied with the south hand and shown it as a doubleton support. But 2 is fine. North's jump to game is too pushy.
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users