Sunday, December 19, 2010


Strange that I never saw this, but a somewhat interesting parallel seemed to arise today.

On BBF, a problem auction was provided where Opener has 5332 and Responder a balanced monster, the partnerships of many ending in 6S down immediately on a club lead (missing Ace and King).  The short form of the story, IMO, was that Jacoby 2NT was flawed and thus ill-advised, whereas simple cues worked better (obviously).

The deeper story was the auction many of us will now use to get to thsat cuebidding spot:

O: One Spade
R: Two Clubs (real clubs OR just spade support)
O: Two Diamonds (real diamonds OR just balanced with a diamond card)
R: Two Spades (fit, start cuebidding...)

A "strong clubber" made a comment about how this type of bidding is why strong clubbers are better.  As a sometimes strong clubber myself, I found this absurdly humorous, as Opener starts 1S either way and as my methods in a Precision-style strong club would mean the exact same start.

Furthermore, and the point of this post, I noticed that there would be a strong parallel using canape, albeit slightly different:

O: 1D (if diamonds and a major, diamonds could be 3-card if 5332)
R: 2C (GF, artificial)
O: 2H (diamonds plus spades; diamonds might be 3-card)
R: 2S (fit, start cuebidding...)

Strangely, then, a parallel arose.  On the same hands where with 2/1 GF (or Precision for that matter) I would rebid 2D after opening a major and hearing 2C, I would open 1D canape and then show the major.  This of course seems right -- canape means essentially getting to the second bid first.  Sending in the reserves and holding back the main army until later.  But, the decision-making is the same.

This is an example illustrating why I think learning multiple systems, and playing them enough to be competent in each, actually helps thinking in all systems.  In other words, Precision helps your 2/1 game, and 2/1 helps canape, and K-S helps Standard American.


ulven said...

I'd say the methods after jac2NT was misguided. To say that "2NT was flawed and thus ill-advised" is really taking your own opinons way too far ;)

Kenneth Rexford, Esq. said...

I think you might be taking my comment out of context. I did not say "2NT was flawed and thus ill-advised," instead saying that "JACOBY 2NT was flawed and thus ill-advised." As the "methods after jac2NT" were "misguided," I think you actually tend to agree with me, it seems.

I mean, using a method of 2NT that is not Jacoby but only related, like I have used, where for instance 3D shows a non-bust balanced hand and allows cuebidding to start at that point, if desired, of course also works. But, that is not Jacoby 2NT but something else.

My point was tied to the fragment handling, but a secondary point is that 2/1 and cuebidding sequences should be considered whenever another method has an obvious problem on the horizon, and that a 2/1 sequence, being the most flexible, often handles flawed auctions best.