I included a list of wildly descriptive options over 1NT using a 2-Under approach. But, non of them included a double as an option. I wonder how detailed one could get with a doubkle also included.
For example, consider one scheme:
2C = both majors or one major and a minor. Advancer preferences major (2D for spade preference). If Overcaller had both majors, we play in Advancer's preferred suit. If Overcaller has a major-minor and Advancer preferences his major, we play in that major. If Overcaller has major-minor but Advancer preferences the other major, Overcaller bids his major and Responder elects contract (possibly bidding 2NT for the minor). This handles all hands with five of a major and 4+ of another suit (including the other major)
2D = four spades and longer minor or just long spades. Advancer bids 2S if he would want to play spades opposite spades and a longer minor or 2D if he would prefer the minor in that situation. Overcaller acts accordingly.
2H = just hearts
2S = just spades, stronger
X = both minors or just diamonds or 4414/4441 or 4144. Advancer preferences minor. If Overcaller has both minors, he passes Advancer's preference. With just diamonds, he corrects 2C to 2D or passes 2D. With 4414/4441, Overcaller bids 2H. With 4144, 2S.
That's a lot of coverage. Can even more be shown?
What about the same 2C as majors or major-minor. X as both minors, just diamonds, or four of either major and a longer minor. 2D, then, could be 4-4 majors, 1-4 or 4-1 minors. 2M as natural.
If 2D is allowed as one major (either), then 2H could be 4414 or 4441 and 2S 4144.
These allow all but one Ripstra shape at the two-level.
How about double as canape major-MINOR, or one major? Advancer bids 2C if he would prefer the minor in the major-minor canape, pass-or-correct. With both majors, Advancer bids 2D (or to ask for the major); after 2D, Advancer can return to the minor. After either 2C or 2D, Doubler can instead bid 2M as natural, one-suited. 2C is crunched Capp, still. 2H still 4414/4441. 2D as 1444 or one or both minors; if Advancer bids 2H, 2S shows one or both minors. If Advancer bids 2S, 2NT shows both minors but 3min is one-suited. (2D might promise four diamonds, perhaps, and thereby become a natural "treatment," GCC legal -- bid 3C immediately with just clubs.) 2S, then, as 4144, and all 4441 hands are handled.
The possibilities seem almost endless. Granted, some of this is so tight that it hampers Advancer bidding his own stuff. So, maybe the insane detail is best for pass-out or opposite a passed partner. Or, maybe it is just a curiosity or a brainstorming start. But, wow can you stack if you want to.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Flags/Transfers After 2NT in 2/1 GF
An idea that might be worth considering. In any 2/1 GF sequence where trumps have not yet been agreed but both major strains are possible, a 2NT call forces one-under calls by the other person, with 3C as a minor flag.
An example from BBF is 1S-2minor, 2S-2NT, ? At this point, Opener rebidding 3C to agree Responder's minor, 3D for hearts (6-4 weakish), or 3H to rebid spades allows three-level agreement of all suits, which solves some problems.
Similarly, 1S-2H, 2S-2NT is a good start for this.
If only one major strain is possible, but both minors are possible, then bidding the minor naturally but always 3H for whichever major (and 3S as a confirm call) makes sense. E.g., 1M-2C, 2D-2NT, ?
If all four suit strains are actually possible, one-under still might make sense, with 3S for clubs. This hurts in club sequences but helps in all others.
An example from BBF is 1S-2minor, 2S-2NT, ? At this point, Opener rebidding 3C to agree Responder's minor, 3D for hearts (6-4 weakish), or 3H to rebid spades allows three-level agreement of all suits, which solves some problems.
Similarly, 1S-2H, 2S-2NT is a good start for this.
If only one major strain is possible, but both minors are possible, then bidding the minor naturally but always 3H for whichever major (and 3S as a confirm call) makes sense. E.g., 1M-2C, 2D-2NT, ?
If all four suit strains are actually possible, one-under still might make sense, with 3S for clubs. This hurts in club sequences but helps in all others.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Two-Under Plus Fishbein Defense to 4C/5C
The opponents open 4C. The standard defense is natural overcalls, plus double as takeout.
An alternative structure could allow for more description, at the cost of converting the takeout double for penalties:
X = both majors, or one major and diamonds
4(5)D = takeout
4H/4S = natural one-suited
After the double, partner assumes both majors and shows prewference in the two-under method; bid 4H with heart preference or 4D with spade preference. If doubler had both majors, we get to the right major. If doubler had the other major and diamonds, he now bids 4H after 4D spade preference, or 4S afetr 4H heart preference, and Advancer picks. If doubler had a major-diamond two-suiter and Advancer prefers his major, we play there, which is probably OK.
This method could also be used in the event of a call that is practically forcing. For instance, after P-1NT-4C, we could assume that 4C will never be played undoubled, in which case pass is forcing and the risk of not doubling 4C is solved. Similarly, 4C (or 5C) after a strong, forcing opening might be a good time for this defense.
An alternative structure could allow for more description, at the cost of converting the takeout double for penalties:
X = both majors, or one major and diamonds
4(5)D = takeout
4H/4S = natural one-suited
After the double, partner assumes both majors and shows prewference in the two-under method; bid 4H with heart preference or 4D with spade preference. If doubler had both majors, we get to the right major. If doubler had the other major and diamonds, he now bids 4H after 4D spade preference, or 4S afetr 4H heart preference, and Advancer picks. If doubler had a major-diamond two-suiter and Advancer prefers his major, we play there, which is probably OK.
This method could also be used in the event of a call that is practically forcing. For instance, after P-1NT-4C, we could assume that 4C will never be played undoubled, in which case pass is forcing and the risk of not doubling 4C is solved. Similarly, 4C (or 5C) after a strong, forcing opening might be a good time for this defense.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Two-Under Run-Out Pass
I am not familiar with every run-out method ever devised for a weak notrump doubled. However, most that I have found require playing at the three-level if Responder desires to show both minors. A two-under forcing pass may do better.
1NT-X-P = suggests run-out to a minor. Opener responds by bidding:
2C = club preference
XX = diamond preference
If Responder started with a one-suited minor hand, he passes 2C with clubs, bids 2C after a redouble with clubs, or converts the redouble or 2C call to 2D with diamonds. If Responder started with both minors, he passes 2C or converts the redouble to 2D.
Responder could also pass with a minor-major combo. With, for example, 4H/5C, Responder could pass and then either (a) pass 2C or (b) convert redouble to 2H to show four hearts and longer clubs. I'm not sure that I would do this, but it seems like a plausible move.
Responder might even opt to convert the redouble for penalties. If, for example, Responder felt that 1NT XX'ed was a good bet if Opener prefers diamonds but would prefer to play 2D otherwise, then heck -- pass and pass.
If Responder has values, instead, he redoubles himself. 1NT-X-XX. Otherwise, systems on.
Maybe this works; maybe not so good. But, it's a two-under forcing pass option, and I like that as a theory discussion.
1NT-X-P = suggests run-out to a minor. Opener responds by bidding:
2C = club preference
XX = diamond preference
If Responder started with a one-suited minor hand, he passes 2C with clubs, bids 2C after a redouble with clubs, or converts the redouble or 2C call to 2D with diamonds. If Responder started with both minors, he passes 2C or converts the redouble to 2D.
Responder could also pass with a minor-major combo. With, for example, 4H/5C, Responder could pass and then either (a) pass 2C or (b) convert redouble to 2H to show four hearts and longer clubs. I'm not sure that I would do this, but it seems like a plausible move.
Responder might even opt to convert the redouble for penalties. If, for example, Responder felt that 1NT XX'ed was a good bet if Opener prefers diamonds but would prefer to play 2D otherwise, then heck -- pass and pass.
If Responder has values, instead, he redoubles himself. 1NT-X-XX. Otherwise, systems on.
Maybe this works; maybe not so good. But, it's a two-under forcing pass option, and I like that as a theory discussion.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Two-Under by Strong Hand
The normal two-under approach has the person not bidding the two-under call bidding the lower suit if he prefers that but the one-up artificially to show a preference for the higher suit. Thus, if 2C shows one or both majors, partner bids 2H with heart preference or 2S with spade preference.
If the stronger hand bids the two-under, you could reverse the meanings, indicating your least preferred suit. Thus, if 2C was bid by a strong hand to show one or both majors, Responder/Advancer would bid 2H if he prefers spades but 2D if he prefers hearts. As a pure coincidence, this happens to mean that the weak hand transfers to the suit he prefers. If the strong hand has both suits, he accepts the transfer. With only one suit, he bids that suit. Using this "transfer to the suit you prefer" method, the strong hand always plays the hand when the strong hand is two-suited, and the strong hand usually plays the hand even when he is one-suited, as the transfer is to the least-preferred suit (which is more often what the strong hand actually has).
It might be rare for a strong hand to use the two-under approach, but it could happen. For example, one might devise a scheme where a 3S rebid after a 2C opening is forcing beyond 3NT and shows one or both majors, and huge. 2C-2D, 3S-? In that scenario, as an example, Responder could transfer to the suit he prefers, and the two-under scheme still works great, just with the two-under bidder more often declaring.
Your reaction might be to suggest that transferring to the suit you prefer is easier to remember and maybe should be used all the time. But, the most common use for a two-under (one or both of two suits) approach is in situations where the person bidding two-under is weak, and where therefore you generally want the lead into the stronger hand (and the less described hand hidden).
If the stronger hand bids the two-under, you could reverse the meanings, indicating your least preferred suit. Thus, if 2C was bid by a strong hand to show one or both majors, Responder/Advancer would bid 2H if he prefers spades but 2D if he prefers hearts. As a pure coincidence, this happens to mean that the weak hand transfers to the suit he prefers. If the strong hand has both suits, he accepts the transfer. With only one suit, he bids that suit. Using this "transfer to the suit you prefer" method, the strong hand always plays the hand when the strong hand is two-suited, and the strong hand usually plays the hand even when he is one-suited, as the transfer is to the least-preferred suit (which is more often what the strong hand actually has).
It might be rare for a strong hand to use the two-under approach, but it could happen. For example, one might devise a scheme where a 3S rebid after a 2C opening is forcing beyond 3NT and shows one or both majors, and huge. 2C-2D, 3S-? In that scenario, as an example, Responder could transfer to the suit he prefers, and the two-under scheme still works great, just with the two-under bidder more often declaring.
Your reaction might be to suggest that transferring to the suit you prefer is easier to remember and maybe should be used all the time. But, the most common use for a two-under (one or both of two suits) approach is in situations where the person bidding two-under is weak, and where therefore you generally want the lead into the stronger hand (and the less described hand hidden).
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A Different Multi
Two-Under for One or Both could also be used with an alternative style of Multi, if one were so inclined.
Consider a standard 2C approach. Many use 2D waiting, plus Kokish. Thus, with heart hands and strong balanced hands, Opener starts with 2C, bids 2H, and then makes a call at the three-level.
Well, suppose, then, that your TWO CLUBS opening were multi, showing:
1. Weak with hearts,
2. Weak with spades,
3. Weak with both majors, or
A. Very strong, balanced
B. Strong with hearts primary
In that structure, Responder would assume weak and would normally bid:
I. 2H with heart preference
II. 2D with spade preference
If Opener has weak with majors, Responder's preference ends up the spot. If Responder has just spades, he bids 2S next whatever Responder prefers. With just hearts, he bids 2H or passes if Responder prefers hearts.
If Responder preferences a major but Opener has the strong hand, he next bids 2NT or higher, which shows the same thing that would be shown had Opener started a standard 2C, heard a waiting 2D, bid Kokish 2H, heard the 2S relay, and then bid.
If Responder has extras, sufficient for a game try opposite the weak hand, we are probably bidding a grand opposite the strong hand and can work it out. But, assuming a weak hand, Responder can bid 2NT as an unwind. Opener with a maximum for a weak hand bids 3D with both majors or his one major naturally. With a minimum weak hand, Opener rebids 3C instead, and the same unwinds normally available are still available, just one level higher.
Responder with one-way extras bids 2D with interest only if Opener has spades and then bids accordingly, or with a hearts-only interest bids 2S as a paradox bid. This seems somewhat better than regular multi because only one suit requires paradox bidding, and you get the bonus of the two-suited major hand.
If Opener has a strong hand of other varieties, he opens 2D, with 2H as the relay. This does not preempt anything, because the hands where Opener would have wanted to rebid 2H are bid through a 2C opening. Opener, after the relay, continues normally.
This alternative core for multi players might be better than the traditional approach, in that you ad yet another type of weak hand.
(One might also use the "Rexfordized Kokish" approach with this multi, where the 2C opening following by 2NT is not the big balanced hand (bids those through 2D) but rather a MINOR-major canape hand. See my articles here: http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/different-spin-on-kokish.html and here: http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/rexfordized-kokish-part-ii.html and http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/rexfordized-kokish-part-iii.html for details.)
Any thoughts from multi players?
Consider a standard 2C approach. Many use 2D waiting, plus Kokish. Thus, with heart hands and strong balanced hands, Opener starts with 2C, bids 2H, and then makes a call at the three-level.
Well, suppose, then, that your TWO CLUBS opening were multi, showing:
1. Weak with hearts,
2. Weak with spades,
3. Weak with both majors, or
A. Very strong, balanced
B. Strong with hearts primary
In that structure, Responder would assume weak and would normally bid:
I. 2H with heart preference
II. 2D with spade preference
If Opener has weak with majors, Responder's preference ends up the spot. If Responder has just spades, he bids 2S next whatever Responder prefers. With just hearts, he bids 2H or passes if Responder prefers hearts.
If Responder preferences a major but Opener has the strong hand, he next bids 2NT or higher, which shows the same thing that would be shown had Opener started a standard 2C, heard a waiting 2D, bid Kokish 2H, heard the 2S relay, and then bid.
If Responder has extras, sufficient for a game try opposite the weak hand, we are probably bidding a grand opposite the strong hand and can work it out. But, assuming a weak hand, Responder can bid 2NT as an unwind. Opener with a maximum for a weak hand bids 3D with both majors or his one major naturally. With a minimum weak hand, Opener rebids 3C instead, and the same unwinds normally available are still available, just one level higher.
Responder with one-way extras bids 2D with interest only if Opener has spades and then bids accordingly, or with a hearts-only interest bids 2S as a paradox bid. This seems somewhat better than regular multi because only one suit requires paradox bidding, and you get the bonus of the two-suited major hand.
If Opener has a strong hand of other varieties, he opens 2D, with 2H as the relay. This does not preempt anything, because the hands where Opener would have wanted to rebid 2H are bid through a 2C opening. Opener, after the relay, continues normally.
This alternative core for multi players might be better than the traditional approach, in that you ad yet another type of weak hand.
(One might also use the "Rexfordized Kokish" approach with this multi, where the 2C opening following by 2NT is not the big balanced hand (bids those through 2D) but rather a MINOR-major canape hand. See my articles here: http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/different-spin-on-kokish.html and here: http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/rexfordized-kokish-part-ii.html and http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/rexfordized-kokish-part-iii.html for details.)
Any thoughts from multi players?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Dreaming...
One concern with cuebidding is that the more you reveal to partner in a cuebidding sequence to fine-tune the contract, the more you reveal to the defense. This is a tough problem to resolve.
So, I got to thinking on this problem. There might be a way to structure cuebidding sequences so as to avoid disclosure of useful defensive info until after we have resolved less useful data sufficiently to warrant entering the extended discussion. How?
Well, consider a normal cuebidding sequence using my methods. Partner opens 1H, you bid 2C GF, partner rebids 2D, and you agree hearts with 2H. Cuebidding now starts.
Using my methods, 2S is a cue showing spade control, 2NT is a trump quality denial cue, 3C is a cue of an interior suit -- clubs, and 3D is a cue of an interior suit -- diamonds. Or:
Step 1 = spade cue
Step 2 = trump denial cue
Step 3 = club cue
Step 4 = diamond cue
Why the "Steps" analysis? Well, the cue definitions are, in fact, steps. But, the steps are defined by the call made rather than by some pre-ordained rules tied to steps. Defining the cues by the call made means that the structure of cuebidding, if observed from the standpoint of steps, is not necessarily ideal. (This same type of issue arises with showing stiffs, where the steps approach might be low-middle-high, but the strain approach might make the steps become low-middle-high or high-low-middle or middle-high-low, depending on the sequence.)
Well, suppose that one organized cuebidding by steps instead of by strain? Maybe the acronym AORTA might work -- Agreed suit, Opener's suit, Responder's suit, Their suit, Asking bids. In that structure, consider, again, the basic auction 1H-2C, 2D-2H. Now:
2S = A = Trump denial cue
2NT = O = Diamond cue
3C = R = Club cue
3D = T = Spade cue
(4NT = A = RKCB)
This, then, could be reciprocated. For example, consider the basic auction after 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 2NT (trump denial cue). Responder uses the same AORTA approach:
3C = A = trump denial cue
3D = O = diamond cue
3H = R = club cue
3S = T = spade cue
This then kicks back even again. Suppose 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 2NT(denial)-3C(denial), ? At this point, we know that the partnership is missing a trump honor, at least. Opener would restructure again:
3D = no trump honors
3H = diamond cue
3S = club cue
3NT = spade cue
In contrast, a step can become "closed." E.g., 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 3C(diamond cue, but the 2NT bypass promises two top trumps)-3H(diamond cue, plus the bypass promises the missing third trump). As Opener has shown two top trumps and Responder the third, the trump suit is "closed." As Opener also showed two top diamonds and Responder the third, the diamond suit is also "closed." Thus, with Opener next to bid:
3S = R = club cue
3NT = T = spade cue
A suit can become "closed" by cueing all cards or by a complete denial.
Using this appproach, plus bypasses as denials, would seem to prioritize resolution of the solidity of trumps first, the solidity of Opener's second suit second, the solidity of Responder's suit third, and then lastly control of the fourth suit. That might be ideal, in theory, as it might avert disclosure of useful info until later in the cuebidding auction. As the steps approach simply restructures the sequences, the same number of calls would be available and used, such that it seems that the steps approach would be as efficient.
The tricks, though, would be:
1. Determining the best acronym, meaning the best structure of priorities (not really priorities in the sense of importance but in the sense of least-damaging-disclosures).
2. Deciding when serious (or frivolous) enters in as a step.
3. Thinking through the possible auctions and any nuances that develop from this sort of structure.
4. Maximizing the usefulness of jump cues in this structure.
Just thinking out loud, though, it seems easy enough to cuebid using this technique without much adjustment. Simply make the trump denial cue (normally 2NT) the first step, use AORTA because it is easy to remember and sounds good, and keep 3NT as serious when you get to that point in the auction.
If anyone likes this idea and tries it out, let me know how it works, even if trying it out means running through deals on your own and seeing what happens.
So, I got to thinking on this problem. There might be a way to structure cuebidding sequences so as to avoid disclosure of useful defensive info until after we have resolved less useful data sufficiently to warrant entering the extended discussion. How?
Well, consider a normal cuebidding sequence using my methods. Partner opens 1H, you bid 2C GF, partner rebids 2D, and you agree hearts with 2H. Cuebidding now starts.
Using my methods, 2S is a cue showing spade control, 2NT is a trump quality denial cue, 3C is a cue of an interior suit -- clubs, and 3D is a cue of an interior suit -- diamonds. Or:
Step 1 = spade cue
Step 2 = trump denial cue
Step 3 = club cue
Step 4 = diamond cue
Why the "Steps" analysis? Well, the cue definitions are, in fact, steps. But, the steps are defined by the call made rather than by some pre-ordained rules tied to steps. Defining the cues by the call made means that the structure of cuebidding, if observed from the standpoint of steps, is not necessarily ideal. (This same type of issue arises with showing stiffs, where the steps approach might be low-middle-high, but the strain approach might make the steps become low-middle-high or high-low-middle or middle-high-low, depending on the sequence.)
Well, suppose that one organized cuebidding by steps instead of by strain? Maybe the acronym AORTA might work -- Agreed suit, Opener's suit, Responder's suit, Their suit, Asking bids. In that structure, consider, again, the basic auction 1H-2C, 2D-2H. Now:
2S = A = Trump denial cue
2NT = O = Diamond cue
3C = R = Club cue
3D = T = Spade cue
(4NT = A = RKCB)
This, then, could be reciprocated. For example, consider the basic auction after 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 2NT (trump denial cue). Responder uses the same AORTA approach:
3C = A = trump denial cue
3D = O = diamond cue
3H = R = club cue
3S = T = spade cue
This then kicks back even again. Suppose 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 2NT(denial)-3C(denial), ? At this point, we know that the partnership is missing a trump honor, at least. Opener would restructure again:
3D = no trump honors
3H = diamond cue
3S = club cue
3NT = spade cue
In contrast, a step can become "closed." E.g., 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 3C(diamond cue, but the 2NT bypass promises two top trumps)-3H(diamond cue, plus the bypass promises the missing third trump). As Opener has shown two top trumps and Responder the third, the trump suit is "closed." As Opener also showed two top diamonds and Responder the third, the diamond suit is also "closed." Thus, with Opener next to bid:
3S = R = club cue
3NT = T = spade cue
A suit can become "closed" by cueing all cards or by a complete denial.
Using this appproach, plus bypasses as denials, would seem to prioritize resolution of the solidity of trumps first, the solidity of Opener's second suit second, the solidity of Responder's suit third, and then lastly control of the fourth suit. That might be ideal, in theory, as it might avert disclosure of useful info until later in the cuebidding auction. As the steps approach simply restructures the sequences, the same number of calls would be available and used, such that it seems that the steps approach would be as efficient.
The tricks, though, would be:
1. Determining the best acronym, meaning the best structure of priorities (not really priorities in the sense of importance but in the sense of least-damaging-disclosures).
2. Deciding when serious (or frivolous) enters in as a step.
3. Thinking through the possible auctions and any nuances that develop from this sort of structure.
4. Maximizing the usefulness of jump cues in this structure.
Just thinking out loud, though, it seems easy enough to cuebid using this technique without much adjustment. Simply make the trump denial cue (normally 2NT) the first step, use AORTA because it is easy to remember and sounds good, and keep 3NT as serious when you get to that point in the auction.
If anyone likes this idea and tries it out, let me know how it works, even if trying it out means running through deals on your own and seeing what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)