Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill Segraves
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances,

I've mapped it out, and if I use the immediate jump to 3 as a 5=6, I've used them all. (The delayed jumps are auto-splinters.) I'm actually one or two short, and have to decide whether the memory load and giving up the 5=6 is worth using one of them for that.

Craig,

For what two hand types do you use the two different routes to 2NT?
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is sweet, John. It gets rid of the main thing I don't like about the 2NT relay - having to give the opps the chance to make lead-directors on the way to a natural invite. And also opens up some additional possible bids.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That would give up the shape precision in 2N follow-ons.”

I'm not proposing that one give up a 2NT follow-on structure such as you suggest, just that one can *also* give some meaning to the direct and delayed jump to 3, for instance.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would mean you wouldn't need them for *this* purpose. But you can either leave them idle or give them some other meaning.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some use the direct jump to 3 and the 2 then 3 to show auto-splinters and splinters in opener's suit. In his Chapter in Hardy's book, Baze recommends the direct jump as support in opener's suit and the delayed jump as an autosplinter, but I'm aware that some top players play it the other way around.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, see above, where I'm wondering how the sequences in Gavin Wolpert's article and Oren Kriegel's post would differ from those splinters.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On this auction, how would 2NT -3 - 3 differ from the other ways that people show splinters in support of clubs - either the direct jump to 3 or 2 - 2 - 3, per partnership agreement?
Jan. 20
Bill Segraves edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just concerned with sequence after a 1NT rebid for now, so 2 would be a puppet, but this post is just about GF or better.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I knew it, with the relay to 2, as Two-Way Checkback before the days of XYZ, and this is consistent with the usage in Kearse's Bridge Conventions Complete. Recognizing that people use the terms in different ways and have different agreements about the meaning of the 2NT and 3 rebids, in particular, I tried to spell out the relevant agreements.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Steve. Interesting stuff.

As asked below in response to Oren's, I wonder how the sequence showing spade shortness in support of clubs differs from the other way that people show splinters - either the direct jump to 3 or 2 - 2 - 3?
Jan. 20
Bill Segraves edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Kerry. Looks interesting. Completely different scheme, so I'll have to look at it a bit to assess pros and cons. Looks like you give up the ability to bid major-minor 2-suiters on some sequences?
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting idea. Some pros and cons. Not so good if responder is weak with <3 hearts, but otherwise maybe a good compromise.

But what happens next over the 3NT? If 4 is a transfer to spades and 4 is a re-transfer to hearts, then we lose our ability to bid out the red 2-suiter at a low level, right?

Maybe it's better not to worry about the 3=5-(3-2) given the costs?
Jan. 18
Bill Segraves edited this comment Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd base my decision on three considerations: frequency, expected outcome, and opportunity cost.

Frequency: Getting passed out in a semi-forcing 1NT when you have a balanced three card limit raise is relatively rare. Your pard has to have a balanced minimum and the opps have to be silent. If you're unbalanced, this becomes significantly less likely. Not only is pard more likely to be unbalanced or semi-balanced, but with almost half the points, the opps have to be silent when holding at least nine cards in some suit.

Expected outcome: If pard passed your semi-forcing notrump, they didn't want to be in game opposite a three card limit raise, so this is about being in the best partscore. When you're balanced, you're significantly better off playing in 1NT than in 3. 3 is better when you're unbalanced, but see above wrt frequency, and if the opps balance in, you might even get to play 2. At IMPs, 1NT is a decent contract even relative to 2, but at MP, there's something to be said for shooting for the ideal spot of 2 when 4 isn't right. Above and elsewhere, you'll see reference to methods such as an artificial 2 to allow that. You may want to explore this if it's permitted in the games you'll be playing and you're willing to give up some of the natural 2/1 auctions that may be better for minor suit slam bidding.

Opportunity cost: IMO, the opportunity cost of giving up 1 - 3 to show an invitation with 6 good hearts is way to high to consider giving it up for this. You could make a stronger case for using 1 - 2 for unbalanced three card raises, perhaps, but there's an opportunity cost for that as well. Personally, I am persuaded by Biddle's and Caprera's arguments at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1h-2s-to-show-spades-and-a-minor/ that the best use is to show a subinvitational hand with 6+ spades (allowing 1 - 1 - 2 red - 2 to be forcing 5+.
Jan. 18
Bill Segraves edited this comment Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I took the conditions to mean no other hcp, so not GF.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Kearse's 1990 Bridge Conventions Complete, Two-Way Checkback after 1NT rebid includes 2 relay to 2. (No mention in hers or elsewhere of XYNT or XYZ in that era, that I can find anywhere, but that's what I'm asking about.)

Also, for those who are interested, the jump to 3 over 1NT is the sign-off in clubs. (This is also the way Baze and Hamilton do it in their chapters on methods after 1NT and 1M rebids in Hardy's 2002 book.)
Jan. 15
Bill Segraves edited this comment Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I'm aware of early references to 2-way checkback after 1NT rebids. It's the extension of this to 1M rebids and the naming of that as XYZ that I'm after.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am realizing that my version proposed above still wrong-sides spades, because of the relay bid. Let's try again:

2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 4 shows diamonds
2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 4 shows 6=4 majors
2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 3 - 3NT - 4 shows 4=6 majors
2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 3 - 3NT - 4 shows 5-5 majors no slam interest
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You make an interesting point, Richard. There are various frequency-related questions here, and I'm inclined to think that the higher frequency auctions are the ones on which responder *doesn't* want to take further action unless opener has a hand that's suitable for going on past 3NT.

As long as responder is content to play in 3NT on a non-fit, then the “standard” Muppet version works fine, especially with the understanding that opener with a fit preserves cuebidding space by cueing when accepting.

But that does leave us with the question as to what a 4=5 responder with a slam invite even opposite balanced should do. Between the direct and relay bids of 4S and 4N there are enough bids available that one of them could be used for this: a quantitative raise with 4=5 shape.

Wrt Gabor's, we've adopted a different scheme precisely because we want to preserve the ability to bid the 4M - 5+m 2 suiters.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The above was the simple version, but the solution I like in response to Noel's post also solves the problem that Mike raises: how you avoid wrongsiding spades on 6=4.

2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 4 shows diamonds
2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 3♠ - 3NT - 4 transfers to hearts
2NT - 3♣ - 3 - 3♠ - 3NT - 4 transfers to spades

With the remaining combinations, there are a variety of ways to add in key card, quantitative, Gerber (if you like) and 4M with 4 diamonds (we cover 4M with 4 clubs by bidding 4 after the relay).
Jan. 11
Bill Segraves edited this comment Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Muppet version I cite, 3 is a relay to 3NT on both of those sequences.
Jan. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
.

Bottom Home Top