[OleBerg]

rhm, on 2011-February-28, 07:06, said:

A couple of months ago there was a discussion on another expert forum when the minor was equal in length:
http://www.bridgewin...ond-2c-or-1s-on

what to respond to 1♥ with

♠KQ84
♥Q43
♦A8
♣A843

The expert consensus was to respond 2♣.

Rainer Herrmann

Calling that expert consensus, is like saying I have an athletic body.

[han]

I would bid 2D.

[daveharty]

han, on 2011-March-03, 09:35, said:

I would bid 2D.

Hannnnnnn.....

Attached File(s)

•  8zdwmu.jpg.gif (594.11K)
  Number of downloads: 15

[Vampyr]

rhm, on 2011-February-28, 07:06, said:

what to respond to 1♥ with

♠KQ84
♥Q43
♦A8
♣A843

The expert consensus was to respond 2♣.

Rainer Herrmann

That is perverted.

[Zelandakh]

655321, on 2011-February-27, 03:11, said:

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-27, 09:14, said:

I am well aware that there are systems in which 1S is the correct response. There are also those in which 2C is the correct response. Canape has been around for a very long time. But as the OP has clarified, the question was about if there is a consensus among those playing standard natural-based longest-suit-first methods. You might say that wasn't mentioned in the original post, but if questions are not asked in that context, there's no point ever answering this sort of vague question because the answer is always "it depends on what system you are playing"

These 2 answers seem to sum everything up here. The question was asked in a context that implied standard natural methods. Within that context it is blindingly obvious that 2♦ is the consensus. If you are playing a different system then it is also blindingly obvious that the consensus answer will depend on the system involved. For me this is an obvious (artificial) 1♠ response which starts a relay sequence. The relevance of that answer to the given OP is nil; similarly for majors-first responses or any other alternative. Perhaps a better discussion could be had from the starting point: "I am interested in alternative methods to standard responses over a 1M opening. Are there any such methods used in expert circles. Could you provide details please." Even if that is not precisely what you wanted such an approach would at least have avoided the "Huh, this is the A/E forum," responses which the OP produced.

[the hog]

daveharty, on 2011-February-25, 11:59, said:

Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject. The hand that brought this up was something like: K9xx Kx AQ532 Ax, after partner had opened 1H.

Zelandakh, on 2011-March-04, 03:30, said:

The question was asked in a context that implied standard natural methods.

I don't know how you could conceivably draw that conclusion from the op's post, subsequent replies and failure to post in the 2/1 SAYC forum.

[the hog]

rhm, on 2011-February-28, 07:06, said:

A couple of months ago there was a discussion on another expert forum when the minor was equal in length:
http://www.bridgewin...ond-2c-or-1s-on

what to respond to 1♥ with

♠KQ84
♥Q43
♦A8
♣A843

The expert consensus was to respond 2♣.

Rainer Herrmann

Vampyr, on 2011-March-04, 03:05, said:

That is perverted.

Not to hijack this thread Vampyr, but I agree. Lets say the bidding goes:

1H 2C
2H 3H

which was the suggested auction. How do you now find a 4-4 S fit? What would a 3S bid be now? This probably works out fine if you play that a 2S bid by opener shows no extra values; however many do not play this. It would also work out fine if you play Flannery and I suspect that it is in these contexts that the proponents of that bid are operating.
If on the other hand you play artificial responses or relays such as the Italians or some of the Poles do after a 2C response, then I would agree that an initial 2C response is very useful.

[helene_t]

the hog, on 2011-March-04, 03:42, said:

I don't know how you could conceivably draw that conclusion from the op's post, subsequent replies and failure to post in the 2/1 SAYC forum.

Hmmm ... maybe the default context should be "your preferred system" when it is not posted in the SAYC-2/1 forum. Or maybe the default context should be "what would you do with a pick-up partner having no agreements". I dunno. Anyway, I think it's ok to discuss two different questions if it is not clear which of the two were intended.

[han]

the hog, on 2011-March-04, 03:54, said:

Not to hijack this thread Vampyr, but I agree. Lets say the bidding goes:

1H 2C
2H 3H

which was the suggested auction. How do you now find a 4-4 S fit? What would a 3S bid be now? This probably works out fine if you play that a 2S bid by opener shows no extra values; however many do not play this.

Perhaps people should optimize their second round agreements so that they don't have to start with an inferior bid.

[mtvesuvius]

the hog, on 2011-March-04, 03:54, said:

Not to hijack this thread Vampyr, but I agree. Lets say the bidding goes:

1H 2C
2H 3H

which was the suggested auction. How do you now find a 4-4 S fit? What would a 3S bid be now? This probably works out fine if you play that a 2S bid by opener shows no extra values; however many do not play this. It would also work out fine if you play Flannery and I suspect that it is in these contexts that the proponents of that bid are operating.
If on the other hand you play artificial responses or relays such as the Italians or some of the Poles do after a 2C response, then I would agree that an initial 2C response is very useful.

You found a fit, what's the problem?

[OleBerg]

han, on 2011-March-04, 07:35, said:

Perhaps people should optimize their second round agreements so that they don't have to start with an inferior bid.

+1

[gnasher]

han, on 2011-March-04, 07:35, said:

Perhaps people should optimize their second round agreements so that they don't have to start with an inferior bid.

Doesn't that argument cut both ways? As I understand it, the reason for responding 2♣ on 4-4 in the blacks is that you have bad auctions after a 1♠ response. Another possible solution to the problem is to improve the sequences that start 1♥-1♠.

[mtvesuvius]

gnasher, on 2011-March-04, 11:18, said:

Doesn't that argument cut both ways? As I understand it, the reason for responding 2♣ on 4-4 in the blacks is that you have bad auctions after a 1♠ response. Another possible solution to the problem is to improve the sequences that start 1♥-1♠.

The problem is that it's not possible to improve much unless you play some sort of transfers (causing problems for Balanced hands), or play 1♥-2♠ as weak, and 1♥-1♠-2x-2♠ as an Artificial GF. 1♥-1♠ auctions cannot be improved too much, and so it seems logical to not use them when possible.

[bluecalm]

2C on 4-4 black and gf is standard imo. I saw this recommended in a book about acol from 80's :-)
It's also fit very well to how people play 2/1 here.

Quote

Not to hijack this thread Vampyr, but I agree. Lets say the bidding goes:

1H 2C
2H 3H

And here we have example from someone playing ston eage 2/1 style.
Of course if you bid 3H on this, then that sucks. I guess you also bid 2D (1H - 2D) with 4 diamonds.
Back to the hand you just bid 2NT after 2H and all the problems are over. This by the way what you have, balanced gf hand which 2C includes. 3H should show real clubs.
If you have more agreements even 2S would do.

[han]

gnasher, on 2011-March-04, 11:18, said:

Doesn't that argument cut both ways? As I understand it, the reason for responding 2♣ on 4-4 in the blacks is that you have bad auctions after a 1♠ response. Another possible solution to the problem is to improve the sequences that start 1♥-1♠.

I saw my comment as a cheap jest rather than as an argument. I do think that if both 1H - 1S and 1H - 2C auctions are well thought out, it will be better to start with 2C. In my experience it is very convenient to immediately show a GF on hands like this, and it will more often lead to succesful auctions.

[dicklont]

BunnyGo, on 2011-February-25, 15:07, said:

-1.

Frances Hinden is always +1.

[gnasher]

han, on 2011-March-04, 12:39, said:

I saw my comment as a cheap jest rather than as an argument

You should be pleased that even your cheap jests provoke serious discussion.

[the hog]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-04, 10:25, said:

You found a fit, what's the problem?

Si you are saying if I have a 5-3 H fir I should give up o a possible 4-4 S fit. That is a very sill suggestion.

[the hog]

bluecalm, on 2011-March-04, 11:35, said:

2C on 4-4 black and gf is standard imo. I saw this recommended in a book about acol from 80's :-)
It's also fit very well to how people play 2/1 here.



And here we have example from someone playing ston eage 2/1 style.
Of course if you bid 3H on this, then that sucks. I guess you also bid 2D (1H - 2D) with 4 diamonds.
Back to the hand you just bid 2NT after 2H and all the problems are over. This by the way what you have, balanced gf hand which 2C includes. 3H should show real clubs.
If you have more agreements even 2S would do.

Yeah I suppose Larry Cohen and other on the Bridge Winners site do play stone age 2/1. You have shot yourself in the foot this time Bluecalm.

[mtvesuvius]

the hog, on 2011-March-04, 18:39, said:

Si you are saying if I have a 5-3 H fir I should give up o a possible 4-4 S fit. That is a very sill suggestion.

Thanks. I'll be quite happy in my fit, you can feel free to go poking around for yours. Make sure you get to bid 3♣ as an Artificial GF while you're at it.