mikeh, on 2025-November-29, 17:29, said:
However, it’s a method that creates bad results on hands where, given the methods, neither opp did anything anti-systemic.
Yes. I'm saying that these situations are uncommon, and sometimes salvageable. It'll lose some IMPs or matchpoints, but on average I think the impact will be limited (but negative). That makes it a poor but not unplayable method. For the particular loss you mentioned to occur we need to have an uncontested auction with both opener and responder within a narrow range of strength and shape. And even then the inferior contract might prove to be a winner, as you yourself pointed out several times. I'd be surprised if this lost as much as 0.2 IMPs on average in a 24-deal match.
For some numbers context: opener holding 15-16 balanced while responder holds 7-8 and doesn't have a suit to run to (5cM, 6cm) - a losing case where you get to 2NT while 1NT is better - is about 0.6% of all deals, or 0.14 occurrences per 24-deal match. I think you probably lose multiple IMPs per occurence on average (every time you take 7 or fewer tricks in NT with this holding). However, this is an overestimate of the frequency as the opponents might be in the auction, and we might scramble to a playable strain rather than duke it out in 2NT, and it is partially offset by some winning cases.
Mind you, I think the method has little to nothing going for it over modern approaches. I think upgrading 19s into 2NT is undesirable, that the weak (12-14) NT creates more problems in competition than it solves, and that even the uncontested part of the system has glaring weaknesses. But I also think the impact of this part of the system (as with any, to be honest) is very limited. If we're talking about specific constructive auctions we're always in the <1% frequency territory, and there just isn't that much to lose or gain there.
mikeh, on 2025-November-29, 17:29, said:
As for 3H, while I agree that suit quality isn’t the best all and end all of jump rebidding a suit, it shouldn’t be ignored either. Give me, as responder, a borderline game bid over 3H and I look immediately at my heart fit. Give me a top honour (AKQ) and I’ll bid aggressively. That may not work well opposite J10xxxx even with all his (short) side cards. In-out valuation remains a valid approach.
I think this is a plus for bidding 3
♥. The honour in hearts is really appreciated, while slow honours in any of the other three strains are probably less valuable. I'm worried about the losing case where partner has
♥xx or
♥x and we end up in 3NT and don't have a source of tricks, and I suspect that partner's in-out valuation over a hearts rebid will help avoid this.
Cyberyeti, on 2025-November-30, 01:59, said:
Mike, we've had opps play 2N with 18 opposite 0 after responding to a 2 card club with nothing.
Modern approaches (notably T-Walsh, Strong Club methods, Polish/Swedish Club and Dutch Doubleton) acknowledge this flaw of standard and resolve it at the 1-level through different means. I think it's good to point out that this is a weakness in standard, but not a great way to aim to fix that weakness.
Cyberyeti, on 2025-November-30, 01:59, said:
On this hand it didn't make any difference whether you bid 2♥ or 3♥, you would play in 4♥. If you rebid 1N you would play 3N.
Partner held AQxx, Kx, QJxx, Qxx
In theory 4♥ is better because if RHO wins the first heart and switches to a diamond you can rise and try to take 2 pitches on dummy's winners, where in NT you have to hope the ♦K is onside and it isn't, but we got a poor score for 4♥ as nobody found the switch.
Both 3NT and 4
♥ look quite fine to me, especially at IMPs. At matchpoints, if 3NT is better in practice because it requires some high quality defence to be worse, tough luck.
Help
