[daveharty]

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.

[kenrexford]

Anything but 2♦ is sick, IMO. Just plain sick. I mean, maybe there could be a reason to not bid 2♦ provided by someone for some hand that does not feature...

Extra Strength
Heart tolerance, and
Stoppers in all suits...

But, the possession of all three means that there cannot be a problem no matter what partner does. Conversely, 1♠ as a response is begging for trouble.

[FrancesHinden]

Read a book on basic bidding.

[BunnyGo]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-25, 14:08, said:

Read a book on basic bidding.

-1.

[Phil]

Wrong forum. By a mile.

[OleBerg]

Phil, on 2011-February-25, 15:26, said:

Wrong forum. By a mile.

Not really. Now OP is certain what is right. In the B/I forum somebody might have advocated 1♠.

[MrAce]

OleBerg, on 2011-February-25, 16:39, said:

Not really. Now OP is certain what is right. In the B/I forum somebody might have advocated 1♠.

Wait till Rainer replies to this

[Stephen Tu]

There are some MAFIA & some canape based systems where 1s is the correct first bid, you have methods to show longer minor + GF later.

But in a standard naturalish system as played by 99.5+% of players, anything but 2d is nuts.

[mtvesuvius]

MrAce, on 2011-February-25, 16:56, said:

Wait till Rainer replies to this

OK now that made my day

[Phil]

OleBerg, on 2011-February-25, 16:39, said:

Not really. Now OP is certain what is right. In the B/I forum somebody might have advocated 1♠.

Who cares what is posted by BIs in a BI thread?

Edit: not trying to be harsh but I think the BIs read things here to hear what good players think about hands and not their peers perhaps.

[the hog]

This is not in the wrong forum at all. Some top players play MAFIA responses, and playing these you would bid 1S and later show longer Ds. MAFIA has advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage comes when you don't bid your M first, as that categorically denies holding one. Later Major responses are artificial. As most games are in #NT or 4M, there is login in bidding the Major first. Just because someone does not play your style, does not mean that other styles do not have validity.
Yes, of course, the vast majority of bridge players, but certainly not all, (and I am including world class players here), would bid 2D. 99% of them would do so because that is what they have been taught.

[daveharty]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-25, 14:08, said:

Read a book on basic bidding.

Thanks so much for this helpful reply.

There is a reason that I posted it in this forum, rather than in the B/I forum; namely, I am interested in why the forum Experts would universally start with 2D, since I assume that would be the case. Except for The Hog, nobody here has really taken the time to answer beyond scoffing at the original question.

[daveharty]

kenrexford, on 2011-February-25, 13:33, said:

Anything but 2♦ is sick, IMO.

The question wasn't meant to be about this particular hand, it was just the hand that got me thinking about it. What if you hold, for example, AKJx xx Jxxxx Ax? Or AKQx x xxxxx QJx? Just wondering if people think there is a line, and if so, where it is. Agree that 2D is correct with the given hand.

[kenrexford]

Strangely, this has turned into a discussion of theory, so here goes.

If you start with 1♠, you will be well-placed if partner raises to some level of spades. Presumably, tht will be 2♠, in which case the auction is perfectly controlled. Against this, when you start with 2♦, you will establish a game force, but then spade auctions will suffer somewhat. If partner rebids 2♠, you have to raise to 3♠ to establish the fit, but Opener has been unable to describe his strength yet. If Opener rebids, instead, 2♥, you have some ambiguity here. if you introduce spades first, you end up still at the three-level when you have a fit, but you also strain getting hearts back in focus. So, when you have a spade fit, it seems that a 1♠ call is superior.

The problem with that approach is that you make getting diamonds in focus miserably difficult. Sure -- if partner has a 4-fit in diamonds, you will have some better luck. But, it still seems hopelessly strained. Starting with 2♦ GF makes any diamond exploration for slam really nice and easy.

The other problem is when hearts will be the focus. If partner, after 1♠, rebids 2♥, you don't have a clear route to establish a heart fit and GF values with space to unwind things. After 2♦, you could set hearts easily in the GF, except for that lurking spade problem.

Therefore, there is something to be said for bidding spades first whenever you are on a bare minimal GF, I think. But, this hand is so powerful that (1) you do not expect that you will gain by having partner be able to show strength with a jumping spade raise (or it won't matter), (2) while the most likely slam will be in a 4-4 spade fit if there is one (because that strain requires the fewest combined HCP's on average), opposite a minimal GF, the converse here is that you are strong enough for a diamond slam to be realistically in focus, (3) you have the strength to handle an auction getting somewhat out of control, as you can in that case venture into the four-level, and (4) when all breaks down, you at least have notrump viability.

Thus, whereas I view 1♠ as sick with this holding, a lighter hand of maybe one King less, with the same pattern, might merit a 1♠-first approach.

[helene_t]

If you play standard methods you have to bid 2♦ since otherwise you won't be able to show a strong hand with longer diamonds than spades.

A style in which you start with 1♠ and subsequently have ways to show that the diamonds are longer could possibly be more efficient as long as opps don't interfere. But I think we could be badly placed after
1♥-(p)-1♠-(3♣)
p-(4♣)-?

After a 2♦ response it is a little easier as we have established a GF and promised a 5-card diamonds (presumably).

[the hog]

"The problem with that approach is that you make getting diamonds in focus miserably difficult. Sure -- if partner has a 4-fit in diamonds, you will have some better luck. But, it still seems hopelessly strained. Starting with 2♦ GF makes any diamond exploration for slam really nice and easy."

I disagree with this comment. Yes you do have to assign a bid to show the long D hand that is used for something else in a standard version of 2/1, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it out to be. After all Balicki and Zmudsinski do not seem to have the problems you describe, do they? Ken, one of my points that you have ignored is that a major advantage of MAFIA responses occurs when responder fails to bid a Major. Now you know 100% he does not have one and any subsequent Major bid carries different meanings.

I suggest Ken, that you and David look at the following site:
http://taigabridge.c...cles/mafia1.htm

Dave, you also might have a look at http://www.bridgewit...Matula_text.txt to see how PC players treat MAFIA and the continuations thereto.

By the way, I am not suggesting that this method is superior to standard responses; all I am saying is that there are other alternatives which some very good bidding theorists, eg Matula, Izddebski and others think are superior and that perhaps some posters should not be so dismissive about methods which they don't play and appear not to understand.

Perhaps Frances might benefit from reading this as well, especially as the op was made in THIS forum and not in a 2/1 or Sayc forum.

[the hog]

helene_t, on 2011-February-26, 20:04, said:

If you play standard methods you have to bid 2♦ since otherwise you won't be able to show a strong hand with longer diamonds than spades.

A style in which you start with 1♠ and subsequently have ways to show that the diamonds are longer could possibly be more efficient as long as opps don't interfere. But I think we could be badly placed after
1♥-(p)-1♠-(3♣)
p-(4♣)-?

After a 2♦ response it is a little easier as we have established a GF and promised a 5-card diamonds (presumably).

Helene, in your posted sequence a MAFIA player can bid 4D to categorically show 4S and long Ds. I actually think you are worse off in this sequence for not having bid S.

[OleBerg]

daveharty, on 2011-February-26, 19:13, said:

Thanks so much for this helpful reply.

There is a reason that I posted it in this forum, rather than in the B/I forum; namely, I am interested in why the forum Experts would universally start with 2D, since I assume that would be the case. Except for The Hog, nobody here has really taken the time to answer beyond scoffing at the original question.

Not really. Frances' advice is very helpfull, it is just delivered in a scoffing fashion. You cannot expect the forum to write an entire book for you. Especially not, when such a book already excists.

[straube]

If I'm promised an uncontested auction and if my continuations are carefully prepared and probably requiring that opener is a limited hand (like 10-15), then it makes a great deal more sense to respond 1S to 1H. Responder will be able to ascertain opener's shape or show his own shape after a 1N rebid. 1S saves a tremendous amount of room.

Since obviously the auction can be contested and we're probably not excluding limited openers, I'd vote strongly for a 2D response. It's expensive in terms of space, but it does create a GF and will establish the relative lengths of 2 suits.

[daveharty]

OleBerg, I'm not sure why you think I am "expecting the forum to write an entire book" for me. I posted a question about one specific bidding scenario where I expected that there might be either disagreement or consensus, and a couple of the responses have indicated that this is not an open-and-shut case.

Hog, thanks for the links.