Further to Difference of Opinion’s question and your response:
I have always been puzzled by the very common meaning of a 2NT rebid after opening 2C…i.e. the three-point range, 22-24.
How about two-point ranges showing:
20-21 open 2NT
22-23 open 2C and rebid 2NT
24-25 open 2C and rebid 3NT
The two-point ranges allow precise responses after a quantitative raise or other invite.
Then opening 3NT could show 26+ balanced, or the gambling 3NT, with the chosen agreement based upon which hand comes up more frequently.
I know I am off-base here, but don’t really know why.
Could you kindly explain?
Thanks
Iain ClimieMarch 5th, 2023 at 7:07 pm
Hi Clarksburg,
I play Benjaminised Acol over here with some partners so it is easy to have 20-21 for 2N, 2C-2-“N is 22-23, 2D-2H-2N = 24-25, 2C-2D-3N=26-27. 2C is either a strong 2 in any suit, 2D is effectively a normal 2C and 2H/S are weak twos on the basis that 2D isn’t usually very effective.
Having said that, the method was popularised by Albert Benjamin, a Scots international player. Michelle Brunner, who sadly died quite young but played for the England open team, when she was young once met Albert and told him she was playing that. He cheerfully told her “Ye dinne want to ppaly that rubbish; play 3 weak 2’s instead.”
It is rare that 1C / 1D on a ropey 20 count gets passed out if you’ve got game on and the oppo may also ride to the rescue especially in 4th… So treating 2N as a good 20 up to 22 can be considered too. I think 26+ balanced is so rare that you’re better off not fretting too much about it!
Regards,
Iain
Iain ClimieMarch 5th, 2023 at 7:08 pm
Sorry, typo – that should be 2C-2D-2N is 22-23
Bobby WolffMarch 5th, 2023 at 7:39 pm
Hi Clarksburg,
First, good to hear from you.
Next, the most important truism, or at least the more value gained is that you tend to be a likely perfectionist with your daily habits.
Sure, your scale is just as good as the other one, but the minutise represented is IMO not worth arguing. Why? Because what about a 5 card suit, or about card combinations (109 as against 108). My guess as to the real value scale of high cards should be ace=4 1/3 king=3 1/8 queen=2 and jack=9/10 and a 10=2/5 with even a nine gaining a bit from 0. In other words KISS needs to be the general order of the day and way back then, that concept ruled and has held on.
But if so and Charley Goren or Milton Work offered those numbers, they, with our beloved game, would have suffered more than it did with Covid 19.
Finally, I hope you were glad to hear from me, and don’t be a stranger.
clarksburgMarch 5th, 2023 at 11:47 pm
I fully understand the deficiencies in the old cookbook HCP, and always make adjustments.
My main question was the relative merits of three-point ranges vs two-point ranges with all else being accounted for. To illustrate, using very standard bidding:
1NT 15-17 (three-point range)
1 minor then 2NT 18-19(two-point range)
2NT opener 20-21 (two-point range)
2C then 2NT rebid22-24 (three-point range)
So there are two calls with two-point range sandwiched between two calls with three-point range.
Just seems strange somehow.
Bobby WolffMarch 6th, 2023 at 12:20 am
Hi Clarksburg,
What I mean to say is that exact point count ranges are very inexact. Compare QJ108 with QJ32, often a whole trick difference, and maybe 2. I realize you are merely talking about the planned bidding, but some 19 counts (especially when a 5 card suit is held are better than a 4-3-3-3) and from the get go when playing NT especially but, also often in suits.
The above then suggests that counting points is merely an inaccurate pass time, but assessing the strength shouldn’t be tied to point count but rather to togetherness of honors, a theory which Ely Culbertson promoted (honor count), but not Charlie Goren.
Culbertson was a better theorist than Goren, but Goren made the money because his 1-2-3-4 sold, but honor tricks demanded more knowledge of the game.
Furthermore, basic hand evaluation since first the bidding and then the play and defense takes over is what our game is all about and it is not nearly as reliant on either point count as it is on togetherness of honors, distribution and how the hands fit both offensively and defensively, making the bidding (in most cases) just guessing and assuming the law of averages will even out.
IOW the 2 or 3 point differences in evaluation cannot compare in value to the overall fit, both in NT and suit play. Therefore, being a strict point count player is definitely not an asset, but please keep it a secret, since then newbies, will not take the trouble to learn the game.
But I do not enjoy forcing new bridge players to think that they need to devote much time to the game to do anything more than just flip cards.
Your idea is fine and just as good as 3 point differences. Why it developed the way it did, probably is because the first person to sit down and put the system together, chose three point differences.
Steven ConradMarch 6th, 2023 at 10:48 am
I am slightly surprised that no one has brought up the Kokish convention. It works like this: 2C P 2D P; 2H* P 2S P; 2NT** P
The 2H rebid promises either hearts OR a balanced hand with 25+. The opener’s second rebid clarifies. If opener’s second rebid is 2NT, then the responder knows that opener has game in hand, but now both Stayman and Jacoby transfers are on. The inability to use Stayman or Jacoby can be fatal. About 20 years ago, playing in a 103 team Swiss in New York city, the opponents bidding went liek this: 2C – 2D; 3NT – P and we cashed the first 5 spades. They missed their 9 card heart fit. We won the event, no doubt thanks to that match.
I had given up bridge for 30 years and had just returned when, at a tournament, both Dick Budd and Ira Ewen told me to learn Kokish. I have used it ever since.
Steven ConradMarch 6th, 2023 at 10:48 am
I forgot to mention that, after the 2H rebid, the 2S bid is forced.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Further to Difference of Opinion’s question and your response:
I have always been puzzled by the very common meaning of a 2NT rebid after opening 2C…i.e. the three-point range, 22-24.
How about two-point ranges showing:
20-21 open 2NT
22-23 open 2C and rebid 2NT
24-25 open 2C and rebid 3NT
The two-point ranges allow precise responses after a quantitative raise or other invite.
Then opening 3NT could show 26+ balanced, or the gambling 3NT, with the chosen agreement based upon which hand comes up more frequently.
I know I am off-base here, but don’t really know why.
Could you kindly explain?
Thanks
Hi Clarksburg,
I play Benjaminised Acol over here with some partners so it is easy to have 20-21 for 2N, 2C-2-“N is 22-23, 2D-2H-2N = 24-25, 2C-2D-3N=26-27. 2C is either a strong 2 in any suit, 2D is effectively a normal 2C and 2H/S are weak twos on the basis that 2D isn’t usually very effective.
Having said that, the method was popularised by Albert Benjamin, a Scots international player. Michelle Brunner, who sadly died quite young but played for the England open team, when she was young once met Albert and told him she was playing that. He cheerfully told her “Ye dinne want to ppaly that rubbish; play 3 weak 2’s instead.”
It is rare that 1C / 1D on a ropey 20 count gets passed out if you’ve got game on and the oppo may also ride to the rescue especially in 4th… So treating 2N as a good 20 up to 22 can be considered too. I think 26+ balanced is so rare that you’re better off not fretting too much about it!
Regards,
Iain
Sorry, typo – that should be 2C-2D-2N is 22-23
Hi Clarksburg,
First, good to hear from you.
Next, the most important truism, or at least the more value gained is that you tend to be a likely perfectionist with your daily habits.
Sure, your scale is just as good as the other one, but the minutise represented is IMO not worth arguing. Why? Because what about a 5 card suit, or about card combinations (109 as against 108). My guess as to the real value scale of high cards should be ace=4 1/3 king=3 1/8 queen=2 and jack=9/10 and a 10=2/5 with even a nine gaining a bit from 0. In other words KISS needs to be the general order of the day and way back then, that concept ruled and has held on.
But if so and Charley Goren or Milton Work offered those numbers, they, with our beloved game, would have suffered more than it did with Covid 19.
Finally, I hope you were glad to hear from me, and don’t be a stranger.
I fully understand the deficiencies in the old cookbook HCP, and always make adjustments.
My main question was the relative merits of three-point ranges vs two-point ranges with all else being accounted for. To illustrate, using very standard bidding:
1NT 15-17 (three-point range)
1 minor then 2NT 18-19(two-point range)
2NT opener 20-21 (two-point range)
2C then 2NT rebid22-24 (three-point range)
So there are two calls with two-point range sandwiched between two calls with three-point range.
Just seems strange somehow.
Hi Clarksburg,
What I mean to say is that exact point count ranges are very inexact. Compare QJ108 with QJ32, often a whole trick difference, and maybe 2. I realize you are merely talking about the planned bidding, but some 19 counts (especially when a 5 card suit is held are better than a 4-3-3-3) and from the get go when playing NT especially but, also often in suits.
The above then suggests that counting points is merely an inaccurate pass time, but assessing the strength shouldn’t be tied to point count but rather to togetherness of honors, a theory which Ely Culbertson promoted (honor count), but not Charlie Goren.
Culbertson was a better theorist than Goren, but Goren made the money because his 1-2-3-4 sold, but honor tricks demanded more knowledge of the game.
Furthermore, basic hand evaluation since first the bidding and then the play and defense takes over is what our game is all about and it is not nearly as reliant on either point count as it is on togetherness of honors, distribution and how the hands fit both offensively and defensively, making the bidding (in most cases) just guessing and assuming the law of averages will even out.
IOW the 2 or 3 point differences in evaluation cannot compare in value to the overall fit, both in NT and suit play. Therefore, being a strict point count player is definitely not an asset, but please keep it a secret, since then newbies, will not take the trouble to learn the game.
But I do not enjoy forcing new bridge players to think that they need to devote much time to the game to do anything more than just flip cards.
Your idea is fine and just as good as 3 point differences. Why it developed the way it did, probably is because the first person to sit down and put the system together, chose three point differences.
I am slightly surprised that no one has brought up the Kokish convention. It works like this: 2C P 2D P; 2H* P 2S P; 2NT** P
The 2H rebid promises either hearts OR a balanced hand with 25+. The opener’s second rebid clarifies. If opener’s second rebid is 2NT, then the responder knows that opener has game in hand, but now both Stayman and Jacoby transfers are on. The inability to use Stayman or Jacoby can be fatal. About 20 years ago, playing in a 103 team Swiss in New York city, the opponents bidding went liek this: 2C – 2D; 3NT – P and we cashed the first 5 spades. They missed their 9 card heart fit. We won the event, no doubt thanks to that match.
I had given up bridge for 30 years and had just returned when, at a tournament, both Dick Budd and Ira Ewen told me to learn Kokish. I have used it ever since.
I forgot to mention that, after the 2H rebid, the 2S bid is forced.