Mr Rat

Yes you're quite right that the reverse is necessary when the response is at the 1-level since responder has to show preference for the first suit at the 3-level which requires their 6 plus 17 from opener to be theoretically sound. And that leads to the conclusion that, in a scenario where the partnership has shown enough for game, a reverse is not required to have the same strength for reasons of soundness. The same can be said of rebids in new suits at the 3-level (e.g. 1H-2D-3C). However, my main concern with the shape-only aspect is that you're starting to run out of bidding space -the very stuff we were trying to preserve and use efficiently by adopting the 2/1 approach. By the time we find a fit it is rather late in the day to be saying things about strength. Stephen mentioned the serious/frivolous 3N approach, but it seems to my mind that even that could be too little too late in many situations. Perhaps not, I'd need to play it a while and see if we can bid those 15 opposite 15 slams or those where a shortage is key to making in making 12 tricks when we have no room left to splinter after we're done showing shape and fit-finding. I'm also concerned to read on Larry Cohen's site that a sequence such as 1H-2D-3D could be a 3-card suit! If you can't find genuine minor suit fits, that seems to be a retrograde step in slam-assessing sequences.

Thanks to all for their responses; I have followed the thread with interest. As someone living in a 4cM world I have played a fair number of systems in the past (2/1, strong club etc), but it was before I had a long lay-off from the game (twice). Here in the UK it is fairly unusual to come across anyone playing 5cM let alone 2/1 and those I do come across seem to be playing some very ill-considered methods, frequently coming across problem hands and ignoring the problem! Having read the responses above, I am left with the feeling that 2/1 would probably work better from a 4cM base, since the need to bid short suits would be removed. I think it would need to be a 14-16 1NT opening though, so that the 1NT response can be semi-forcing and opener can pass with 12-13 balanced, invite or force to game with 17+.

Thank you, that's interesting. It sounds as though 2/1 could do with some artificial treatments. However I did read that the responding hand often makes quiet bids so that the opening hand can define itself so perhaps the 'Serious 3NT' approach as outlined by Stephen is sufficient (thanks for that Stephen). One other thing I'm struggling to find, if anyone has a moment, is the responses to 1D (if a pair have decided that 1D-2C is also GF) then where do the invitational responding hands go? We don't have a forcing (or semi-F) NT response available now, so do 10-11 counts simply jump to 2NT (natural)? 10 hcp seems a bit low to me for 2N and those with long clubs are a further complication. EDIT: I guess you could play 1D-1N as 6-10 and 2N as 11-(bad)12. 6-10 seems a bit wide though. Grateful for any input. N.B. I have tried Googling this but there seems a surprising lack of information (even someone's 2/1 system notes seems hard to find).

After (another) long lay-off from bridge, in trying to get back up to speed I've been looking into various methods, including 2/1 (here in the UK it's not seen often). In looking at the 'Must questions' as Lawrence calls them (is a 2/1 always GF, does a reverse/splinter etc after a 2/1 show extras and so on), I see a number of players advocating that the reverse etc are shape-showing only, no extra strength implied. The searches I've done include a number of (old) discussions here, in which various people say '2/1 doesn't have to show the strength immediately', however I don't seem to be able to find anything on exactly how one would go about showing strength later. An example may help, suppose the auction begins (uncontested): 1H - 2D - 2S - 3S We got to 3S, showing shape, before we found a fit. If 2S shows nothing extra then the only inference we have as to strength is that responder's 3S said something different to what 4S would have said (I believe that for most 4S would be fast arrival, so 3S is stronger than 4S. Are cues by opener now strength-showing or simply co-operating with slam investigations? We seem to be running out of bidding space to exchange information regarding strength. I'd be interested to hear how good players solve this 'problem' (not only the specific sequence above, but the issues raised by the shape-before-strength approach in general). In the past when I've played 2/1 I've simply played reverses, new suits at the 3-level etc as strength-showing, as they would be in a non-2/1 system. Thanks in advance.

There is nothing in all of that to disagree with my own analysis. If he has that hand then (in possession of the knowledge that opener has values in the reds) he will see the position and place the contract. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that you want to be in 6♥ opposite this hand when opener has the hand I suggested. No I am not suggesting that, I said that it was possible (in similar situations) that he may do this when he knows it's right. Why would the opposition bid 6♣? Because they've heard the subsequent bids just as much as we have - they are entitled to draw conclusions from our bids as much as we are as the auction develops so presumably they can add 6 hearts to 5 diamonds and diagnose 11 tricks the same as our side can. So if they decide that they don't have 3 fast defensive tricks, then bidding 6C makes sense whether it makes or not (it will be good compared to -650). These high level wars are often about each side bidding the lowest game contract they can get away with, often until one side judges to bid the highest making contract and the other side then try to diagnose that that's happened and decide if they should bid on (likely doubled) to achieve 'par'. Here it may well be that 4♥, 5♣ and 5♥ are all bid in an attempt to play there, and it may well be that they all make, so E/W need to diagnose that and bid 6♣. More on that below. The key thing is that the OP asked "what is 5♦?" and my response is essentially that it shows where his values are along with the known 15-17 balanced so that partner has the captaincy and can make the best possible decision. Whether he can do that or not on this particular hand is moot, we can only give ourselves the best possible chance to get it right. Of course not. In the hand that the OP provided for West, once he hears that opener's values are in the red suits, there is concern over the location of the spades. AQJ sitting over your king and 8 clubs on your right, 3 on your left is concerning, but we cannot know if hearts are 4-0 and diamonds 4-1, but I am not suggesting that (holding the W hand given) he should play them for, say: [hv=pc=n&w=saqj32hj432d2ck32&e=s4hd9543caqj98765]266|100[/hv] That would be nuts. The point is that when he bids 5♦ opener doesn't know which of the possible hands his partner may have (including hands such as long broken hearts - and yes, I am aware that he needs to have a reason not to have pre-empted but that depends on matters of style, partnership agreements in that area etc). Like you, I also expect W has 1 or more cards in spades, but he may have only the 1 that he does have, so the point is that in order to consider a sac (or an insurance bid) partner will be staring at a case other than the hand we were given for West - likely to be where he has longer diamonds and shorter spades. As more spades migrate to the diamonds he becomes increasingly concerned at the big double-fit scenario in both directions. Now defending 6♣ starts to look a dangerous option, doubled or otherwise. Do you really not understand that your first words quoted below are personally insulting to me?... I can't see anyone else that would refer to. Or is it that you believe that describing someone as 'seriously deluded' is not going to offend them? Despite the fact that you take offence at being described as 'unlucky'? At least I can say that you started it :P There's an expression 'arguing from a position of authority'. Essentially it's something that should never happen - in that any discussion should be conducted on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not 'I'm more famous than you so I win'. And as I say - I didn't 'pick a target', you did. N.B. As a side note, I see that the OP posted both hands while I was composing my first post in the thread. I would never open that hand with a 15-17 NT. 1♦ seems normal since you can adequately describe the hand via a reverse. Off-shape NT opening bids should be those that are difficult to express by opening normally because the expected rebid does not describe the hand adequately. I think I've had enough of this forum after about 2 threads worth. It simply reinforces my view that bridge players have a social gene missing, probably why I stopped playing for a decade and probably will again soon. Have the last word by all means, I won't be here to read it - I have better things to do than be insulted, misunderstood, preached to and have to write 4,000 painstaking words to clarify what should have been clear enough in the first place. And then to add insult to injury, have someone brandish their great bridge career at me. Goodbye.

The tone of your response is such that I would normally treat it as it deserves - not worth replying to. Except to point out the arithmetically-challenged aspect - when partner has 15hcp in the hand above, how in the name of all that's holy do you make that add up to "partner will have a spade card or two"??? He may have the ♠Q or ♠J, if max (assuming 15-17 NT). Or he may have a min and have nothing in spades, as I stated clearly enough for most. Nobody said that we have NO red tricks in defence - the point is that we may have only 1 and we need 2. Even if we get 2, we still may get a bad score if we can make a higher contract... Nobody ever said that 'opener is preparing for a sacrifice', what was said s that opener is simply providing the information for a high-level decision. High cards don't make this 'our hand', in these high level decisions it's all about having the info to make the right decisions. I dare say you're 'unlucky' a lot.

To me it shows fit along with length and values in diamonds. It's not a slam try in the true sense, it's an attempt to help partner get the high-level decision right when they bid on. It seems important to realise that this is not just abut deciding what we can make, opps can make a large number of tricks in clubs as well. I'm not sure why everyone is assuming that opener has 4 hearts on this auction. When partner has shown 6, a 10-card fit is beyond requirements. I'd expect something like this for the 5♦ bid: [hv=pc=n&e=s432haq2dakqt4c43]133|100[/hv] 11 tricks and no real likelihood for 12 (A♠ almost certainly offside) although partner has room for the ♠Q for a possible 12 tricks [*] - but then ♠A and another for a ruff is not so unlikely on this auction. Partner has warned you that his values are in the red suits, he has a source of tricks in ♦ to the extent that our combined defensive tricks are not that great since out ODR is high with a double fit in the reds, we may need to bid 6♥ as a sac if we have ♠AQ(J) sitting over the king and 8 clubs on our right, 3 on our left. Now the decision over 6♣ is whether we can cash 2 red-suit tricks fast - it's probably too risky, so we may take the small minus in 6♥ along with the chance that it may make depending who has the ♠Q. But we don't realise the danger unless partner shows us the lie of the land with his 5♦. [*} Assuming 1NT is 15-17, the OP doesn't say.

Exactly. It depends if you assess the field as being your peers or... something else. Against your peers you bid the slam if > 50%. Against a a weak field, all things being equal, you may bid it down and expect that making 12 tricks will be good anyway. All things being equal... But they're not. On this hand NT contracts look to be screwed in tempo terms. When they knock out the ♥A you're constrained - and will probably end up with the 10 tricks you started with, maybe 11. So - do you think these opponents will understand the auction and lead a heart? I assumed that we're playing decent (or plain old 'sensible') opps, in which case... well, that's one reason I opted for 6♦ not 6NT, unless partner is Kx Kx in the majors - and it's been confirmed that he's not (or shouldn't be!). Note that on a heart lead any losing C finesse is instant death in 6N.

Yep, true enough - as I said in the post, it was only showing the thought process, not the exact %s and not intending to deal with all the lower % cases. As you say, the JTx is clearly picked up when pard has rubbish - the key question is/was... here are the cases, this is the thought process at the table... is it a slam that should be bid?

It's a fair question. This seems a difficult situation to assess - the decision for 6♦ comes down to how we feel about playing clubs AQ9x opposite 4 cards of unknown quality. Case 1: 8xxx or worse, we need C 3-2, K onside. That's 34% Case 2: 87xx we have a chance to pick up JTx onside. Even without the 7 we may be able to pick up a doubleton 7 offside. Case 3: Txxx it's now at worst a '1 of 2 finesses' scenario, 75% Case 4: Jxxx Case 5: J8xx Case 6: JTxx As the pips get better, from Txxx onwards the chances of 3 tricks increase significantly - and there are various safety plays available since we will want to ensure 12 tricks here even at MPs. It's difficult to condense all these possibilities into an overall % for the slam from the perspective of a bidding decision, the acid test is "better than 50%" so it seems that we need to make an informed judgement as to how we feel about our chances here... And it may not be entirely a statistical decision - it would be if we were playing the first board of an event, but if later in the event... do we need a good board? Are we already winning, so play with the field? All in all, if someone were to say to me "I wouldn't want to be in 6 with those cards" then I wouldn't say they're wrong. It just feels better than 50% to me and at the table these decisions can't be made on the basis of calculating the above in detail, you have to get a rough idea and go with it. If, at the end of all that, partner puts down ♣Kxxx we can sue him for mental cruelty - or at least tell him to buy the beer ;)

So it seems that he has a horrible 3154 or 2254 with bad clubs. 3154 is more likely since he's shown a spade stop so he's likely to have ♠KQx since there's nowhere else for his values to be if he has bad clubs and a stiff heart, even with all the remaining ♦ honours the rest of his opening hcp will be in spades. If we piece together what we know - placing him with minors of KQJxx xxxx and a known stopper in spades, I expect him to have either: ♠Kx ♥Kx ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx or ♠KQx ♥x ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx So this looks like slam needs to play AQ9x opposite xxxx for one loser, which will also get us 12 tricks (3♣, 5♦ and 4 in the majors) so even 10-high clubs would improve the odds. How to play the particular combination at MPs will depend on the exact combination that turns up and how unusual a contract we feel our slam to be, any safety plays available etc. On that basis I'd rather be in 6NT opposite the first hand, but if our partnership bidding style means that he may have a frisky ♠KJx then I'll opt for 6♦ over 6♣ since I can ruff the spade loser in the short hand and then take my time to gather as much info as possible before tackling clubs. If partner's 'bad clubs' could turn up with the ♣J then I'm even more happy to play 6NT opposite the first hand but since we expect the 2nd hand we won't want to play 6N on a heart lead, so 6♦ it is.

Your database looks pretty useful - is it your own creation or is it freely available? Also, I'm wondering if its search facility is sophisticated enough to differentiate between 3M being pre-emptive versus invitational? The weakness of the first 2 hands (Wolpert & Jassem) makes me wonder if the 3♠ raises were actually systemically invitational. The 1♥ - 3♥ sequence is a bit different, since we have an opportunity to double, cue and bid 3S mostly below game level, so there's less pressure. Partnerships need to agree what these bids show of course and I'm not sure many have discussed how good a hand each of these show and how it may change when the 3M is pre-emptive.

Interesting. Since this gadget means that you're giving up the ability to play 3N here (when West has something like ♠AQ ♥xxx ♦KTxx ♣JTxx), presumably that's in the belief that West will rarely have sufficient stoppers in their 9-card suit to make it worthwhile playing 3N in its natural sense on these auctions?

I've edited the OP to use the hand editor, since the formatting seems to have caused some confusion. West has not 'already doubled', he has passed over 1♠, then hears a pre-emptive 3♠ on his left, double from (unpassed) partner, pass from opener... to you.

Lash out? Lol you'll know it when I lash out. It's clear that you don't understand the basis of this discussion so I'll trouble you no further. If you'd read the OP properly you would see that it notes that the base system is not relevant, and why, but that may go over your head if you don't know what a pre-emptive 3♠ looks like and how it differs from an invitational 3♠. I'm not here to explain the difference in a forum that's labelled as being for expert players - and as a matter of policy I don't help people who rant at me. I bear you no animosity, but I don't want to discuss this with you any further. If being on your "ignore list" means that I don't have to waste any more of my time on this standard of discussion, then I welcome that.

They "probably" have a 9-card fit? In a bidding poll question it's reasonable to assume that we're not playing lunatics - they will have a 9 card fit. We should base our decisions on that. But it doesn't really matter - as I said before, however many total tricks are available the risk of them getting 9 is too great to pass here. We know relatively little for an auction about to enter the 4-level. And btw - 7 cards is not defined as a fit in LTT terms, any pair with at best a 7-card combined holding in any suit is defined as a mis-fit. Errr... no. At least not unless clairvoyance is available to our side. If we could put a card on the table that says "I pass if 3♠ is going down but I bid 4♣ if it's making" then that would be a fine strategy indeed. We don't get it so easy - we have to decide what to do based on statistics, any useful rules of thumb such as LTT, experience etc etc.

Because it wouldn't exist as a law unless it said that. They are advertising a 9-card fit and contracting for the same number of tricks as their fit because the LTT says that will be a decent score for them (unless there's something skewed about the hand). Yes, there are exceptions of course, but they're spotted in post-match analysis, at the table we can only assume that they have a 9-card fit and that means we have a fit - we just don't know where and we also don't know if we still have space to find it or if we're already too high. That's what pre-empts are supposed to do. What we do know is this: whatever the total number of trumps/tricks may be, if they are getting 9 of them in 3♠-X then we will get a bad score. So the risk of passing is too great without someone having trump length (and we know that neither of us has that) - therefore I feel that bidding on is clear-cut here, not even a close decision on this hand.

Well, I think the Law tells us that 3♠-X will be an ok score for them however many tricks it makes - unless they have misjudged or there are surprises in the distribution for them. However, that may already be a done deal - perhaps the optimum contract is 140 for 3♥ or 110 for 3♣ by us and 3♠-X is -100 as the par. It's hard to tell, but if 3S is making then we need to bid on and the risk of not doing so at IMPs is very great. At MPs it's just a bottom. But since we have no surprises for them, no trump length, not a particularly good defensive hand etc, there is no reason to believe that 3♠-X will be a bad score for opps, so bidding on at IMPs looks by far the safest choice. Far better than letting them make a game at this table and maybe another plus at the other table.

It's good to see someone make the case for 4♣. As mentioned in my OP I see that as a candidate bid, and certainly I want to go plus and that may be the best way/only to do it. There's a key issue - if we have two balanced hands and our only playable strain is a minor, then we will need around 28-29 total points to make 5m. Our hand has only 10 hcp so partner needs to be contributing the other 18-19. And if he has that then he will bid again. If he has shape he will probably do something over 4C. The thing is that 4C (or 4D) may be our only playable spot. I wonder how many people would consider X then 4D by partner to be forcing though - or at least very close to it, expecting a bid with anything but a near-bust (which 4C might be).

Thanks - I didn't know about the flag thing, the above was my first ever post here. I was tempted to quip about not being able to bring myself to click the Canadian flag but I have nothing against Canada and it might not be taken in jest. I think most would plump for 4H as you did.

Yes that probably sums it up re the heart position - I suspect that nobody has agreements about how many hearts the doubler may have - the bid is made under extreme pressure so sometimes you play a silly contract... and sometimes you make a silly contract :) That's the downside of pre-empts - you can push the opposition into bidding something that they'd never have done by themselves, and all too often it makes. I often feel that pre-empts work at their best when they go beyond the opps likely game contract (e.g. opening 4m cuts out any possibility of them playing 3N). I gave up playing Lucas 2s for that reason - you push them into a game in the other major, then better players count out your hand and make the contract. Like the multi 2D, such bids work best versus weaker opposition, but we want to design our system to work against strong opps. In this example, playing a Moysian doesn't seem a bad idea - after all the hearts are rather good and will fit well if pard has QTxxx / Q9xxx and perhaps even if he has a card less. Given your example of making a 3-3 fit, perhaps Moyse was a pessimist! ;)

The pass can be a decent hand, up to a balanced 14 count - bearing in mind that partner passed in the overcalling position, not as dealer. On that basis, the double simply shows opening values and may even be shaded, since any partner worth their salt, holding a shortage in opps suit, will strive to make a t/o X realising that the other hand may have too many spades to have a sensible bid. N.B. As a bidding test question, unless otherwise stated, standard methods are assumed. Disciplined players will pass with a "weak NT" type of balanced 12-14 hand. IMPs, none vul. Now fixed in the OP - the formatting turned out as badly as I feared :( The lowest possible hand is about a 10-count with a spade void, for the reasons stated above. Ok, I think that was based on the misunderstanding of the maximum strength of the passed hand - perhaps that's why the bidding test put these bids in as possible answers.

This hand came up in a bidding forum question, you hold: EDIT: Trying to use the hand editor since the original format caused some confusion for some.[Question: how to get it to show a ? under West's 2nd bid] IMPs. Dealer South. None Vul. [hv=pc=n&w=st8hkj2dk863ckt76&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp3s(Pre-emptive)dp]133|200[/hv] * 3♠ = Pre-emptive You are West, your bid. A number of alternative bids were given, Pass, 4m, 4H, 4S, 4N. I find anything beyond 4H as being a bit nuts tbh with a balanced 10-count. Pass also seems manic, since their 3S suggests 9 trumps (although the discussion was in a 4cM area, it doesn't really matter I think since they are suggesting a 9-card fit whatever their basic system) and the LTT tells us that 3S-X is likely to be a good score for them however it turns out. Essentially Pass should have a surprise for them in trumps along with some values. That leaves a choice between 4C & playing 4H on a possible Moysian. I plumped for 4H at IMPs, but would probably go for 4C at MPs - even though that could be a 0 count from partner's viewpoint. The discussion around this seems to centre on two areas: 1. How many hearts does partner guarantee for the X? 2. What does 4S mean and does that affect what 4N means? (N.B. Not saying that they're sensible on this hand, just to discuss what they mean systemically). For 1, there is a question as to whether partner is obliged to bid 4H with any 5-card or longer holding, even say Q9xxx (or even 65432?). If so, does the X suggest that he has only 4 hearts. And does it promise 4 hearts? Note that in this we're ignoring the possibility that he may have a very strong hand that needs to start with a X, since that will not be a problem hand. If they were bidding hearts then we would of course expect partner to bid 3S with 5+ cards and X with 4, but we're in a different boat now that 4H may end the auction and we may play a 5-1 fit. Re question 2, there were all sorts of suggestions re these bids - some saying that 4N is rkc for hearts, some that it's a general force, some saying any 2-suiter with hearts goes that way so 4N is minors. If it has hearts then it must be a slam try to go beyond 4H, so... I thought it would be interesting to see what people here think. The 3S pre-empt certainly causes some problems for people.