LBengtsson

Surely a precedent has been established for allowing you to bid this way for 20+ years. I do not know how the English Bridge Union operates, and I do not know how conventions are licensed, but someone needs to man up and take them to task over this. It is not like a Multi 2♦ which is banned in most of North American tournaments as far as I know. You are bidding a suit, a natural bid, with less points than a minimum one level opening. It is a natural bid, defined in easy terms, but a pre-emptive way. I guess that as there is not any defense listed for your methods - is there? - that is why they have banned it.

Lol but not lol :( You should not need to see any explanation here. If you wanted TOX you had three bids before to express this but you passed. How the bot does not see this as a penalty bid after 4♥ bid, I just give in! It is always penalty!

I agree entirely. Maybe I should explain myself better. When responder has 4M support and, let say, 4432 or 4333 and a reasonably strong hand, bidding a three-card minor at the 2 level may be necessary as a GF - a 'dummy bid', a short suit bid, that is what I was thinking. I am not a fan of bidding 2NT Jacoby with this balanced shape. I am going off the forum poster's topic now, but actually I can not remember reading anything about when it is best to use Jacoby 2NT and when it is not. As you say, if you have a strong side suit that should sometimes be bid first in these auctions. The trouble is many club level (intermediate) players are conditioned to use Jacoby 2NT with any hand with 4M support and opening values, when other options may be available.

I agree totally, Mike. Perhaps I should not have used the word 'Period'. I actually think the Jacoby 2NT should only be used with a specific shape and point range as a response. Responder can be the boss in auctions where he has very good (4M+) support for partner's opening major suit bid and a game forcing hand and might make a 'dummy' bid with 2m to set up the game force. The point I was trying to make is responder distinguishing between 3M and 4M support for opener. This is vital information where opener has extra values and becomes the boss in the auction. Actually, that is a whole topic in itself, who becomes 'boss' in 2/1 auctions. Sometimes it is obvious, but on others, I feel, players are unsure who takes the role.

I admit I am no expert in all the bids in 2/1, but I do trust this is right. First, if you have 4 card major support as responder you should use Jacoby 2NT in the auction. Period. 1♠ - 2m(GF) - 3m (raise fit) - 3♠ shows 3 card ♠ support and fixes ♠ as trump for RKCB. Now what I will say here is that the contract might be played better in a 4-4m fit than the ♠ suit. How you then return to the minor suit fit I do not know. However, if 1♠ - 2♥(5+) - 3♥ fit (3+) is an exception (as far as I know) and fixes ♥ as the trump suit, so now 3♠ would be a cue. ............. On the transfer example 1NT - 2♥ (transfer) - 2♠ - 3♣ opener will have to determine where the best contract will be. The bid of a new suit (3♣/3♦/3♥) after the transfer is forcing to game,and shows an unbalanced hand by responder. So opener with a fit for ♠ 3+ will bid 3♠ here. Even with 4m fit support for partner. (Again a 4-4m fit may be the best contract at slam level but minor suit slams are harder to bid.) And opener with only 2♠ but 4m fit support will raise responder's second suit. (Though that will push the contract beyond 3NT which may be the best place at MPs, so some partnerships will use new suit bids below 3NT here as showing (indirect) 4m support also,and showing a stopper in the suit bid.) Edit: As usual DavidKok got there first lol! (whilst I was slow-typing. I will read what he says to see where I went wrong :)

With a three card ♣ suit in your own hand, it suggests that the opps. cannot raise, so partner will, I guess, with some values be able to balance in 4th. So, I opt for pass being the best bid. The problem with bidding 3NT directly here is that partner is always going to take out to 4♥ with a thin six timer. I would rather he bid 3♥ as a balance then for me to bid 3NT on the second round. And then I hope he trusts me :)

Easy bidding seeing both hands, but blind I do agree this is difficult. This is where a rebid of 3NT showing 18-19 balanced wastes so much space. I like the idea of a minor rebid of 2♦ by opener to be both a relay and/or a suit. Or even a rebid of 2NT in 2/1, having established the GF, to be a variation of good/bad 2NT (18-19 or 13-14 range where opener rebids 2M with a minimum.) The thing with slam bidding is that opener knows immediately after partner responds 2♣ that the hands will 99% be at that level, and the measure of good slam bidding is giving yourself the room to explore the best contract. Obviously using both the ideas above (which would have to be by agreement) would mean that opener would have to advance beyond 3NT on the second (or third) rebid to show this type of hand, and/or for opener to be boss in the auction knowing that he is the stronger hand and drive the auction to slam. As for the actual (thorvald) sequence 1♠ - 2♣ - 3NT (18-19) - 4♥ - 4♠ (cue agreeing ♥) I would have taken the 4♠ bid as an ace (first round control) not a king. But that is only my opinion. I guess that bidding 4NT instead of 4♠ here agrees the ♥ suit as trump but maybe I am wrong.

With one opponent having said they do not have a opening bid, 'Pass' is acceptable with this hand. If you feel you cannot do that then 1♥ is the lesser evil bid than 3♥ here.

I do not understand GIB declarer play here whatsoever! At trick 2 it plays a ♠. Why? Something is very wrong with the program if it does not know that you set up tricks in your longest suit first in a NT contract is first priority.

I do not think it is obvious. What is 2♠ showing here? I guess (but not a guess) it shows an unbalanced hand and 17-20 forcing or something like that. I admit I not familiar with all sequences in 2/1. You can give simple preference with 3♦ but that seems a lesser option. But with stoppers in both the other suits and three 10s you could bid 3NT - but the good hand will be on the table. The one bid I would not be making is 3♣. 1♦ - 1NT - 2♠ is only forcing for one round: it is not a GF.

I would have opened 1♦ as South. In the actual auction I am passing. You have described your hand on the previous round with X. Do not bid you hand twice.

4♠ can be pre-emptive but it can be this hand also. You can miss slam, but if you do not bid game on the first round here, you may miss game! Partner will have to have perfect cards and fit for slam to be made. Imo X is not the right bid here as even when partner responds, you will still bid 4♠. The best advice I was given is always with these sorts of hands is to bid what you think you can make. If you cannot make 4♠, then the opps. can make a good part score, even ♣ game with the right fit.

I have never regretted -50 as a bad score when you do something crazy at the bridge table :) (Though why GIB switches to a♥ at trick 2 is just crazier. I guess someone will explain GIB 'logic')

I do not know what the agreement rules are here, but over a multi 2 ♦ where the opps. partner does not know the major suit partner has, I do not understand the 5♦ bid with this hand with two aces. 3♦ seems normal. If the 2♦ bid showed both major suits like Ekren, then I agree there is some cause for 5♦. As for the 4♦ bid with this hand, I am at a loss... I can understand why confusion occurred.

I sort of agree with this. The structure does seem awkward, and it is plenty of brain cells memorizing, but if you are playing any detailed system with a regular partner, you do soon get used to it, especially if you use practice hands to tight up and analyse your bidding sequences.

I have no problem with advanced/expert players learning "logical" specific bidding with a few artificial bids thrown in. Most of this seems logical to me, just tightening the meanings of the various bids. Most of it seems fine, unless I have missed something, using a forcing 1NT response to its maximum effect. (I have never liked semi-forcing 1NT in a 5M system.) I like the way the 2NT response has been expanded and is not just a Jacoby 2NT which, as I see it, is a low probability option. I have never been a great fan of Bergen either, again on a probability basis as you are more likely to have 3 card ♠ support than 4 card. So having it semi-constructive (in the invitational sequence) showing a side suit looks better. I guess the 1♥ opening and response sequence is similar. It will be interesting to find out if it improves your results with a regular partner, and good luck using it.

Nothing difficult imo: Pass. Minimum hand. The opps. are bidding at adverse vulnerability. At MPs if could X and get a +200 that will probably be a top. But you are balanced, minimum, with no fit for partner. I guess partner has a ♣ honor and that you can collect 5 tricks by leading a ♣, and a trick in all four suits and a ♣ ruff but I am guessing.

Your partner has passed twice, and he has heard you pass once, and if the opps. bid 4♥ then the trump split might break their contract given that you also have two aces. Even at this favorable vulnerability, I would pass. I do not see any advantage of X, and it might help declarer make his contract as he will now have an idea of the distribution.

This is the sort of hand where a super expert like Zia or Peter Fredin would work out with a regular partner that 'Pass' is the best bid as long as partner (is a super expert also) and balances with a X (with any 0-10) and then you collect a mega penalty :) (The thinking behind this is partner with his 0-10 will wonder how partner cannot bid here after two passes and a pre-empt, so he must have this sort of hand. Whether there is any logic behind this I do not know as I am not a super expert, and never will be lol) Beyond fantasy bids, I go for 3NT serious underbid (but if partner has a Yarborough even 9 tricks may be difficult, especially if a ♠ is not lead, as the breaks are not likely to be good, due to the pre-empt, and I will be playing from my hand only trying to establish tricks.

This looks like a hand that demonstrates why American players are changing from SAYC to 2/1, and even British players are changing from Acol to 2/1. The 2♣ response just clogs the auction where it does not establish a GF. You could easily be missing 7♦ here if partner has just 4♥/4♠Kxxx ♦AKxxxx 2/1 just gives you the space to identify the controls on the way to the grand.

I admit my knowledge of Acol (if that is what you and your partner are playing) is not as good as other systems, but this hand cannot be bid by 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ (even I know this is a minimum rebid lol). As for 1♠ - 2NT (Jacoby) that is wrong as mikeh said in his post. North has plenty of distributional strength but not much playing strength in terms of controls beyond the ♦ void, so I believe the way to bid this is 1♠ - 2♦ - either 3♠ (forcing) or 4♠. I guess that 1♠ - 2♣/2♦/2♥ - 3♠ is not just invitational but forcing to game - please correct me if I am wrong, though a rebid of 3♠ here would show a hand with more 'substance' than just a good long suit and nothing else. I think you have to forget about trying to find a ♥ fit on this hand, and just tell partner about your great ♠ suit,and see where it goes from there.

That is weird, Cyberyeti. I was going to put in my comment above (but did not) that whilst partner should not have 4♥/♠ with the minor suit, even having three cards to the honor jack in either major might disqualify this hand from opening with a gambling 3NT, especially with 7330 shape where you have an automatic ruffing value if you should end in a 4M contract. I guess you can sometimes pre-empt partner - as opposed the opps. - and make life difficult for him. This hand illustrates this, if you have not got any mechanism to end in 4M when partner has the hand as shown. I think that a 4♠ contract will be found by an established partnership if partner opens 1♦ as opposed to 3NT here. Interesting what bidding reaches it though?

Luck will play a part here. It is over 4 times more chance partner has 7-3-2-1 or 7-3-3-0 shape than 7-2-2-2 and while the 3-card suit in 7-3-2-1/7-3-3-0 could be the other minor, you could be missing a 9-card major fit. (I hope my partner would not open a Gambling 3NT with a hand that also has a 4♥/♠ side suit. However... While there are clever bids here, I think the sensible bid is just to look for the 5m contract with 4NT. Yes, partner could have three losing ♣, but if he has three losing ♣ what game will make with the hands on best defense? Already we know our hand are distributional, and it is likely that the opps. hands are also. Yes, there may chances of slam where the minor suit can be run, or where a major suit can be established, but we need other things to go right. And yes, where the best contract is "Anybody's Guess".

As other commentators said 1NT is the wrong bid. That said, all I can add is that some hands will be a disaster wherever you play. The interesting question on this hand is whether North is worth a raise given that West will bid again. For some players it will be automatic to raise to 2♥ here when South bids 1♥, if West bids 2♦.

I do not see any problem with bidding 1♥ here. It is forcing :) And if partner bids a new suit, you can use the 4th suit to keep the auction open also. And, if partner rebids 1NT he is limited within a specific point range and balanced shape. Amateurs will bid 4NT here, but good intermediate+ players realise the importance of trying to find out more about partner's hand by constructive bidding. This is a good hand to illustrate this principle.