Simple Bids and Simple Minds

[Winstonm]

Partner and I have a basic disagreement over a couple of "standard" auctions:

 

1) Is opener's suit rebid at the 1 level forcing:

 

1C-1H-1S-

 

He says this is 100% forcing in "expert standard". I say he is nuts. Who gets your vote?

 

A) Expert standard or B) standard nuts?

 

2) The second auction is exact:

 

1H-1S-1N-2H.

 

He says this is the same as a 1H-2H auction except you have spades. Again I say he is nuts. This is a limit raise. Who gets the nod here?

 

A) Spades Rule or B) Nuts shouldn't make rules?

 

Thanks,

 

Winston

[mike777]

no expert, here is nonexpert take

 

1) not forcing but responder will strain to rebid. Note can 1H be very weak in your style? zero hcp? 3 hcp?

2) I would play 2h as weak, less than constructive. Very often sign off unless opener has extras. That means some hand less than 7-10 hcp and 3 hearts often.

I guess that means I need to bid 1h=2h with 4/5 spades and 7-10 hcp and 3 hearts often and may miss 4-4 spade fit. Hopefully if partner is 5h and 4s he can make long suit game try in spades and I can raise to show 4 card support?

 

If responder has invite hand, more than 10 hcp, she has many options, XYZ, 2 way checkback, etc.

 

1nt rebid by opener will be 11-13 hcp so missing game will be very very rare.

[P_Marlowe]

No Expert here.

 

1) For: 1S is forcing, I know some people

play 1S as nonforcing, but if I am

strong enough to find a bid over

1C/1D, I am also strong enough

to find a bid over 1S

The advantage of 1s forcing is, that

openers jump shifts promise 5-4

 

2) weak, may not even be primary support,

responder just believes, 2H is better

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[EricK]

1) I don't know whether it is "Expert Standard", but it is certainly very common to play 1♠ as forcing unless the 1♥ was a very light response made purely in the hope of improving the contract.

 

2) When responder made the 1♠ bid he didn't know that opener would rebid 1NT so presumably he had some bid in mind in case opener rebid say 2♦. Since 2♥ in that sequence would just be preference (and could even be false preference with 2♥ and 3♦) he runs the risk of misleading you if he has a genuine 2♥ raise. So I don't think his way is all that playable.

 

Eric

[Winstonm]

Probably a better way to phrase the questions would be: if two experts who had never played together before sat down to play with no time to discuss anything other than saying, "Standard", "SAYC", or "2/1" and nothing more, what would they assume these bids meant?

 

1C-1H-1S. Would this be 100% forcing or only 98% - allowing a pass on something like Qxx, Jxxxx, Qxx, xx?

 

1H-1S-1N-2H. What would one expert expect his expert partner to hold here?

[Chamaco]

Partner and I have a basic disagreement over a couple of "standard" auctions:

 

1) Is opener's suit rebid at the 1 level forcing:

 

1C-1H-1S-

 

He says this is 100% forcing in "expert standard".  I say he is nuts.  Who gets your vote?

 

A) Expert standard or :) standard nuts?

 

2) The second auction is exact:

 

1H-1S-1N-2H.

 

He says this is the same as a 1H-2H auction except you have spades.  Again I say he is nuts.  This is a limit raise.  Who gets the nod here?

 

A) Spades Rule or B) Nuts shouldn't make rules?

 

Thanks,

 

Winston

1. 1M rebid by opener has little to lose and much to gain to be treated as 100% forcing.

I'd play it as forcing, and have met lots of good players that do so

 

2. 1H-1S-1N-2H

I do not think it's a limit raise, but is more likely to be doubleton weakish/constructive preference in unbalanced hand.

 

For example:

Kxxxx-Jx-x-Axxxx

 

Moreover, thinking of "expert standard", most experts nowadays would go via NMF or Roudi or 2Way Checkback to show invitational or GF values.

 

However, holding 3 card heart supprot and 4+ spades, I'd raise immediately to 2H concealing spades if my values are less than invitational.

[Gerben42]

1. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ is NOT 100% forcing, as it denies the strength to rebid 2♠ or 2NT. Many play it as forcing, though.

 

2. 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ is invitational, otherwise would have raised ♥ directly. If you have just the strength for one bid, raise partner.

[Kalvan14]

1. what is the maximum opener holding in a sequence like 1m-1♥-1♠? I would accept it might stretch to 15-16 HCP, no more than that. Which means that it is not forcing, although I will try to keep the bid open, if reasonable. This is pretty similar to the auction P-1any-1other: theoretically should be forcing, practically it is not so. However, I agree that many expert (or assumed experts :P ) play that this sequence is forcing.

2. Nowadays, a direct raise 1M-2M has more constructive features than otherwise. Accordingly, a slow approach 1M-1OM-1N-2M (or even 1M-1N-2m-2M) is a weaker preference. Frankly, I do not remember having seen the slow approach considered as stronger than the immediate raise.

[Gerben42]

Kalvan: I was referring to "standard" style, not 2/1 GF. That makes a difference for this sequence.

[Kalvan14]

Kalvan: I was referring to "standard" style, not 2/1 GF. That makes a difference for this sequence.

I assume you talk of #2, since on #1 we agree.

I'm sorry, but I keep my position: even in standard there is no reason to go fishing without a reason.

Now, do I have hand which is limited (say 10-11 HCP?), which is the only reason to bid 1♠ instead of raising ♥, or, alternatively, do I have a weak hand with 6 spades and a Hx in ♥ (which is the reason for giving a preference to ♥, rather than playing 1N?

If I have the 1st hand, I will rebid 2N; you might say that you prefer to pass after 1N, and you might be right. OTOH, to waste completely a sequence to cater for a very rare hand it is a bit wasteful.

 

After all, if the bid goes 1M-1OM-2m-2M I do not think anyone will regard this other than a weak preference.

[Chamaco]

After all, if the bid goes 1M-1OM-2m-2M I do not think anyone will regard this other than a weak preference.

 

Right, and there are many weak hand types that will want to signoff in 2M and not in 1NT even holding doubleton support.

[Fluffy]

1) 1/1 is auto forcing till 1NT at least. so 1♠ is 100% forcing

 

2) 2♥ is limit. He is nuts this time :P

[Gerben42]

do I have a weak hand with 6 spades and a Hx in ♥ (which is the reason for giving a preference to ♥, rather than playing 1N?

 

How about giving preference to 2♠ then? :P

[keylime]

1. Absolutely NOT forcing. Pard may be bidding to protect you.

2. Once again NOT forcing. I dont introduce spades unless my hand can withstand a jump shift AND can false preference back into hearts.

[Chamaco]

do I have a weak hand with 6 spades and a Hx in ♥ (which is the reason for giving a preference to ♥, rather than playing 1N?

No, I posted an example hand with only 5 spades and 5-2-1-5 shape that deos not want to play 1NT and does not want to rebid 2S with a Kxxxx suit :-)

 

There are many hands where the 5-2 fit in H will play better than NT, and IMO it is reasonable that a simple rebid in 2 of opener's major is NOT an invitation but simply a signoff :-)

 

Of couse, since the original post referred to "expert" standard, thre is the addition point that most experts play some sort of 2-way checkback, resolving altogether the ambiguity. :P

[Kalvan14]

do I have a weak hand with 6 spades and a Hx in ♥ (which is the reason for giving a preference to ♥, rather than playing 1N?

 

How about giving preference to 2♠ then? :)

well, depends a lot on the quality of my spades :P

I like giving self-preferences :o so I will not be shy.

There is also another hand which woul warrant a 2♥ 5-2-4-2, where the "4" is xxxx

[Trinidad]

1) I play 1♣-1♥; 1♠ as forcing unless responder doesn't have his first bid. Playing opener's rebid as forcing solves problems with three suited hands or balanced hands. You can play a jump shift to 2♠ as showing 5-4 and a jump shift to 2NT as denying interest in a spade contract.

 

2) 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2♥ just shows a preference for hearts. When playing a five card major system with strong NT I would bid 2♥ with something like:

 

[hv=s=saxxxhkxdxxcxxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

This hand probably plays better in hearts than in NT.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

I am not one of the very large number of experts that play on OK. I'll respond anyway.

 

1C-1H-1S: I have never played this as forcing with anyone. With

Jxx

KQxxx

xx

xxx

I bid 1H over 1C and I pass 1S. Firstly I cannot imagine a better call, secondly if the opponents balance with 2D I will now bid 2H showing five hearts, a tolerance for spades and a weak hand.

 

1H-1S-1N-2H: I am not fond of constructive raises and so, with a weak hand and three hearts I just raise hearts even if I have spades. I think this is more a matter of partnership agreement than expert standard or nuts standard. For the given auction I (my way) probably have a good spade suit, three hearts and a non-minimum although not necessarily a full limit raise. I like to play that all second round jumps by responder are invitational so 1H-1S-1N-3H is an upper end invitation. I am pretty confident that this is NOT totally standard.

[hrothgar]

1. The 1♠ bid is forcing. It should be noted that players are allowed to pass forcing bids.

 

2. Your partner raises an interesting question and one that I have struggled with a lot... I spent a bunch of time trying to look at different structures over 1♥ openings. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to have the direct and indirect raises show radical differences in playing strength. Instead, use the 1♠ advance to show shape so that partner can evaluate the placement of his honors / shortness.

 

♠ KT3

♥ KQT763

♦ 5

♣ AQ2

 

looks much better after a 1♠ advance than

 

♠ 5

♥ KQT763

♦ KT3

♣ AQ2

[Chamaco]

2. Your partner raises an interesting question and one that I have struggled with a lot... I spent a bunch of time trying to look at different structures over 1♥ openings. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to have the direct and indirect raises show radical differences in playing strength. Instead, use the 1♠ advance to show shape so that partner can evaluate the placement of his honors / shortness.

However, it important to draw a line in the strength required to show spades before showing a fit (when the fit does exist and it's not a mere preference)

 

Otherwise, the dreaded competitive auction wil be hard to handle:

 

1H-(p)-1S-(3D)

p-(p)-?

 

Now, is 3H invitational or simply constructive but less than invitational ?

[inquiry]

1) Is opener's suit rebid at the 1 level forcing:

 

1C-1H-1S-

 

He says this is 100% forcing in "expert standard". I say he is nuts. Who gets your vote?

 

A) Expert standard or :unsure: standard nuts?

 

2) The second auction is exact:

 

1H-1S-1N-2H.

 

He says this is the same as a 1H-2H auction except you have spades. Again I say he is nuts. This is a limit raise. Who gets the nod here?

This is the dreaded pseudo-forcing. Responder can pass only if his 1♥ was a joke (along the lines of 0 to 4 hcp). Note, it is NOT a good idea to bid 1♠ with a hidden heart fit on the grounds that 1♠ is forcing.

 

So here, I vote he is closer to right (actually, neither right as I think it should be psuedo forcing...some would argue that psuedo forcing means non-forcing making you right... so ok, you are right, but even if 1♠ is not "forcing" it is "never" (well almost never) passed.

 

2) The second auction is exact:

 

1H-1S-1N-2H.

 

He says this is the same as a 1H-2H auction except you have spades.  Again I say he is nuts.  This is a limit raise.  Who gets the nod here?

 

This one is harder to answer without knowing what you are playing. Playing xzy, this one is miildly encouraging at best. Why? Because you can bid 2C then rebid 2H or 3H on hands with any interest at all. If playing simply nmf, then I think this should be constructive (not sure I would go as far as limited). So for me, he is right if you play xzy, you were right if you do not.

[Guest Jlall]

1) 1S is not forcing to me, and never has been. To force you jump shift. Pard could have up to 18 (19) to bid 1S, so it will rarely get passed, but can be passed nonetheless. I'm sure this is "standard" even though many think it is not best.

 

2) Not forcing to me. I would bid this way on QJTxx xxx xx xxx. To answer the question about what to do in competition if it comes back to you at 3D, pass since you have nothing. 3H would be limit as you can't bid 3H with a hand that was too weak to bid 2H.

[Chamaco]

2) Not forcing to me. I would bid this way on QJTxx xxx xx xxx. To answer the question about what to do in competition if it comes back to you at 3D, pass since you have nothing. 3H would be limit as you can't bid 3H with a hand that was too weak to bid 2H.

Justin,

make your example hand a bit stronger.

Would you pass even holding

 

QJTxx AJx xx xxx ?

 

This is not an invitational hand, it plays about one trick less than a limit, and if he 3H bid shows an invitation, here we cannot bid 3H.

 

I am inclined to think that bidding an immediate constructive 2H would avoid this headache, what do you think?

[Guest Jlall]

Justin,

make your example hand a bit stronger.

Would you pass even holding

 

QJTxx AJx xx xxx ?

 

This is not an invitational hand, it plays about one trick less than a limit, and if he 3H bid shows an invitation, here we cannot bid 3H.

 

I am inclined to think that bidding an immediate constructive 2H would avoid this headache, what do you think?

Right, just bid 2H immediately with this hand.

[EricK]

2. Your partner raises an interesting question and one that I have struggled with a lot... I spent a bunch of time trying to look at different structures over 1♥ openings. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to have the direct and indirect raises show radical differences in playing strength. Instead, use the 1♠ advance to show shape so that partner can evaluate the placement of his honors / shortness.

 

♠ KT3

♥ KQT763

♦ 5

♣ AQ2

 

looks much better after a 1♠ advance than

 

♠ 5

♥ KQT763

♦ KT3

♣ AQ2

The trouble with a 1♠ advance instead of a ♥ raise comes when opener doesn't rebid 1NT. Now he can't tell genuine support from genuine preference from false preference.

 

Eric