Major confusion

[Gerben42]

How do you play these sequences with 2/1 GF with your regular partner? And what would you consider standard? This need not be the same of course.

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

 

These are the things that would be nice to have in a FD file :lol:

[paulg]

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

Natural, either cuebid with ♠Hx or 3+ spades (standard)

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

Serious 3NT - I'm sure better players than me will say this should be natural, and I think natural is standard.

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

Picture jump - genuine spade support, good hearts, no minor suit control (standard)

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

Initially values/stopper for NT purposes but may turn out to be a cuebid (standard)

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

Natural, potential source of tricks (standard)

 

p

[whereagles]

> 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

 

The way I like to play it, 3♥ shows extras, 15+ (with 11-14 rebid spades and support hearts later). Then 3♠ is a cue. Whether or no it shows slam interest depends on playing serious or frivolous 3NT.

 

 

> 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

 

As above. Artificial, showing slam interest or not, depending on agreement. Mine is that 3NT is frivolous.

 

 

> 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

 

With both players relatively unlimited, it is absolutely vital that jumps to game in game-forcing situations show well-defined hands. My agreement for this situation is that 4♠ is a picture bid: showing concentrated values in hearts and spades, and little else on the side. The prototype hand would be, say,

 

♠ Kxx

♥ AKJTx

♦ xx

♣ xxx

 

 

> 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

 

Again the 3♦ bid shows extras. 3♠ now might be either a diamond cue or a spade stop, asking for a club stop from pard. Opener assumes the stop, after which responder clarifies.

 

 

> 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

 

Situation similar to above, only this time it cannot show a stopper. Thus it must be a club cue and slam-bound hand. Absence of spade and heart cue.

 

 

Are my meanings for these bids standard? Not at all. I cooked them up myself after browsing through dozens of articles/books on the subject (Hardy, Lawrence, Fred, french school theoreticians.. etc.).

 

What are the standard meanings in 2/1? For most situations, there isn't even one! It kinda depends on the book and school of thought. Incidently, I disagree with most meanings.

[inquiry]

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

 

Two suit trump agreement. Now, 4NT if used will have six keycards, not five.

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

 

Serious 3NT for ♥'s. slam try.

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

 

Picture jump, no control in either minor. ♠ are trumps.

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

Could be try for 3NT looking for club stopper, or cue-bid slam try. IF responder pulls 3NT, it makes this a slam try cue-bid. Opener's treats this as a 3NT try first.

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

I assume 3♦ established game even if 2♦ was only quasi game-force. This bid is a slam try, showing club controls. Responder may have a heart control on this auction if short in hearts (bidding 3♥ as a cue-bid here, would cloud the issue).

[P_Marlowe]

1) Cue showing the Ace or King in spades

2) serious 3 NT

3) Does not exist

4) stopper in spade, looking for 3 NT (asking for club control)

5) Cue Bid, showing the Ace or the King in Clubs

 

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

1) Shows a spade fit.

2) Suggestion to play 3N.

3) Picture jump, concentrated major suit values no minor suit control.

4) Either advanced cue or stopper trying to get to 3N.

5) Cuebid.

[kenrexford]

1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠:

A or K or Q of spades, possibly stiff

 

1♠-2♥-3♥-3NT:

Serious, without A or K or Q of spades

 

1♠-2♥-3♥-4♠:

Preference is Exclusion RKCB (hearts is trump, void in spades)

Second-best is RKCB, hearts agreed, but spade K/Q are the "key cards," promising thereby KQ of hearts.

 

1♥-2♦-3♦-3♠:

NT try or cue.

 

1♥-2♦-3♦-4♣:

Cue, serious slam interest, no spade control, good trumps (diamonds)

 

My take is that you cannot and should not bounce back and forth between the majors. If you intend to support spades, do not bid 2H. Bid something else, even a doubleton minor. This way, your 3S call after hearts is raised is not a silly "we have both fits, so which do you prefer today" call. Also, you enable Exclusion or some other asking bid in partner's spade suit.

[han]

More of the same for me:

 

1) Shows a spade fit.

 

2) Serious.

 

3) Picture jump.

 

4) A priori a try for 3NT, could be a cue.

 

5) Cue.

[mike777]

How do you play these sequences with 2/1 GF with your regular partner? And what would you consider standard? This need not be the same of course.

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

 

These are the things that would be nice to have in a FD file :blink:

Playing lighter openings:

 

1) spade slam try. btw we just put in 6keycard rkc for just this auction!

2) serious 3nt

3) minimum hand/sign off (14-15 hcp) with 3s spades, 5 hearts.

4) 3s=3nt game try. spade stopper. Game before slam! Of course if responder bids over 3nt then a slam try.

5) 4c=cuebid slam try in D. 4H by anyone now is rkc for D!

[Gerben42]

Thanks for all the responses, agree with Inquiry on this one.

 

BTW no light openings, remember I wrote 2/1 GF. Actually I'm playing Fantunes so very heavy openings :)

[mike777]

Thanks for all the responses, agree with Inquiry on this one.

 

BTW no light openings, remember I wrote 2/1 GF. Actually I'm playing Fantunes so very heavy openings :)

Interesting that they play one bids are 14+ as does AL Roth. I note they play liter 2 suited bids at the 2 level and AL Roth opens many liter 6-4 hands at the 2 level.

 

Can you post a brief synopsis of the rest of the system?

1) How do they play single minor raise?

2) 2h and 2s after a minor opener?

3) what style of splinters do they prefer?

4) strong opening bids?

 

thanks in advance.

[Gerben42]

Convention card can be found here:

 

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/conventi...ntoni-nunes.pdf

[luke warm]

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

i'd play this as 3 card spade support and 5 hearts..

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

i'd play the 2H bidder as offering a choice of contracts

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

i honestly don't know.. i'd have a major problem with this bid at the table... psyching hearts?

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

showing a spade stopper

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

slam try denying spade control

[Kalvan14]

1) Shows a spade fit.

2) Suggestion to play 3N.

3) Picture jump, concentrated major suit values no minor suit control.

4) Either advanced cue or stopper trying to get to 3N.

5) Cuebid.

I play exactly as Justin does. If you want to nitpick, #4 should be "either stopper trying to play 3N or advanced cue" [game before slam]

[kenrexford]

The more posts I read, the more convinced I am that bidding logic is a rare novelty.

 

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was criticism of a 1S bid holding 5332 pattern and GF values, after a 1H opening from partner. Isolating fit and strength is too important to go messing about looking for double fits, and cuebids are far too important to sacrifice for this same idea.

 

If I happened to hold three spades and five hearts, I am far better off bidding a minor 2/1. If partner happens to bid 2H next, I switch gears. If not, I have a trump fit which is fine. So, I see no advantage to bidding 2H with three spades and five hearts. UNLESS, that is, I would prefer hearts as trumps opposite three, in which case showing the double fit is not particularly useful. It seems far more useful to be able to simply agree hearts and then cuebid values in spades for partner to know whether his source of tricks is useful.

 

Consider a spade holding for partner. Something like, say, KJxxx. If we can agree on hearts as trumps, with me having five, does he care whether I have Qxx, Qx, or stiff Queen THAT much? If 1S-P-2H-P-3H-P-3S cannot be bid unless you have a double fit, then neither partner can ever cue spades below game in hearts. The most likely side source of tricks falls to the side. How does this make sense?

 

If you really want 4NT to be enabled as 6KCB, then adopt 1S-P-2H-P-3H-P-4S, or any 4S call by either partner, ever, as 6KCB. But, what value is there to the pattern? I suppose the failure to bid 3S, under the double-fit theory, does allow Opener to know that you have 0-2 spades, which could be of some limited value, but that seems way outweighed by the alternative.

 

This discussion seems akin to the question of what to do with four spades and three hearts when partner opens 1H. EXCEPT, at least the theory of playing in a 4-4 versus a 5-3 justifies the thought to bid 1S. However, isolation of fit and strength supports the vast majority of experts I know in electing 2H, planing to find spades later if needed. The same argument lacking for deciding between 5-3 alternatives, I see no sense to the 3S call as double-fit establishing.

[Kalvan14]

I fail to see why showing the double fit hurts the slam exploration: there must be a logic behind it, but I'm afraid it is too convoluted for me to follow.

 

I would not bid 3♠ after a fit in hearts with 3 small, that's for sure. IMHO, knowing that there is Hxx in front should help a lot opener to judge the continuation: KJxxx in front of Qx or Qxx is not exactly the same kind of horse.

Not to mention the cases where opener has AQxxx in spades, and knowing that there is Kxx in front helps even more.

 

Let's examine the other road toward a game (or a slam): advancer holds maybe Kxx AQJxx xxx AJ, and decides to hide his best suit (and most likely source of tricks) to avoid thr "risk" of finding a double fit? Living as I do on the borders of the empire I must have lost touch with the cutting edge of bidding.

[cherdano]

The more posts I read, the more convinced I am that bidding logic is a rare novelty.

I think a better description is that everybody else has a different bidding logic than yourself.

 

Myself, I hate misleading partner about my shape in an auction with slam potential, I have seen too many bad results from it. Bidding 2m instead of 2♥ on 3=5=3=2 is something I would absolutely refuse to agree on. Partner would like his Qx in the minor, instead of Qx in hearts as he should. Etc. etc.

 

Arend

[kenrexford]

The point is not that bidding 2H on five hearts and three spades is wrong. The point is that restricting 3S after 1S-2H-3H-3S to only hands with a double-fit unnecessarily limits the utility of a very important cuebid.

 

The most critical cuebid, IMO, after a raise of hearts is the "I have an honor" cue of 3S. You need to be able to keep clear focus on hearts while also informing partner whether his good spade suit in fact offers a trick source.

 

The point on bidding 2m might be better articulated. If you are willing to allow hearts to remain as trumps, then respond 2H on 3523 or 3532. If hearts is raised, hearts is trumps, and 3S is only showing a missing honor, not three. If you want to keep spades as the focus, no matter what, then do not bid 2H. If you want hearts to be the focus IF Opener has four-card support (but not three), then bid 2m and raise 2H from Opener.

[Chamaco]

How do you play these sequences with 2/1 GF with your regular partner? And what would you consider standard? This need not be the same of course.

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3NT

 

1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♠

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠

 

1♥ 2♦ 3♦ 4♣

 

These are the things that would be nice to have in a FD file :)

1) cue, hearts are agreed

2) serious, hearts agreed

3) kickback (or EKB)

4) either NT probe or advance cue for spades

5) cue for diamonds, slam interest

[cherdano]

The point is not that bidding 2H on five hearts and three spades is wrong. The point is that restricting 3S after 1S-2H-3H-3S to only hands with a double-fit unnecessarily limits the utility of a very important cuebid.

 

The most critical cuebid, IMO, after a raise of hearts is the "I have an honor" cue of 3S. You need to be able to keep clear focus on hearts while also informing partner whether his good spade suit in fact offers a trick source.

 

The point on bidding 2m might be better articulated. If you are willing to allow hearts to remain as trumps, then respond 2H on 3523 or 3532. If hearts is raised, hearts is trumps, and 3S is only showing a missing honor, not three. If you want to keep spades as the focus, no matter what, then do not bid 2H. If you want hearts to be the focus IF Opener has four-card support (but not three), then bid 2m and raise 2H from Opener.

Ok, I can relate to most of that, I agree 3S as cue-bid rather than double fit can be very useful. (I play it as double fit with the partners I have discussed this, but I don't know what is best.)

 

However, with your 3=5=3=2 hand with bad hearts, I would rather make a balanced game force (hopefully I have one available on the 2-level) than start by bidding 2m.

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

The more posts I read, the more convinced I am that bidding logic is a rare novelty.

The more of your know-it-all posts I read, I am convinced that Fred was right about your attitude. Maybe when EVERYONE disagrees with you, you are wrong and everyone else is right? Or does that thought never enter the equation?

 

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was criticism of a 1S bid holding 5332 pattern and GF values, after a 1H opening from partner.  Isolating fit and strength is too important to go messing about looking for double fits, and cuebids are far too important to sacrifice for this same idea.

 

The object is not to search for a double fit. The object is to give a good description of your hand and enable partner to evaluate correctly. If you are inventing 3 card minor suits in preference of 5 card spade suits, how is this a good description? Partner will not know what holdings in his hands are good, what shortnesses are good etc. If we happen to find a 5-4 fit instead of a 5-3 fit though, I do not think this is a bad thing. If you want to make 2C an artificial GF relay, fine, but this has nothing to do with SAYC or 2/1. In SAYC or 2/1 (note which forum this is) I think that bidding 2 of a minor on a 2 or 3 card suit instead of bidding my 5 card suit is complete and utter nonsense. But I guess I don't understand your sophisticated "bidding logic" that does not enable hand evaluation.

 

If I happened to hold three spades and five hearts, I am far better off bidding a minor 2/1.  If partner happens to bid 2H next, I switch gears.  If not, I have a trump fit which is fine.  So, I see no advantage to bidding 2H with three spades and five hearts.  UNLESS, that is, I would prefer hearts as trumps opposite three, in which case showing the double fit is not particularly useful.  It seems far more useful to be able to simply agree hearts and then cuebid values in spades for partner to know whether his source of tricks is useful.

 

Again, you really see no merit in bidding your suits that actually exist and not distorting your hand needlessly? Very logical.

 

Consider a spade holding for partner.  Something like, say, KJxxx.  If we can agree on hearts as trumps, with me having five, does he care whether I have Qxx, Qx, or stiff Queen THAT much?  If 1S-P-2H-P-3H-P-3S cannot be bid unless you have a double fit, then neither partner can ever cue spades below game in hearts.  The most likely side source of tricks falls to the side.  How does this make sense?

 

Let's see. KJxxx opp Qxx is just worth 2 extra tricks than opposite stiff Q. So yes, I think he cares very much. I know you're more interested in cuebidding, but I like to know where I'll get my tricks from. Perfect fit hands with lots of tricks and not many HCP are hard to diagnose, especially if you never show the second fit. Besides, spades may just play better. Most hands it won't matter, but the times it does partner will know. Especially if you are going to bid a slam, it is important to be in the right trump suit.

 

This discussion seems akin to the question of what to do with four spades and three hearts when partner opens 1H.  EXCEPT, at least the theory of playing in a 4-4 versus a 5-3 justifies the thought to bid 1S.  However, isolation of fit and strength supports the vast majority of experts I know in electing 2H, planing to find spades later if needed.  The same argument lacking for deciding between 5-3 alternatives, I see no sense to the 3S call as double-fit establishing.

 

No, these two auctions are not akin. Do you see why? In this auction, supporting immediately is NOT an option. You HAVE to bid a side suit first. Your "theory" is to bid 2 of a fake minor instead of bidding your real suit. None of these options includes supporting immediately. Also, you cannot bid 1S planning on showing 3 card support later if you dont have at least game invitational values. Your simple preference over 2 of a minor would show TWO card support. With a game forcing hand you CAN show your suit and THEN show 3 card support. Do you see why these auctions are not akin yet?

 

To summarize, here is my primative bidding logic:

 

I bid with the goal of describing my hand accurately until one partner is able to place the contract or otherwise take control

 

I am no cuebidding theorist and I don't bid 3 card suits in preference to 5 card suits. Few people do. But then again, everyone is wrong and you are right. You are the rare example of the person who has bidding logic.

[han]

I must congratulate Gerben on a well chosen title, lots of confusion proves to exist in this area.

 

I'm also in the "bid what you have" camp... at least I try to be.

[luke warm]

If you want to keep spades as the focus, no matter what, then do not bid 2H. If you want hearts to be the focus IF Opener has four-card support (but not three), then bid 2m and raise 2H from Opener.

with 3/5 in the majors, how can you possible know what the focus should be? is bidding a 3 card minor in lieu of the 5 card major likely to help?

 

honestly, that's the first time i've ever heard anyone recommending *not* bidding a 5 card heart suit with a game force hand, holding 3 spades and partner opening 1S... there's no way to know which major is the better trump suit, even (especially) when both are 5/3... you seem to be saying that with a 3532 game force hand you'd not respond 2h to 1s, because a later bid of 3s would be a cue and deny 3 cards.. i can't agree with that "logic"

[kenrexford]

I must concede that Justin is right as to my tone. I apologize for the manner of presentation and for the attitude shown. I realize that perhaps my views are not mainstream and therefore not indicative of supreme knowledge and wisdom.

 

I undoubtedly lost you and perhaps others by advocating theory with blinding sarcasm. Maybe I should try again, with a better tone.

 

It is entirely accurate that 3532 or 3523 presents a strange "problem" when partner opens 1S. Bridge is oriented toward major fits, and suddenly two major fits presentthemselves as possible, the known and the possible. If one starts the auction with 2H, several realities play out.

 

First, no fit can be established below 3H. Partner will either raise hearts (3H) or rebid something else, the latter forcing a spade preference at 3S. This obstructs cuebidding, but it also obstructs pattern bidding, if that is your style.

 

Second, if Opener raises hearts, bidding 3S to show a useful spade card seems vastly more important than showing three-card support. It seems like finding missing honors is usually more important than finding three-card support, especially is that support might be xxx as plausibly as AKJ.

 

Third, 1S-2H-3H creates a problem for Responder, who cannot set trumps in anything but hearts. Even if 3S reverts trumps back to spades, Responder could have predicted this problem at 2H. Thus, the auction is pre-determined to one major or the other at the point of the 2H call.

 

Fourth, the raise to 3H says nothing about heart length, except 3+. Thus, the act of bidding 2H reduces the chances for Responder to know the length of the heart fit. Granted, partner may know, but partner will not decide the trump suit in this auction.

 

With all of these issues, bidding 2H seems to commit, in a sense, to Responder taking charge of the auction, at a higher level, with insufficient information. Bidding the three-card minor, however, seems to be sound tactics, when spades is pre-determined to be the fit, for three main reasons.

 

First, it increases the odds of the ultimate decision-maker (Responder) of knowing that Opener HAS four-card support. Hence, there is useful information exchange for changing partnership direction.

 

Second, the minor call increases the chances of establishing fit and strength at the two-level.

 

Third, ambiguity between partners as to strain is eliminated.

 

The only problem with this approach seems to be pattern distortion. However, this objection is illusory. Pattern is only distorted if the partnership rules out the possibility of bidding a minor on 3532 or 3523 pattern. If not, then pattern is not distorted. It is no more distorted than is a minor opening on three cards with two four-card majors a distortion. Theory often calls for bidding shorter suits over longer suits. How many would bid a two-card minor after a forcing NT when 4522, to avoid a reverse? Would not partner expect that you might be 4522?

 

Many might find this position akin to masterminding. Thethought might be that not describing your hand removes partner from the equation and reduces him to a puppet. This is far from the purpose. As I tried to point out, any auction starting 1S-P-2H requires Responder to pick strain, if hearts are raised. Preparing for that decision by deciding immediately is not masterminding. Far from this, the mastermind usually wants to declare also. This type of bidding ensures that partner declares, whether in spades or in a re-emerging heart contract on a 5-4 fit. The purpose is to facilitate unambiguous partnership discussion at a lower level.