Style matters

[whereagles]

Here are a couple of borderline hands you might want to discuss with a regular 2/1 pard, to set up partnership style. What is yours?

 

1.

♠ --

♥ ATxxx

♦ J9xx

♣ Axxx

 

You Pard

pass 1♠

??

 

Do you bid a semiforcing 1NT or put your eggs all in one basket with 2♥?

 

2.

♠ Ax

♥ KQJTxx

♦ x

♣ Axxx

 

You Pard

1♥ 1♠

??

 

Close between 2♥, 2♣ or 3♥. Which pick?

[joker_gib]

1) 1NT : not enough for 2♥

 

2) 2♣ : natural and simple

 

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

1) 1NT, but I prefer to play it as 100% forcing.

2) 2C, describing my shape, partner will most

like bid again

2H => 3H, game trial (most of the time partner will have 2 cards,

and I will survive, if he holds only 1 card)

2S => 3S, game trial (2S should be a 6 carder)

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

1. 1NT. 2♥ is an overbid with a spade void.

2. 2♣. I have 2 suits. I am going to bid them both.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

1. 1NT, this hand is borderline to bid 1♠ 2♥ in Fantunes but not in standard.

2. 2♣, partner will stretch to not pass after this.

[cherdano]

Anything but 1N on 1. looks completely misguided to me. That's not a style question, more of a sanity check.

 

I think anybody would expect that 2♣ on 2. can show this hand. It's more of a style question whether it can be made on, say, 2=6=2=3 hands.

[Echognome]

Playing 2/1, I'd bid 1NT on 1 in order to limit my hand. I can handle any rebid from partner.

 

On 2 I will bid 2♥. I think my hearts are more a feature than my clubs and I have a minimumish opening.

[Blofeld]

1N (though of course as a passed hand this isn't even semiforcing) on #1.

 

2♣ on 2 seems pretty straightforward. Describe your hand and all that.

[MickyB]

2♥ on 1, in an attempt to avoid going off in 2S when 4H was making.

 

2C and 3H are both reasonable on 2, I prefer 3H because clubs is very unlikely to be the right strain and showing an ace-empty suit will sometimes hinder hand evaluation.

[luis]

#1:

1NT

 

#2:

Close between 2♥, 2♣ or 3♥. Which pick?

 

This has to be a joke. 2♣ is automatic.

 

Luis

[Guest Jlall]

1) 1N. I have some strange views on what a passed hand 2H should show, but I choose 1N to leave room to find a minor suit fit. I would bid 1N with any hand with this shape that I could not open.

 

2) 2C. Not so that I can play in clubs (the heart ten is big) but so that partner can evaluate better when I next bid 3H (if I get a chance).

[joshs]

1. Well I tend to have strange agreements about the passed hand 2H bid (I like playing it as 5H and 3spades!), but unless 2H specifically denied spade tolerence, I would never bid 2H here. 1N

 

2. 2H is NOT an option. This hand is way, way too good. Its close between 3H (strong suit) and 2C planning on rebidding 3H next. I slightly prefer 3H despite the fact that the slower sequence will help partner's hand evaluation for game. I just really can't tolerate playing in 2C on this hand. But this decision is very close. -Think about what hands would pass 2C, many of those hands will probably play better in hearts than the hands that preferenced 2H. E.G even Kxxx x Qxxxx QJx produces a great game (CK on your left or clubs 3-3, a 68% game!).

[awm]

Well I don't have any regular 2/1 partnerships per se (although in a few of my strong club partnerships we play 2/1s as game forcing). For me:

 

(1) I'd bid 1NT on this hand. The "ace-empty" structure in hearts and clubs makes me more willing to play the hand in spades if partner has six. You could construct a hand with the same shape and hcp though where I'd bid 2♥ as a passed hand (- KQJTx xxxx Kxxx). I should also note that the problems aren't necessarily over if partner rebids 2♣ over 1NT playing a 2/1 style -- your hand is rather good for a pass, but 2♥ probably won't show this hand then either and 3♣ is risky opposite a partner who often rebids clubs on three. In most of my regular partnerships 2♣ is either natural (guarantee 4+) or gazilli (4+♣ or various strong options), which reduces this problem. Playing some form of BART may also help here.

 

(2) Interestingly, Josh Sher is one of the few partners with whom I'd bid 2♣ on this hand. The reason is that he prefers to bid 2♣ on all balanced hands, which reduces the probability of 2♣ being passed from "unlikely" to "vanishingly small." Elianna and I have a specialized rebid for hands like this as part of our gazilli structure -- 2NT showing a hand worth a jump to 3♥ but including a side 4-card minor. When you've got a bid like this, may as well use it. In many of my other partnerships we open pretty light (and play strong club/diamond) so this hand is a dead max for 2♣ (which also guarantees four-plus clubs) and I wouldn't want to risk the passout. In this case it's 3♥ for me.

[Guest Jlall]

Well I don't have any regular 2/1 partnerships per se (although in a few of my strong club partnerships we play 2/1s as game forcing). For me:

 

(1) I'd bid 1NT on this hand. The "ace-empty" structure in hearts and clubs makes me more willing to play the hand in spades if partner has six. You could construct a hand with the same shape and hcp though where I'd bid 2♥ as a passed hand (- KQJTx xxxx Kxxx). I should also note that the problems aren't necessarily over if partner rebids 2♣ over 1NT playing a 2/1 style -- your hand is rather good for a pass, but 2♥ probably won't show this hand then either and 3♣ is risky opposite a partner who often rebids clubs on three. In most of my regular partnerships 2♣ is either natural (guarantee 4+) or gazilli (4+♣ or various strong options), which reduces this problem. Playing some form of BART may also help here.

We are a passed hand so 2/1 inferences don't apply. Partner's 2C opp a passed hand will either be extras or show 4+ clubs so 3C will be safe.

[joshs]

Well I don't have any regular 2/1 partnerships per se (although in a few of my strong club partnerships we play 2/1s as game forcing). For me:

 

(1) I'd bid 1NT on this hand. The "ace-empty" structure in hearts and clubs makes me more willing to play the hand in spades if partner has six. You could construct a hand with the same shape and hcp though where I'd bid 2♥ as a passed hand (- KQJTx xxxx Kxxx). I should also note that the problems aren't necessarily over if partner rebids 2♣ over 1NT playing a 2/1 style -- your hand is rather good for a pass, but 2♥ probably won't show this hand then either and 3♣ is risky opposite a partner who often rebids clubs on three. In most of my regular partnerships 2♣ is either natural (guarantee 4+) or gazilli (4+♣ or various strong options), which reduces this problem. Playing some form of BART may also help here.

 

(2) Interestingly, Josh Sher is one of the few partners with whom I'd bid 2♣ on this hand. The reason is that he prefers to bid 2♣ on all balanced hands, which reduces the probability of 2♣ being passed from "unlikely" to "vanishingly small." Elianna and I have a specialized rebid for hands like this as part of our gazilli structure -- 2NT showing a hand worth a jump to 3♥ but including a side 4-card minor. When you've got a bid like this, may as well use it. In many of my other partnerships we open pretty light (and play strong club/diamond) so this hand is a dead max for 2♣ (which also guarantees four-plus clubs) and I wouldn't want to risk the passout. In this case it's 3♥ for me.

This was 1H-1S-?

not 1H-forcing NT-?

 

Over 1H-1S, I rebid 1N with a balanced hand :)

[Guest Jlall]

Actually it was 1S 1N :)

[akhare]

#1:

====

 

Hmm...., I wish I could have opened and transferred the problem to pard instead :), but this is 2/1.

 

Anyway, it's 1N and hopefully pard will find something other than 2♠

 

#2:

===

 

2♣ / 3♥ -- I will probably choose the former at the table.

 

 

Atul

[han]

1NT and 2C are both clear imo.

 

I'm very surprised to see that two of my more regular BBO partners think differently.

[Guest Jlall]

I find it difficult to call 2C as "clear" when I don't even think it is a mainstream expert bid, let alone a mainstream bid (but it is of course a mainstream BBF bid it seems :)).

[han]

Is it not the mainstream bid?

 

I thought that the mainstream method was to rebid 2H with a minimal 6-4, and to rebid 2m with significant extras. I recall Stewart presenting this as standard in his book "becoming an expert bridge player". I think this book is quite good although somewhat old-fashioned. (I'm travelling so I can't look it up, and I may even have the title wrong.)

 

 

Now, if we had only 3 clubs THEN it would be a mainstream BBF bid. :)

[MickyB]

I'd expect partner to rebid 2S over 1N with 6 spades, unless he was strong enough for 3S or was 6-4. By bidding 2H, I think I'm decreasing the chance of partner rebidding 2S - he will pass or raise on some hands with 2-3 hearts and 6 spades. If he was about to rebid a minor...well, never mind. I can certainly see where the 1NTers are coming from.

 

On the 2nd, I'm worried that if I bid 2C initially, partner will think that my hearts are poor - often I would bid that way (with 6-3 or 6-4) when I wanted to hear preference before raising. Here, I couldn't care less whether partner can give preference.

[joshs]

Actually it was 1S 1N :)

Huh? Problem 2 was: You open 1H on Ax KQJTxx x Axxx partner bids 1S what do you rebid.

[Guest Jlall]

Actually it was 1S 1N :)

Huh? Problem 2 was: You open 1H on Ax KQJTxx x Axxx partner bids 1S what do you rebid.

Don't mind me... back to the crack pipe.

[Guest Jlall]

I thought that the mainstream method was to rebid 2H with a minimal 6-4, and to rebid 2m with significant extras. I recall Stewart presenting this as standard in his book "becoming an expert bridge player". I think this book is quite good although somewhat old-fashioned. (I'm travelling so I can't look it up, and I may even have the title wrong.)

I doubt that applies with extreme suit quality differences. Would Frank Stewart recommend 2C with Ax AKQJxx x xxxx?

[han]

I agree that the suit quality makes the problem interesting, and I also agree that with the hand Justin gives 2C looks rather wrong.

 

Still, I think that 2C followed by 3H (over 2H) is superior to a direct 3H with Ax KQJ10xx x Axxx. As for bidding 2H because the hand is close to minimal.. that seems way off.