2 way NMF question

[Guest Jlall]

A regular partner and I recently found out we were on different wavelengths about a seemingly simple auction.

 

1C p 1H p 1N p 2C (forces 2D) p 2D p 2H p 2S.

 

What is 2S? Assume a style with no rigid rules, we bypass spades if it "feels" right. Usually it would be 4333, but not always.

[SteelWheel]

Part of my problem in answering is I'm not sure how responder's sequence (puppet and then 2♥), differs from an immediate 2♥ call over the 1NT rebid--which is the "light invite" type hand, and which shows the signoff type?

 

Assuming the puppet was an attempt to signoff: Then I think opener's 2♠ call must mean, "Sorry, pard, but I rebid 1NT on a hand which is actually 4=1=4=4, and now I strongly suggest you pick another suit to play in".

 

If the puppet was an attempt to show the light invite type hand: I think that here, the 2♠ call must be a natural-ish move, to see if we can manage to bid a game in ♥s, maybe NTs in some rare cases, but in any case willing to risk playing 3♥, if no other meaningful information can be be brought forth from responder's and opener's next calls.

[reisig]

Responder has made a game invit bid (2♥) - after using 2♣...so 2♠ is accepting (showing max) and honors in ♠s for a possible 3N but may be lacking ♦ stopper maybe AKx Qx xxx AJxxx

[han]

What Reisig said.

[Guest Jlall]

more questions :P

 

It is typical for responder to bid this way with 4 spades and 5 hearts (2C-2D-2H). Is that a normal interpretation or just mine? If that is normal, how does one go about finding a 4-4 spade fit after that when A) they don't have values for game and B ) they do. Perhaps in some schemes A is impossible, but what about B? Or do people bid 2C-2D-2S with 4-5 in the majors and risk getting to 3H?

[han]

I rarely bid 1NT here with 4 spades, so it really isn't an issue.

 

If you frequently bid 1NT with 4 spades then as responder I'd still bid 2H with 5-4 iin the majors, and 2S with 4-4 in the majors.

 

I frequently bid 1NT over 1C-1D with one or both majors. However, now as responder I won't have 4 diamonds and a 4-card major, so 1C-1D-1NT-2C-2D-2M is invitational with at least 4-5.

[Guest Jlall]

I rarely bid 1NT here with 4 spades, so it really isn't an issue.

 

If you frequently bid 1NT with 4 spades then as responder I'd still bid 2H with 5-4 iin the majors, and 2S with 4-4 in the majors.

 

I frequently bid 1NT over 1C-1D with one or both majors. However, now as responder I won't have 4 diamonds and a 4-card major, so 1C-1D-1NT-2C-2D-2M is invitational with at least 4-5.

Assume a style with no rigid rules, we bypass spades if it "feels" right. Usually it would be 4333, but not always.

[awm]

Probably 2♠ should show a minimum with doubleton heart and four spades. Then the full set of rebids would be something like:

 

1♣-1♥-1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥...

 

Pass = minimum

2♠ = minimum with 4♠, 2♥ (trying to get to the best spot)

2NT = minimum, really doesn't want to play 2♥

3♣/♦ = stopper-showing, max, only 2♥, suggests weakness in some suit

3♥ = three-card hearts, kind of a punt ("good minimum")

3♠ = maximum with 4♠, may have 3♥ also (will correct 3NT to 4♥ in this case)

3NT = to play, usually 3244 or 3235, not particularly scared of any suit

4♥ = maximum, three hearts, to play

 

Of course it's also reasonable to treat 2♠ as forcing one round (most of the time it's best to pass 2♥ with a minimum and doubleton anyway)... but in any case I think it should show four spades.

[cherdano]

more questions :P

 

It is typical for responder to bid this way with 4 spades and 5 hearts (2C-2D-2H). Is that a normal interpretation or just mine? If that is normal, how does one go about finding a 4-4 spade fit after that when A) they don't have values for game and B ) they do. Perhaps in some schemes A is impossible, but what about B? Or do people bid 2C-2D-2S with 4-5 in the majors and risk getting to 3H?

I would think 4=5 is possible for that sequence. This could be confirmed by raising 2♠ to 3♠. 2♠ accepts game and searches for the right strain, I think all of 4H, 4S and 3N are in the picture.

 

Arend

[han]

I rarely bid 1NT here with 4 spades, so it really isn't an issue.

 

If you frequently bid 1NT with 4 spades then as responder I'd still bid 2H with 5-4 iin the majors, and 2S with 4-4 in the majors.

 

I frequently bid 1NT over 1C-1D with one or both majors. However, now as responder I won't have 4 diamonds and a 4-card major, so 1C-1D-1NT-2C-2D-2M is invitational with at least 4-5.

Assume a style with no rigid rules, we bypass spades if it "feels" right. Usually it would be 4333, but not always.

What's your point?

[luke warm]

i'd take opener's hand to be 4234 and an acceptance of the invitation, but richie and han may be correct... i disagree with adam because i think with a doubleton heart and minimum, opener should pass 2h... on

 

1c : 1h

1nt : 2c

2d : now 2s (for me) would show 4 spades and 5 hearts, invitational

 

there's another possibility

 

1c : 1h

1nt : 2s

 

playing 2 way, this can't be game forcing so it seems that it can be treated as invitational 4/5 majors, eh? if that's true, there's no need in 2h after 2d showing spades (invitational strength)

[Kalvan14]

IMHO, if pard bypasses spades for any reason (bad suit, 4.3.3.3, whatever), you'll never find the fit when opener is minimum.

 

2♠ should be a non-minimum hand, with values in spades, and possibly even 4 cards. It is quite likely that it includes a fit in hearts (at least Hx).

Advancer obviously raises spades with 4 cards, and opener will place the contract.

It makes sense to have also 3♦ as fit in hearts with a feature in diamonds

[mikeh]

For me, the given sequence through 2♥ denies 4=5 in the majors: with 4=4 invite, responder bids 2♠ over 1N, with 4=5, he bids 2♣ then 2♠.

 

This style forces to 2N or 3♥ when opener is minimum, but that seems a minor risk given that responder was looking for game.

 

This means that opener's 2♠ over 2♥ is as Richie suggested

[Finch]

There isn't an answer to this, it just shows that you need to discuss all these sequences if you're going to play complex methods. Even agreeing to play things the 'obvious' or 'natural' way doesn't necessarily work

 

In my two most regular partnerships 2C is a puppet to 2D, but in one of them (which plays the closest to 'two way NMF')

 

1C - 1H - 1N - 2C - 2D

2H = weak 4-5 in the majors, pass or correct

2S = 4-5 in the majors Invitational

(immediate 2S over the 1NT rebid 4-4 invitational)

 

in the other (which plays 2C forces 2D and transfers)

1C - 1H - 1NT - 2C - 2D

2H = weak invite with 5 hearts, NF

2S = 4-4 invitational NF

 

1C - 1H - 1NT -

2H = weak 4-5 in the majors

2S= 4-4 FG

[joshs]

A regular partner and I recently found out we were on different wavelengths about a seemingly simple auction.

 

1C p 1H p 1N p 2C (forces 2D) p 2D p 2H p 2S.

 

What is 2S? Assume a style with no rigid rules, we bypass spades if it "feels" right. Usually it would be 4333, but not always.

In many of my partnerships we rebid 1N on a balanced hand with 4 spades (in some partnerships its flexible, and some its not).

 

My comment is in the context of how I play the puppet then 2H sequence. I normaly play:

2C then rebid 2H: Light Invite, usually distributional

2C then 2N: 5 cards in major, sound invite

 

When playing in partnerships that bypass 1S (usually weak nt partnerships) we bid 2S here on 4 spades and 2 Hearts, since responder can be 4=5 in the majors. There is a case to be made that this should also show a max.

 

I don't think this bid should show 4333. But that comes mostly from my belief that after finding 1 major suit fit you don't look for a better one, since whatever that gains in sometimes finding the 4-4 fit, it loses in describing your hands to the defenders....

[whereagles]

Justin: within the definitions you gave us, I would take 2♠ to be the 4234 hand with a min. Opener is saying where his honors lie, in case the hands match despite the 23-24 hcp, and eventually trying for a residual 44 fit. 3♠ would be the same thing with a max.

 

Of course, as you have realized as well, this interpretation is not clear-cut and really depends on the player, so you better have this sequence agreed in advance or simply avoid it. Unless you like to live a dangerous life, that is :P

[Fluffy]

I would take it as 3♥ and strenght needing fit in ♠ (AQx or KJx).

[awm]

Another interesting question is the meaning (if any) of 2NT in the same sequence.

 

A lot of people have suggested that opener should always pass with a minimum and two hearts, and I know Elianna and I are in a distinct minority when we frequently rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's major. So does 2NT here show a maximum with interest in some other strain? Maybe a 4333 hand asking if partner really wants to play in hearts?

 

Seems simplest to me without further discussion to play that 2-level bids show minimums and are mostly trying to "improve the contract" whereas 3-level bids are forward-going but indicate uncertainty about the best strain. Obviously almost any agreements here are better than none, but that's what I'd assume. The idea that bidding 2NT shows a maximum (while it might have technical merit) seems strange to assume without further discussion, and I don't see any reason that a lower bid should necessarily show a stronger hand in the case of 2♠ (although I know plenty of people who play for example that 1♥-2♦-2♠ is a game-forcing reverse whereas 1♥-2♦-2NT shows a non-forcing minimum I personally find this weird).

[joshs]

Another interesting question is the meaning (if any) of 2NT in the same sequence.

 

A lot of people have suggested that opener should always pass with a minimum and two hearts, and I know Elianna and I are in a distinct minority when we frequently rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's major. So does 2NT here show a maximum with interest in some other strain? Maybe a 4333 hand asking if partner really wants to play in hearts?

 

Seems simplest to me without further discussion to play that 2-level bids show minimums and are mostly trying to "improve the contract" whereas 3-level bids are forward-going but indicate uncertainty about the best strain. Obviously almost any agreements here are better than none, but that's what I'd assume. The idea that bidding 2NT shows a maximum (while it might have technical merit) seems strange to assume without further discussion, and I don't see any reason that a lower bid should necessarily show a stronger hand in the case of 2♠ (although I know plenty of people who play for example that 1♥-2♦-2♠ is a game-forcing reverse whereas 1♥-2♦-2NT shows a non-forcing minimum I personally find this weird).

As you know, this all depends a lot on

a. can 1N have a stiff

b. what exactly 2C then 2M showed

 

When playing my usual methods, 1N can't have a stiff (on rare occasion you might, but, we don't cater to it since it will be rare). 2C then 2M says I am only interested in game if you are max AND have a fit (relative to the class of hands that would rebid 1N instead of raising the first time). Yes its possible to play 2N as a correction, but opener is really not in much of a position to know if 2N will be a better contract. How would you feel as responder, after 1D-1H-1N-2C-2D-2H with Axx Qxxxxx x KJx if opener pulled 2H to 2N with Kxx xx KQxxx Axx? 2H requires a 3-2 trump break or the club Q on (or the diamond Ace on and they take it). 2N requires a lot.

 

The case for a 2N rebid showing a super-max is there are some hands that started as worth 14 but have gotten better on the auction, despite having only 2 card support. For instance, Axx Qx Axxx Axxx is now worth much more than 14 after responder shows a 5 card heart suit.

 

Again, if you frequently rebid 1N with a stiff, you have to change a lot of these things...