What do you respond?

[Poky]

IMP. None vul.

 

♠x

♥Kx

♦Ax

♣Q987xxxx

 

1♠ pass ???

 

If you respond 1NT, what do you bid after partner's 3♥?

 

If you respond 2♣, what do you bid after partner's 2♥?

[HeartA]

pd's opening?

[Codo]

 

If you respond 1NT, what do you bid after partner's 3♥? 

 

 

Soemhow I red a 1 ♥ opening, then 4 ♥ had been easy. In the given case, I try 3 NT. Ugly contract, but I doubt that 5 club is better. And if Pd has some extra length in his majors, he will bid them.

 

 

If you respond 2♣, what do you bid after partner's 2♥?

 

 

I would never think about 2 CLub. But if I did bid it, I would now bid 3 ♣

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1NT, assuming hands with inv. strength

and a long minor go through 1NT according

to your system agreements, ... other guys

can bid a direct 3C.

 

Over 3H, I bid 4C followed by 5C, since 3H

could be made on a 5-4 shape.

... We will see, how partner treats 4C as natural

or as cue bid.

Another option would be a direct 5C, since

Exclusion Key Card Blackwood does not really

make sense, ... after your 1NT bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[inquiry]

I respond 3♣ which isn't on the list. Invitational with clubs, no ♠ fit.

[hrothgar]

I respond 3♣ which isn't on the list. Invitational with clubs, no ♠ fit.

I respond 2♠ which isn't on the list...

Systemically this shows an eight card club suit to the Queen with two side suit honors.

 

Ben, it gets incredibly annoying when you constantly side-step problem hands by pulling some random treatment out of your ass. I wouldn't mind as much if you were consistent regarding the set of bidding conventions that you recommend.

 

Case in point: As far as I recall, you normally advocate using a jump shift to 3♣ as some kind of fit jump. This is all fine and dandy. Playing 3♣ as natural and invitational is also playable, as is using this as some kind of artificial raise. However, you don't get to pick and chose what your playing based on the problem d'jour.

 

Sure, you get to show off how many treatments that you know. But you don't shed any light on on the question at hand.

[inquiry]

Richard, the question was "What do you respond when playing 2/1. I don't think invitational jump shift is so odd a treatment as to be something "odd pulled out" of a body oriface. In fact, inviational jump shifts are played EXACTLY for such hands as this. True, some people want to play "strong" jump shifts, some people want to play "preemptive jumpshift", some people want to play fit jumps, and some people want to play version of Bergen.

 

As for what I play 3♣ as, is I play it as invitational. My 2/1 system in posted. I do play 3♣ as "Fit jumps" in competiton, but this is not a competitive auction. At one time, long ago, I played each of the treatements in the above list. For instance, soon after reading Robson/Segal I did play them as either preemptive or fit jump (depending upon partner). But in 2004 I switched back to invitiational jumpshifts. You could ask any of my partners as I play this with all of them, but then I have a record that stretchs back well more than a year right on the web.

 

For instance, my blog is been up for nearly a year, and this is covered in the section on 1M opening bids...

http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.com/2005/07/...pening-bid.html where it clearly says Under Reponses to 1 MAJOR, that:

• 3C/3D = invite, six card suit, fair values (think 9 to 12)
  

Dont want to go to my blog? Well check out these post here on this forum...

 

In Miron's 1H-1N-2H-2S thread (http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=124043) where I said on March 14, 2006:

If you use 1M-3m as invite with six card minor (as I do), then this 2♠ is clearly both minors,

 

Want a little older, how about August 10, 2005, in a thread on light openers, where I said, (http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=9446&view=findpost&p=83035 ://http://forums.bridgebase.com/index....ndpost&p=83035 )

I like jump shifts by responder over 1M as invitational upto bad 13 hcp and the bid suit. No fit in partners suit.

 

Or in a thread why discussing my 1NT response to a major is only "semi-forcing" I include the statement that: "3) I will never have game invite hand and a fair to good six card suit (I use invitational jumpshifts here). " (see http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=73924 from mid June 2005)

 

Or how about a thread on actually on "invitational jumpshifts" posted in Jan 2005 where I said (http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6300&view=findpost&p=52089 ://http://forums.bridgebase.com/index....ndpost&p=52089 )

 

I love 1S-3S to be weak preemptive raise.... This is the "reason" many choose to play Bergen. The enlightened (aka, me...  ) use a limit raise or better "jacoby 2NT" so all the bergen hands are rolled into that bid... this leave 3♣ and 3♦ to be whatever you want... weak jump shift, strong jump shift, invitational with the suit, fit jump. It is up to you. I use to use them for fit jumps, but I have switched to invitational with bid suit which seems more useful.

 

Perhaps Richard, just perhaps, I know what I play better than you.

 

Ben, it gets incredibly annoying when you constantly side-step problem hands by pulling some random treatment out of your ass. I wouldn't mind as much if you were consistant regarding the set of bidding conventions that you recommend.

 

Case in point: As far as I recall, you normally advocate using a jump shift to 3♣ as some kind of fit jump. This is all fine and dandy. Playing 3♣ as natural and invitational is also playable, as is using this as some kind of artificial raise. However, you don't get to pick and chose what your playing based on the problem d'jour.

 

Sure, you get to show off how many treatments that you know. But you don't shed any light on on the question at hand.

 

So rather than SOME random treatement "pulled out of my ass", this is exactly what I play and my view is WELL document. And if fact, this exact hand is WHY I PLAY this treatment, and the fact that the poster didn't even include this as an option is a PERFECT reason to discuss the possibility of playing this bid. I find your post both arrogant, personally insulting, and a complete waste of energy to read, and as is frequently the case, I am totally disgusted with your attitude in responding to peoples post, this time it just happened to be mine. What a load of crap you frequently post.

[hrothgar]

Richard, the question was "What do you respond when playing 2/1. I don't think invitational jump shift is so odd a treatment as to be something "odd pulled out" of a body oriface. In fact, inviational jump shifts are played EXACTLY for such hands as this. True, some people want to play "strong" jump shifts, some people want to play "preemptive jumpshift", some people want to play fit jumps, and some people want to play version of Bergen.

 

As for what I play 3♣ as, is I play it as invitational. My 2/1 system in posted. I do play 3♣ as "Fit jumps" in competiton, but this is not a competitive auction.  At one time, long ago, I played each of the treatements in the above list. For instance, soon after reading Robson/Segal I did play them as either preemptive or fit jump (depending upon partner). But in 2004 I switched back to invitiational jumpshifts. You  could ask any of my partners as I play this with all of them, but then I have a record that stretchs back well more than a year right on the web.

Ben, I never questioned your ability to document whatever set of methods that you currently happen to be championing. With this said and done, many of your infatuations seem fleeting.

 

My original posting was based on my recollection that you used to promote the auction 1M - 3m as a fit jump supporting your light opening style. I'm not overly surprised that your moved on to something new. Regardless what set of methods that you happen to play, your 3♣ answer was still non-responsive. Poky was quite deliberately trying to focus attention on the choice between two badly flawed responses:

 

A 2♣ bid that (absent a fit) overstates the playing strength of the hand

A 1NT response that understates the playing strength of the hand

 

Personally, I think that its a fairly difficult problem. (Hence the fact that I haven't made a more constructive posting). I'm still trying to make up my mind.

[Free]

I don't want to get into system discussions here, but as DrTodd said several times in the past: if a system is given, DON'T use your own system agreements and gadgets but the general system.

I completely agree on this one. Bidding 3♣ is not a standard treatment, because (correct me if I'm wrong) the standard treatment for 3♣ is a bergen raise. Perhaps not in ALL versions, but certainly in most.

[jdonn]

Ben, I sort of agree with Richard although I think he stated it rather rudely (why can't we all just get along ;) )

 

I have no opinion and don't care anyway whether you have contradicted your own past posts, and if you say you didn't then I'm sure you didn't. I also would rather not center the discussion on your various orifices. But he is right that you have a habit of responding to postings by swinging a systematic answer that was clearly not intended in the question. It was a poll question asking for an opinion between two imperfect responses, obviously if 3♣ had been an option per the agreements in play then it would have been included in the poll. The fact that it may not be an odd treatment really doesn't matter, only that the original poster wasn't playing it. If the original poster had asked for systematic suggestions to handle this hand then run wild, but it was obviously a judgement question pertaining to the two bids stated rather than a system question. Your posts as to what treatment would work better are still quite meritorious and certainly deserve their own threads, but make no progress toward the intention of the original poster in this sort of particular thread.

 

(Many thanks for the quoting help, I have used it already.)

[mike777]

1) 1nt

2) 4C will take a chance and show/bid my 8 card suit.

[mikeh]

1N for me.

 

As for what to do over 3♥: I hate it B)

 

There is an interesting theoretical question here: should 4♣ be an attempt to play ♣ or should it be a good raise to 4♥ with ♣ values/control?

 

I think that the latter makes far more sense than the former, but one of my current occasional partners (and former regular partner) who is an ACBL Grand Master thinks, just as strongly, that 4♣ should be natural.

 

BTW, I assume that we do not know if 3♥ showed 5♥: for many it would (using other gadgets such as a forcing 2N or an artificial 3♣ for gf with side 4 card suits). If I knew 3♥ was 5+, I would raise to 4♥.

 

As it is, the 3♥ bid has me wishing I had responded 2♣, because that is the only way I see to have ♣ as trump. Of course, maybe ♣ won;t work B)

 

Okay, enough stalling: I bid 3N over 3♥, hoping, praying, begging partner won't bid 4♦, patterning out ;)

 

3N rates to be a silly contract, but I can't see how to get to a less silly contract without risking a bigger mess than I have already created.

[han]

Ben, it gets incredibly annoying when you constantly side-step problem hands by pulling some random treatment out of your ass. I wouldn't mind as much if you were consistent regarding the set of bidding conventions that you recommend.

 

For as long as I know Ben prefers to play invitational jump shifts over 1M. I don't think that you are being fair here, Ben must have written about this dozens of times.

[joshs]

I don't want to get into system discussions here, but as DrTodd said several times in the past: if a system is given, DON'T use your own system agreements and gadgets but the general system.

I completely agree on this one. Bidding 3♣ is not a standard treatment, because (correct me if I'm wrong) the standard treatment for 3♣ is a bergen raise. Perhaps not in ALL versions, but certainly in most.

I would hardly consider bergen raises standard.

 

In fact if I was summoned to a table to play 2/1 with an east coast expert (who recognized me as also being from the east coast), and he bid 3C here I would have assummed:

a. partner has a death wish

b. Invitational

 

In DC, for instance, 3 level Invitational Jump Shifts are completely standard thanks to Steve Robinson's influence. IN DC, You will get only 1 or 2 pairs in each section playing bergen raises, and they usually are none of the top players.

 

In any case, either:

a: this problem is an advertisement for INV jump shifts

b: the problem giver, recognizing that all sets of systemic agreements handle some hands poorly in order to handle other hands better, wants to know what to do when you are left with a decisions between imperfect alternatives....

 

There was a BW problem once which is what do you respond to 1S holding:

Kxx AKJx KJx xxx playing BWS.

 

Yes it would be nice to have a natural 2N here. Yes it would be nice to have a 2C GFing relay here. Yes it would be nice to be playing 1M-2M forcing! Or to be playing 1S-2H as a good spade raise, or better. The problem, of course, is that BWS doesn't include any of these treatments....

 

 

BTW, as to this problem, while I am in the minority in the "no new suits at the 4 level" debate, and think that after 1S-1N-3H that the best use for 4 of a minor is natural (but unlike some others I never have a balanced game force when I use a forcing NT) I think the suit should not have 2+ losers opposite a singleton, so I would bid 3N (or 3S waiting) after 1S-1N-3H.

[han]

Oops, forgot to respond to the bridge question.

 

I bid 1NT first (lacking the invitational 3C bid). With this shape and HCP I could very well bid 2C, but the suit must be better. For instance, x Kx xx AQxxxxxx looks a lot better already.

 

After 1S-1NT-3H I'm in an awful position. I guess 3NT is the correct bid, but I hate to ignore my 8-card suit twice.

[jdonn]

Oops, forgot to respond to the bridge question.

 

I bid 1NT first (lacking the invitational 3C bid). With this shape and HCP I could very well bid 2C, but the suit must be better. For instance, x Kx xx AQxxxxxx looks a lot better already.

 

After 1S-1NT-3H I'm in an awful position. I guess 3NT is the correct bid, but I hate to ignore my 8-card suit twice.

I also forgot. Wait, you mean to tell me this is a bridge forum? :P

 

I start with 1NT as well. Over the 3♥ bid I play 4♣ as a cuebid setting hearts as trumps (necessary since I would play 4NT directly as quantitative so need to cuebid to set up keycard), though needless to say I would rather 4♣ was natural on this hand. I will just bid 5♣ now, I really prefer it to 3NT. We may not always get to the right level or even the right strain, but I refuse to never show an 8 card suit.

[mikeh]

 

I start with 1NT as well. Over the 3♥ bid I play 4♣ as a cuebid setting hearts as trumps (necessary since I would play 4NT directly as quantitative so need to cuebid to set up keycard), though needless to say I would rather 4♣ was natural on this hand. I will just bid 5♣ now, I really prefer it to 3NT. We may not always get to the right level or even the right strain, but I refuse to never show an 8 card suit.

I thought of 5♣ as well, and it is easy to construct hands where that is best (almost any 5=5=2=1 with a stiff top ♣, for example) and I do not think that a good partner would take 5♣ as exclusion keycard....... but I'd be nervous with an unknown 'expert' :P

 

Yes, yes: the chances of you having a void ♣ and the cards to take control are remote...... but....... accidents happen when we say to ourselves "surely partner can work this one out..."

 

Having said that, I agree that 5♣ is the best bid with a trustworthy partner... it is just that my preference on these hands, with an unknown partner, is to bid 3N and then ask partner what 5♣ would have been.

[inquiry]

To answer the question "what is standard" for 1M-3m, I would have to say that I would be terrribly surprised if Bergen was even in the top two.

 

The vast majority of bridge players probably use jump shifts as weak or strong (and if you pool non-duplicate players, perhaps the majority would clearly be strong jump shifts). I happen to Live in Washington DC, and here I think invitational jump shifts are more standard than anything else, but you see all kinds for sure.

 

The question posed was... What do you respond?, Playing 2/1 GF, on the auction...

 

1♠ - pass - ?

 

When holding the given hand. That was the question, period. That is the answer to which I gave. I neither consider it un-responsive nor problematic with respect to the original question posed. The fact the original poster only offered two options was perhaps a lack of appreciation for the fact that there are other possible bids. He could have limited the question by saying, "assuming not playing invitational jumpshifts" and of course then I would have responded my bid would have been 1NT.

 

By discussing yet a third optional responding type of hand (invitational jump shift), along with the protypical hand where such bids are useful, it offers something useful to the discussion (at least imho). If you feel like life is incomplete without bergen or weak or strong jumpshift, then fine, your answer here will be either 1NT or 2♣ and you can feel free to ignore the suggesting to consider invitational jump shifts (I would clearly recommend you trash bergen, but then that is just my personal opinion).

 

The poster then asked two follow up questions... with a hypothetical. IF you bid 1NT what would you do, and If you bid 2C what would you do. Since clearly I would not have made either of thise bids, I didn't reply to the hypothetical. For the record, if I had bid 1NT and my partner bids 3H, I will bid 4H (for me 4♣ shows ♥ fit). If I had bid 2C and partner bid 2H, I would rebid 3C.

[cherdano]

I also prefer discussing judgement/bidding plan question to systemic dicussions.

 

I would bid 1N, but I would not need much more to bid 2♣. After partner bids 3♥, 4♣ is one of the bids I would prefer to have clear agreements with partner, whether it is cuebid for hearts (my preference) or natural. Undiscussed, I will just bid 3N, ask later what 4♣ would have meant, then ask (lower priority) what 5♣ would have meant.

 

Arend

[HeartA]

If opening is 1♥, I might think of 2♣ in some occasions, as I can tolerate 4♥. Since the opening is 1♠, 1NT is my only choice.

[jdeegan]

;) 1NT, wtp. W/O a club fit, I have a 9 HCP hand. Over 3♥, I have to bid 4♣. Is there any reason to lose my seven bagger? I don't think this is the spot to play the 4-2 heart fit.

[Kalvan14]

Since the poster makes clear that "2/1 GF", 2♣ is not an option. 1NT at 1st round.

 

3♥ by opener is game force now, but does not promises 5 hearts (and i think it should be unbalanced: 5-4-3-1 or worse). OTOH, 3♥ must promise a substantial amount of brute strength (as an aside, nothing worse that opener rebidding at 3 level on the strength of a good distribution only: this rebid is GF, and should guarantee 19/+ HCP. Otherwise it would be better to rebid 4♥, which shows a 5-5 or better). 3N, but 5♣ is close. Still, 3N should be the practical contract.

[whereagles]

1♠ 1NT

3♥ 3NT

 

Not perfect, but definitely playable.