Pick your continuations

[Apollo81]

MPs

 

♠AT7

♥Q975

♦AQ3

♣T73

 

1♠*-(pass)-?

 

*10-15

 

This is the bidding treatment you are using:

- semi forcing 1NT response

- 2♣ showing a GF with 3+♣ or a 3-card limit raise. Partner bids 2♠ if rejecting the LR and anything else (natural) if accepting. (2NT would show an accept with 6+♠)

 

My preferred treatment on this hand is to respond 1NT, then:

a) if partner bids 2♣, rebid 2NT

c) if partner bids 2♦, rebid 3♠ (LR)

d) if partner bids 2♥, rebid 4♥

e) if partner bids 2♠, rebid 4♠

 

To what extent do you agree with the above responding strategy, given the bidding treatment you're playing?

[bid_em_up]

If I am understanding what you said correctly, the sequence

 

1♠-2♣ shows a GF with 3+♣ or a 3-card limit raise. Partner bids 2♠ if rejecting the LR and anything else (natural) if accepting. (2NT would show an accept with 6+♠).

 

Isn't this what you have? Not sure why you want to go thru 1N forcing instead.

 

(You cant be making a g/f raise on 12 opposite a possible 10, so must consider this hand as a limit raise initially.)

 

If partner bids anything other than 2S, you're happy, right? If he rebids 2♠, the question becomes whether you pass, or bid 3♠ (has to be max limit raise, I think). Under your given system restraints, I would detract from my 3-4-3-3 shape and probably pass. The other consideration is whether or not 3♠ would promise the GF hand, in which case I definetely pass 2♠.

 

There are several reasons I dont like the suggested rebids after 1N forcing. To name one, does 1♠-1N-2♥ promise anything extra? Partner can still be a 10 count, right? And yet you still bid 4♥? Yes, there is a double fit. Unfortunately, half your values are in a minor suit, which also detracts from the value of the hand.

(I dont like 2N over a 2C response to 1N either, but thats another story).

[Gerben42]

Looks like a 3-card limit raise to me, so I respond 2♣ in your system. Also in my system after such an opening bid, 2♣ = "any invitational hand"

[whereagles]

MPs

 

♠AT7

♥Q975

♦AQ3

♣T73

 

1♠*-(pass)-?

 

*10-15

 

This is the bidding treatment you are using:

- semi forcing 1NT response

- 2♣ showing a GF with 3+♣ or a 3-card limit raise. Partner bids 2♠ if rejecting the LR and anything else (natural) if accepting. (2NT would show an accept with 6+♠)

 

My preferred treatment on this hand is to respond 1NT, then:

a) if partner bids 2♣, rebid 2NT

c) if partner bids 2♦, rebid 3♠ (LR)

d) if partner bids 2♥, rebid 4♥

e) if partner bids 2♠, rebid 4♠

 

To what extent do you agree with the above responding strategy, given the bidding treatment you're playing?

I've seen better 12 counts. Opposite what might be a feather-weight opener, I'm classifying this hand as "limit raise". Consequently, I'd use the 2♣ gadget and pass 2♠.

 

If I were to bid 1NT instead, then I must say you're either messing up things or forgot to tell us you have 2 types of limit raise. Why? Because you can't bid c): hand c) would have been bid 1♠-2♣. Unless, of course, you have 2 types of limit raises: a balanced one that goes

 

1♠ 1NT

2x 3♠

 

and another, unbalanced, that goes

 

1♠ 2♣

 

If this is case, I really think you should swap the bids for LRs because a flat LR, if rejected, will often go down at the 3 level, whereas the unbalanced one survives it much better.

 

As for cases a, d, e:

 

a) this is the same as c), basically. Besides, I don't like twisting stuff into 3NT if pard could be unbalanced. Even in 10-15 openers, where responder is allowed a bit of masterminding.

 

d), e) that is fine.

[mikeh]

You didn't tell us the criteria for 1♠ 1N pass...

 

Is there any risk that partner will pass 1N with a balanced 13 count, for example? If so, we have probably missed game.

 

Anyway, if we have a way to treat this hand as a 3 card limit raise, and if we play light opening bids, I use my 2♣ gadget... isn't this hand one of the reasons we play the method?

 

I think it is a basic and significant error not to stay within the bounds of your agreements... given the methods described, partner expects this hand to be bid via 2♣, so when you embark upon another route, you are actively misleading partner in a constructive auction.... very bad.

 

Furthermore, your proposed follow-ups (assuming partner doesn't pass) seem weird to me. You are concealing A10x in ♠ if partner bids 2♣. Why?

 

And what kind of hand do you show with 3♠ over 2♦? How is that sequence different from 1♠ 2♣ sequences?

 

Using 2 sequences to show the same values is a fundamental systemic error.... the main obstacle to good bidding system design is the relative scarcity of available sequences compared to the number of hand-types to be shown, so using two responses to 1♠ to show the same handtype is extremely inefficient.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would make a LR.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

For me the issue is do I show this hand as a 3 card limit raise. I do have good 3 card trump support and it is in my range which for me is around 12-13 support points. The reason I hesitate is I wonder if this hand would play better in NT since I am 3433 shape. I assume partner may have a junky 10-12 hcp balanced hand with 5 spades for this auction. If I bid 1nt semiforcing we may be able to get out in 1nt rather than 2s in your style at MP? In any case I always wonder if these hand types play better in NT or in the 8 card major fit at MP? We somehow have to factor in less than perfect defense at MP also.

 

 

xxxxx...Kxx...xx...AKx or something of this type?

[pclayton]

MPs

 

♠AT7

♥Q975

♦AQ3

♣T73

 

1♠*-(pass)-?

 

*10-15

 

This is the bidding treatment you are using:

- semi forcing 1NT response

- 2♣ showing a GF with 3+♣ or a 3-card limit raise. Partner bids 2♠ if rejecting the LR and anything else (natural) if accepting. (2NT would show an accept with 6+♠)

 

My preferred treatment on this hand is to respond 1NT, then:

a) if partner bids 2♣, rebid 2NT

c) if partner bids 2♦, rebid 3♠ (LR)

d) if partner bids 2♥, rebid 4♥

e) if partner bids 2♠, rebid 4♠

 

To what extent do you agree with the above responding strategy, given the bidding treatment you're playing?

I think I agree with your continuations.

 

If you pull a SF 1N response to 2x does it show strength? Or just shape?

 

I am considering going to a variable 2♣ response like you play, howver one of the challenges I see is the hand like this, that wants to give one more push after a limit raise. The problem is 1♠-2♣-2x-2♠ will frequently end the auction when many suitable minimums offer a good play for game.

 

I don't know if this is solvable.