Improving 2/1 GF

[Gerben42]

Hi, how would you bid this hand playing Fred's "improving 2/1 GF"?

 

[hv=s=s6hak74dqt63ckj42]133|100|[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1♠.

 

Do you bid 2♣ (which should usually show a decent 5-card suit) or 2NT (which should show a balanced hand and usually 2-3♠)?

[mike777]

Do not know where this system link is.

 

 

If playing junky openings then 1nt semiforce (yes pard can pass)

If playing super sound openings then 2clubs.

[Guest Jlall]

2C

[pbleighton]

2C. Balanced means balanced, so 2NT is out.

 

This is a GF opposite a lightish openings (open ~25-30% of 11 counts, for example), for pairs who like to bid their games.

 

However, partscore aficionados may bid a semi-forcing NT if they like. After all, the next partscore can get them to rubber, eh? Slow and steady wins the race :)

 

Peter

[kenberg]

Do not know where this system link is.

 

 

If playing junky openings then 1nt semiforce (yes pard can pass)

If playing super sound openings then 2clubs.

http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1.htm

 

I assume this is it. There is a link to part 2 at the bottom of this article.

[HeartA]

Yes, 2C.

 

BTW, I believe not many experts play 2C/2D over major opening as 5+.

[mike777]

Yes, 2C.

 

BTW, I believe not many experts play 2C/2D over major opening as 5+.

Marshall Miles style.

[ArcLight]

>BTW, I believe not many experts play 2C/2D over major opening as 5+.

 

According to the Mike Lawrence 2/1 CD, the 2/1 tends to have 5 cards (most of the time). You want to be wary of 4 card suits especially bad ones. But on occasion you may have to bid one.

[Double !]

2♣

 

no rule that 2C/1M promises 5+, in fact, there are some who would bid 2C on a 3-card suit in certain situations, just to establish a GF.

 

anyway, rules were made to be broken! :(

 

dhl

[han]

2C.

[pclayton]

I play 2N as natural in one partnership and a 1=4=4=4 is allowed over 1♠. This is the only sequence where you'd have a stiff in pard's suit.

[han]

2NT takes up quite a bit of room, I wouldn't abuse it but keep it descriptive. So 2C.

[whereagles]

2♣, yup.

[Winstonm]

I really don't see any problem with 2N here - you are forcing to game and partner will use the 3-level to probe. If he does rebid 3S, my futher 3N bid should get across the message that I really don't like a spade contract. If he bids anything else, I like my hand in support.

 

One of the big positives about 2N (at least as I play it) is that it limits my hand immediately, whereas 2C is ambiguous as to strength and suit length.

[pclayton]

I really don't see any problem with 2N here - you are forcing to game and partner will use the 3-level to probe. If he does rebid 3S, my futher 3N bid should get across the message that I really don't like a spade contract. If he bids anything else, I like my hand in support.

 

One of the big positives about 2N (at least as I play it) is that it limits my hand immediately, whereas 2C is ambiguous as to strength and suit length.

Exactly. If you don't use 2N as a natural, forcing call, you don't understand the perils of responding 2♣ on a 4 bagger. Pard will always assume you have 5, which is frequently important when it comes to counting tricks for slam. If you answer, 2♣, "wtp?" you don't get it.

 

After 1♠ - 2N; responder will generally have 2 or 3 spades, but understands a 1444 is possible.

 

This is the only pattern for a 2N response that can contain a stiff. I've written about my response structure here and its easy enough to find any 4-4 fit, and to inquire about opener's relative strength.

[Winstonm]

I really don't see any problem with 2N here - you are forcing to game and partner will use the 3-level to probe.  If he does rebid 3S, my futher 3N bid should get across the message that I really don't like a spade contract.  If he bids anything else, I like my hand in support.

 

One of the big positives about 2N (at least as I play it) is that it limits my hand immediately, whereas 2C is ambiguous as to strength and suit length.

Exactly. If you don't use 2N as a natural, forcing call, you don't understand the perils of responding 2♣ on a 4 bagger. Pard will always assume you have 5, which is frequently important when it comes to counting tricks for slam. If you answer, 2♣, "wtp?" you don't get it.

 

After 1♠ - 2N; responder will generally have 2 or 3 spades, but understands a 1444 is possible.

 

This is the only pattern for a 2N response that can contain a stiff. I've written about my response structure here and its easy enough to find any 4-4 fit, and to inquire about opener's relative strength.

Phil, the way I play this is simply natural and forcing with 12+ to 15. Opener then bids naturally looking for the best game or slam contract. But the key issue is my hand is immediately limited to what is in essence 13-15 range, placing opener in a much better position to gauge whether game is likely all we can make or whether there is true slam potential. The concern over 1444 and a 4S rebid is a non-problem, as that bid would show a hand with no slam potential and a suit where singleton x is sufficient support anyway.

[pclayton]

MY 2N calls promise 13 or more. A 17 balanced hand has the same challenges as a 14.

 

Id be wary about forcing to game on many 12 counts without a fit.