Playing 2/1 only

[sceptic]

[hv=d=e&v=a&n=skq83h985dkqtcak4&w=sat542htd932ct872&e=sj76haq72d85cj953&s=s9hkj643daj764cq6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1♥

 Pass  2♣    Pass  2♦

 Pass  2♥    Pass  4♥

 Pass  4NT   Pass  5♥

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

after the 2 heart bid,

 

is 3 diamonds showing 5/5?

 

is 4 hearts the best bid?

 

is 4NT a bit pushy?

[ralph23]

Yes.

I like 3♦.

Only a bit.

[hrothgar]

Different partnerships have different definitions for the 3♦ jump. Some will treat this as a convention club raise. Others will use it as some kind of picture jump clarifying either strength or shape.

 

I think that either style is playable, however, I don't like a style in which 3♦ could show this hand. (Yes, you have 5-5 shape, but you also have a dead minimum opener)

 

I think that the 4♥ rebid is lazy. Qx in Clubs is golden once partner makes a 2/1 in Clubs and then shows a Heart fit.

[kenrexford]

The answers to your questions depend upon your style of bidding. There is no "correct" answer without the context of agreements.

 

Using a very natural approach here, South's bidding was excellent; North's was lacking. Here's why, IMO. A good rule of thumb that I learned is that Opener does not jump to game to sign off in a sequence like this unless his answer to RKCB would be worse that "Two with the Queen." That rule would have saved this sequence, as North would then never bid 4NT and pass 5♥, because he would know that 5♥ was your best possible answer.

 

Using the approach I use, to show the contrast of styles, the first bid from Opener would not be a patterning out unless a picture jump is used. My auction would be as follows:

 

...2♥ (sets trumps)

2♠ (spade control)

2NT (poor trumps)

3♣ (one of the top three clubs)

3♦ (diamond control)

4♦

 

4♦ by Opener would show a lot about his hand:

1. bypassed 3♥, so not two of the top three hearts

2. bypassed 3♠, so presumably not first-round control (North knows that the control is a stiff)

3. bypassed Serious 3NT, so non-serious

4. bypassed 4♣, so not two top clubs (North already knows this, of course)

5. diamond control; LTTC is only used by the "serious" partner

 

North will now know that South's best possible answer, again, will be "two without the Queen" and will not even ask.

 

On this deal, pattern/natural bidding got to the answer more quickly, with less disclosure, but the same end result -- North should sign off happily.

[ArcLight]

>is 4 hearts the best bid?

 

Playing Mike Lawrence style 2/1 the 4♥ jump shows hearts and diamonds with no values outside and no slam interest.

In this case you do have the Club Q and that could help set up pards club suit as a source of tricks. In addition you have a stiff spade. If pard has no wasted spade values, its possible to make a slam

 

♠ x x x

♥ A Q x

♦ K x

♣ A K x x x

 

This is a big hand, with precisely fitting values and wouldnt be typical. But its not impossible.

 

Or How about

 

♠ x x x

♥ A Q x

♦ x

♣ A K J x x x

 

Or even

 

♠ x x x

♥ A Q x

♦ K

♣ A J x x x

Slam on a club fineese

 

So I think the corrcet bid is 3♥ not 4♥

 

>is 3 diamonds showing 5/5?

You can use 2 treatments (make sure you an dpard know which one you are using)

a) Two GOOD suits. 8 – AQJ87 – Q8 – KQJT5, but NOT AK – Q9763-J-AKQ87 (hearts are weak, even with 19 HCP). Bid 2D with the later, despite the HCP.

:lol: Splinter. Keeps the bidding lower than a double jump to the 4 level. You can play that a double jump then shows a void.

 

 

>is 4NT a bit pushy?

Given the existing auction, with the 4♥ bid, the 4NT is a terrible bid.

 

 

I don't like the 2 club response because it distorts the picture pard has of the hand.

Its not necessary to make a 2/1. 1 Spade would work, then force to game.

[rbforster]

FWIW 2♣ by North seems like an odd choice. Even if you don't play 1♥-2N as a balanced GF, 1♥-1♠ is descriptive and forcing.

[skjaeran]

The meaning of bids after 2♥ depend upon the meaning of 2♥.

 

If this just shows preference, 3♦ obviously would be the best bid now, showing a minimum 5-5.

 

Further bidding after 2♥ showing true support depends on agreements - whether you pattern out, cuebid or bid honour consentration.

 

Whatever method, I don't like 4♥ - it preemtps the auction too much. Partner could have a more fitting hand with the same strenght, and be badly placed.

 

I prefer a 3♠ splinter. Partner would then make a non-serious 4♣ cuebid, I'd rebid 4♥ and we'd play there.

[Walddk]

Why 2♣ in the first place? There is no need to bid 2♣ even though it establishes a game force. I could picture an auction like this:

 

1♥ - 1♠

2♦ - 3♣*

3♦ - 3♥

4♥ - pass

 

* Fourth suit.

 

Opener has basically shown 5-5 in the reds and a minimum (4♥), responder 4+ spades, exactly 3 hearts with (at least) a slam invitational hand. When opener raises to 4♥, the weakest bid possible, it's time for responder to sign off.

 

Roland

[cjames]

I completely agree with Roland. Playing 2/1 myself, I would not bid 2♣ but 1♠ and the auction would go like Rolands.

[kenrexford]

There is so much here about style, with lots of perspectives on the matter, I'm sure. A can of worms, if you will.

 

The One Heart Opening:

 

By my tastes, fine. Some would consider this too light for a 1♥ opening.

 

The Two Clubs Response:

 

There are many plausible alternatives here.

 

Some obviously would bid 1♠, as described. For my part, I'm not in that school, as I believe that this muddles and preempts the auctions that follow. When spades will offer a superior alternative strain, spades will be found when Opener rebids 2♠. But, this style of bidding spades first works decently and is a style.

 

My style is to bid 2♣, because I define 2♣ as a real suit or as a club fragment or better with heart support, a sort of advanced cue, if you will. I think that this works best in the long run, but others disagree.

 

A third reasonable style might be for 2NT to show GF and balanced, which is what you have, depending upon the strength promised.

 

A fourth style might even be a 3NT artificial response, if this hand type is conventionally included.

 

There might even be other styles. But, as I mentioned, I personally like 2♣.

 

The Two Diamonds Rebid:

 

This may seem obvious and needing no clarification. However, it is plausible to play that 2♦ is too rich, as I have played before that you would always rebid the suit if you do not have extras, regardless of shape; extras could be based upon shape, though. That did work well, if not ideally.

 

It is also plausible to play, as I now do, that 2♦ either shows a real suit or is an "anticipatory advanced cue" in case partner had initially bid 2♣ as an advanced cue. That may seem strange, but it does help a lot to enable setting hearts as trumps as low as possible, when that is the to-be-realized partnership goal. The cost is in unwinding some ambiguous auctions when that was not the goal, but my experience, different from others perhaps, is that this is an acceptable cost for the gains that develop.

 

The Two Heart Rebid:

 

As some have noted, there are even different styles here. For my part, I am in the school where 2♥ unambiguously agrees hearts. Some treat 2♥ as "probably" a fit but very plausibly a 2-card delayed raise on some waiting-appropriate hands. Either style has pros and cons.

 

The Rest of the Auction:

 

As can undoubtedly be seen, the rest of the auction after 2♥ will depend upon all of the stylistic choices leading up to that call, as well as all of the stylistic choices that follow this call. What you end up with, then, is a rather difficult set of three questions to answer. Each answer requires the person answering your questions to define his or her understanding as to each of the four first calls, and then express his or her agreements as to the style after that start.

 

There may well be some "standard schools" that can offer distinct solutions to the three questions. The Lawrence School surely has all four initial bids defined, as well as the remaining auction style. Surely the same can be said of the Hardy School. Which do you play, if either?

 

Maybe there are other schools here, like perhaps a Gitelman School. I myself have a completely different school of thought here, related but distinct.

 

Boy is it difficult to sit down with a stranger and agree to play "2/1 GF" without a lot of theory discussion, eh?

[Walddk]

Some obviously would bid 1♠, as described. For my part, I'm not in that school, as I believe that this muddles and preempts the auctions that follow.

Aha, 1♠ muddles the auction, but ...

 

2♣ can be a sort of advanced cue.

2♦ can be an anticipatory advanced cue

 

... will make the auction clear as ink I take it. I am lost.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

Some obviously would bid 1♠, as described.  For my part, I'm not in that school, as I believe that this muddles and preempts the auctions that follow.

Aha, 1♠ muddles the auction, but ...

 

2♣ can be a sort of advanced cue.

2♦ can be an anticipatory advanced cue

 

... will make the auction clear as ink I take it. I am lost.

 

Roland

I really think 1♠ does muddle the auction, although I'm not gonna read Ken's post :lol: Take your example

 

1♥ 1♠

2♦ 3♣

3♦ 3♥

 

All well and good, but no better than

 

1♥ 2♣

2♦ 2♥

3♦

 

In fact, in the second auction responder has already shown his support at this point and opener has shown the exact same hand in both auctions, so the second is slightly better.

 

Meanwhile, go back to the first and see how it would go if opener's third bid was 3NT instead of 3♦. Or god forbid, 3♠ leading to one of those auctions where no one knows what is trumps.

 

I completely agree with 2♣. 4♥ led to the problem on the actual auction. Opener should bid 3♦ (over 2♥ - not over 2♣) and then 4♥ next, showing a minimum with this shape.

[kenrexford]

Some obviously would bid 1♠, as described.  For my part, I'm not in that school, as I believe that this muddles and preempts the auctions that follow.

Aha, 1♠ muddles the auction, but ...

 

2♣ can be a sort of advanced cue.

2♦ can be an anticipatory advanced cue

 

... will make the auction clear as ink I take it. I am lost.

 

Roland

1♠ muddles auctions when we have a heart fit.

 

2♣ never muddles the auction, because Responder knows that he has a fit and can show that, clearing up the auction that follows immediately.

 

2♦ can muddle the auction if Responder did not mean 2♣ as an advanced cue, and is therefore the more problematic agreement.

 

So, the question is whether you want to take some risks in muddling auctions where hearts is a known fit or take some risks when Responder has both minors, longer clubs, but no fit for the major, and Opener has a semi-balanced hand. That choice depends upon the respective gains from the alternatives.

[ralph23]

http://taigabridge.com/articles/mafia1.htm

 

It may or may not be a propos re: the question of whether 1♠ or 2♣ is the superior bid on responder's first call, but I did discover this article earlier this week and thought it was pretty good in setting out the "three schools" and giving a pretty fair comparison.

 

Each school is shown and explained, with its virtues and vices.

 

Anyway, if anyone is interested in it ... I was, obviously. :blink:

 

On my own part -- I'm not smart enough to dream up an artificial bid on a three-card suit when I have a natural and forcing bid available in 1♠, and who knows... partner may even have four ♠! Or on the other hand, he'll probably have 5♣ to the Queen if I bid 2♣...

 

But I still subscribe to that outdated and unfashionable philosophy: When all else fails, describe your hand.

[skjaeran]

http://taigabridge.com/articles/mafia1.htm

 

It may or may not be a propos re: the question of whether 1♠ or 2♣ is the superior bid on responder's first call, but I did discover this article earlier this week and thought it was pretty good in setting out the "three schools" and giving a pretty fair comparison.

 

Each school is shown and explained, with its virtues and vices.

 

Anyway, if anyone is interested in it ... I was, obviously. :blink:

 

On my own part -- I'm not smart enough to dream up an artificial bid on a three-card suit when I have a natural and forcing bid available in 1♠, and who knows... partner may even have four ♠! Or on the other hand, he'll probably have 5♣ to the Queen if I bid 2♣...

 

But I still subscribe to that outdated and unfashionable philosophy: When all else fails, describe your hand.

They say Traditional, but it looks like the mean Stone Age to me.

 

At least from the following sequence:

1♣ - 1♦

1♥ - 3♥

4♥

 

The jump to 3♥ is explained as GF. Having played bridge since (early)mid seventies I've never ever played a method where 3♥ in this sequence was anything but invitational. To just get to game you raise 1♥ to 4♥. To cater for a possible slam you bid 1♠ FSF first and support ♥'s next.

 

Apart from that it's obvious the author(s) are non-experts. Several of the explanations of the auctions is less than waterproof. For inexperienced players thers's some good stuff though.

[ralph23]

At least from the following sequence:

1♣ - 1♦

1♥ - 3♥

4♥

 

The jump to 3♥ is explained as GF. Having played bridge since (early)mid seventies I've never ever played a method where 3♥ in this sequence was anything but invitational.

Moi non plus.

 

It's hard to imagine such a boner in an article presented by a hired-gun-pro (and I have no doubt from looking at the author's web site that he does charge people to play with him in ... errr... Alaska. :blink: )

 

But on the ♥ raise, I think intermediates would get this one right....

[awm]

It's amazing how many of the "problems" with the traditional style can be solved by the simple adoption of a takeout double in the auction beginning:

 

1X - P - 1Y - 1Z (or 2W)

 

On the hand that started this thread, I agree with the 2♣ bid, but only because most people's methods over 1♥-1♠ are so atrociously bad. The auction that would result on this hand (1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣) is particularly bad, with responder bidding an artificial suit at the three-level just to create a force without specifying strain.

 

I think opener should take it slow here and rebid 3♦ over 2♥. This hand actually looks kind of good opposite a club suit and heart fit (i.e. give responder xxxx AQx x AKJxx and slam is really quite good). In any case patterning out will rarely hurt, and gives responder a chance to get his hand off his chest without bypassing 4♥. Responder's keycard bid is ill-judged too, since he needs to find very good trumps opposite and is unlikely to find them (opener should not blast 4♥ with AKQxx of hearts or KQJxx of hearts and a side ace, because this will make it very hard for responder, with the weak trumps, to bid on when it's right).

[P_Marlowe]

#1 yes

#2 no, 3D

#3 4NT is ok

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

[hv=d=e&v=a&n=skq83h985dkqtcak4&w=sat542htd932ct872&e=sj76haq72d85cj953&s=s9hkj643daj764cq6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1♥

 Pass  2♣    Pass  2♦

 Pass  2♥    Pass  4♥

 Pass  4NT   Pass  5♥

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

after the 2 heart bid,

 

is 3 diamonds showing 5/5?

 

is 4 hearts the best bid?

 

is 4NT a bit pushy?

many of us get to 5H, including me.

[BillHiggin]

It's hard to imagine such a boner in an article presented by a hired-gun-pro (and I have no doubt from looking at the author's web site that he does charge people to play with him in ... errr... Alaska. :blink: )

"hired-gun-pro" is a bit extreme. I played with him once (my only face to face bridge in 25 years), and there certainly was no issue of funds changing hands.

 

I believe he runs a bridge club, and may offer lessons. He is not a pretentious person (in fact, a nice guy). Yes, he does live in Alaska! I have even heard that there are people living in Norway or perhaps more surprising in Greenland.

[cherdano]

http://taigabridge.com/articles/mafia1.htm

 

It may or may not be a propos re: the question of whether 1♠ or 2♣ is the superior bid on responder's first call, but I did discover this article earlier this week and thought it was pretty good in setting out the "three schools" and giving a pretty fair comparison.

 

Each school is shown and explained, with its virtues and vices.

 

Anyway, if anyone is interested in it ... I was, obviously.  :blink:

 

On my own part -- I'm not smart enough to dream up an artificial bid on a three-card suit when I have a natural and forcing bid available in 1♠, and who knows... partner may even have four ♠! Or on the other hand, he'll probably have 5♣ to the Queen if I bid 2♣...

 

But I still subscribe to that outdated and unfashionable philosophy: When all else fails, describe your hand.

They say Traditional, but it looks like the mean Stone Age to me.

 

At least from the following sequence:

1♣ - 1♦

1♥ - 3♥

4♥

 

The jump to 3♥ is explained as GF. Having played bridge since (early)mid seventies I've never ever played a method where 3♥ in this sequence was anything but invitational. To just get to game you raise 1♥ to 4♥. To cater for a possible slam you bid 1♠ FSF first and support ♥'s next.

 

Apart from that it's obvious the author(s) are non-experts. Several of the explanations of the auctions is less than waterproof. For inexperienced players thers's some good stuff though.

This might be more common than you think. Of course 3♥ is GF in old school bidding (60s or earlier), but it is also GF if you play XYZ, or if you play the style (quite uncommon but not without merit) where a direct jump raise is forcing and you go via 4th suit forcing and a raise to show an invite. It should also be forcing in a Walsh style where you need inv or better to skip a 4-card major. If you raise to 2♥, that implies an invite, so a jump to 3♥ should be forcing.

 

(Of course, a "Traditional" style where this is forcing can only mean the very old school, which is a bit odd to take as example.)

 

I agree though that the article is rather bad. In particular, I think the section on the advantages on disadvantages of the various styles completely misses the point. And I would strongly recommend any inexperienced player to stay away from MAFIA, just bid your longest suit first with a GF hand.

[ralph23]

"hired-gun-pro" is a bit extreme. I played with him once (my only face to face bridge in 25 years), and there certainly was no issue of funds changing hands.

Well, he doesn't charge much for his gun, anyhow. He does have a section of his website on "Professional Play" and quotes rates (sort of).

[sceptic]

A comment for Roland or anyone else for that matter (I am not arguing with you LOL) but, my thoughts here are as follows

 

1/. if I bid 1 spade, I am showing a spade suit before a heart fit and my main info I need to get across to my pard is support for his suit (support with support(something I failed a few times to do on other recent posts))

 

2/. I also have in my opinion a 100% game forcing hand (and I assumed this is what 2/1 is designed to get across at the lowest level)

 

3/. if I had an excellent spade suit (i.e. 5 cards) then maybe there is a benefit in showing the spade suit befor e the heart fit (again support with support)

 

4/. we play reverse bergen so jac 2NT and 3 level bids are out of the question as is 1NT then a raise hearts at any level (because the hand is far to good for that bid)

 

5/. this only really leaves me with a 2 club bid as if I had single club, I would either have 4 card support or a 5 card natural suit to bid

 

Playing within these constraints is 1 spade really an option?

[pclayton]

Some obviously would bid 1♠, as described.  For my part, I'm not in that school, as I believe that this muddles and preempts the auctions that follow.

Aha, 1♠ muddles the auction, but ...

 

2♣ can be a sort of advanced cue.

2♦ can be an anticipatory advanced cue

 

... will make the auction clear as ink I take it. I am lost.

 

Roland

and 2♥ is a em-pathetic splinter.

[pclayton]

A comment for Roland or anyone else for that matter (I am not arguing with you LOL) but, my thoughts here are as follows

 

1/. if I bid 1 spade, I am showing a spade suit before a heart fit and my main info I need to get across to my pard is support for his suit (support with support(something I failed a few times to do on other recent posts))

 

2/. I also have in my opinion a 100% game forcing hand (and I assumed this is what 2/1 is designed to get across at the lowest level)

 

3/. if I had an excellent spade suit (i.e. 5 cards) then maybe there is a benefit in showing the spade suit befor e the heart fit (again support with support)

 

4/. we play reverse bergen so jac 2NT and 3 level bids are out of the question as is 1NT then a raise hearts at any level (because the hand is far to good for that bid)

 

5/. this only really leaves me with a 2 club bid as if I had single club, I would either have 4 card support or a 5 card natural suit to bid

 

Playing within these constraints is 1 spade really an option?

Wayne, when I read posts like this it appears to me that many are drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

I'm like Adam, I believe that this 2♣ gadget has caught on because the continuations over 1♠ are a lot less defined. I agree with Ken that they are 'muddled', but no less than muddled than bidding a 3 card suit before a 4 card suit.

 

What needs to happen is not the development of a 2♣ response and its follow-ups, but better follow-ups after 1x - 2y - 2(non-reverse) x or z.