boring 2/1 hand

[han]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saq1098ha105dj92cq10]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1S - 2D

??[/hv]

 

What's your rebid?

 

(edited spots)

[ArtK78]

3♦. Is there another choice?

[han]

Ah, I didn't think 3♦ was a serious option so I guess there is a choice!

[jdonn]

3♦.  Is there another choice?

I wish this had been run as a poll so that you would see there are several other choices when 3♦ got one vote...

 

I'll go for the non-choice of 2NT.

[Guest Jlall]

Whether you bid 2S or 2N really depends on your style. I would bid 2N.

[awm]

I'll be the first to vote for the non-choice of 2♠.

 

I'd like to be able to show a diamond fit at some point, but I want to slow down the auction since my hand is pretty bad and my diamond fit is not so great either.

 

The nice thing about 2♠ is that partner will often try 2NT next and I can show my diamond support next without overstating matters by raising directly. There are a fair number of hands that would rebid 3♦ or 3nt over 2nt, but will bid 2nt over 2♠. I don't think 2♠ rebid shows six, and my five-card suit is good enough that I can easily imagine a 5-2 spade fit being our best game.

[hatchett]

2NT for me.

[helene_t]

2NT or 2♠ depending on what I have agreed with p. With one p it is 2NT, with another it isn't and the choice goes between 3♦ and 2♠. Since 2♦ implies a five-card in our style, I would bid 3♦ which is what p expects, but Adam's choice is technically better, I believe. With a pick-up advanced p I would bid 2♠.

[Codo]

Style thing.

2 NT if this is 12-14 (more common on the other side of the moon and in the US)

 

2 Spade if this is 12-14 (la vie en france)

 

I prefer the later way by far.

[vang]

a matter of agreement. for me, 2♠ is the waiting bid.

[pclayton]

I'll be the first to vote for the non-choice of 2♠.

 

I'd like to be able to show a diamond fit at some point, but I want to slow down the auction since my hand is pretty bad and my diamond fit is not so great either.

 

The nice thing about 2♠ is that partner will often try 2NT next and I can show my diamond support next without overstating matters by raising directly. There are a fair number of hands that would rebid 3♦ or 3nt over 2nt, but will bid 2nt over 2♠. I don't think 2♠ rebid shows six, and my five-card suit is good enough that I can easily imagine a 5-2 spade fit being our best game.

Same here.

[whereagles]

It's a style matter. 2♠, 2NT or 3♦ are all possible.

 

I prefer 2NT.

[hrothgar]

2♠ for me

 

I prefer a style in which the cheapest rebid is the least defined (unless there is a good reason for an exception)

[helene_t]

2♠ for me

 

I prefer a style in which the cheapest rebid is the least defined (unless there is a good reason for an exception)

That would be a case for an (artificial) 2♥, I suppose.

[ArtK78]

I assume that when you said you were playing 2/1, that you were playing 2/1 game forcing.

 

I do not understand the reluctance to raise partner. You have support. Every other bid is flawed. You have a suit oriented hand - controls in both majors, shortness in the minor. If partner can't bid 3NT, it probably is not the right place to play. If partner is intending to raise spades, bidding 3♦ certainly won't stop him.

 

I note that a lot of spots have been added since my first post. That would make notrump more playable assuming that partner has a couple of fitting cards in the off-suits.

 

I stick with 3♦. Support with support.

[hrothgar]

I assume that when you said you were playing 2/1, that you were playing 2/1 game forcing.

 

I do not understand the reluctance to raise partner. You have support. Every other bid is flawed. You have a suit oriented hand - controls in both majors, shortness in the minor. If partner can't bid 3NT, it probably is not the right place to play. If partner is intending to raise spades, bidding 3♦ certainly won't stop him.

 

I stick with 3♦. Support with support.

A couple comments:

 

1. A number of folks (myself included) might argue that ♦J92 doesn't constitute "support" for partner. 2♦ doesn't always promise a 5+ card suit. Even if it did, this is still pretty crappy support.

 

2. A Diamond raise makes a lot of sense if you are considering investigating a Diamond slam. I would also chose a Diamond raise with Hxxx in support. Here you have a minimum opening where the primary concern is deciding between 3N and 4♠, with 5♦ a distant third. Both 2♠ and 2N provide much more bidding space for future exploration.

[ArtK78]

1. A number of folks (myself included) might argue that ♦J92 doesn't constitute "support" for partner. 2♦ doesn't always promise a 5+ card suit. Even if it did, this is still pretty crappy support.

 

2. A Diamond raise makes a lot of sense if you are considering investigating a Diamond slam. I would also chose a Diamond raise with Hxxx in support. Here you have a minimum opening where the primary concern is deciding between 3N and 4♠, with 5♦ a distant third. Both 2♠ and 2N provide much more bidding space for future exploration.

Partner knows whether he has 5 diamonds or not, and he should not expect more than 3 card support for my 3♦ bid.

 

And partner also knows whether he had game or slam in mind when he made his 2♦ call.

 

I have what I showed - an opening bid with support. My 3♦ bid does not promise extras.

[Wackojack]

2♠ for me

 

I prefer a style in which the cheapest rebid is the least defined (unless there is a good reason for an exception)

That would be a case for an (artificial) 2♥, I suppose.

Yes, why not have a cheapest bid an artificial ask? (Here 2♥) Opener then bids, next suit up with minimum in range or naturally otherwise. Responder with a suitable hand could make a 2nd ask for shape with the next cheapest again. Thus it would go 1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT .....Alternatively on the 2nd bid responder could bid out his shape with opener after anything other than the cheapest.

[kenrexford]

2NT for me.

[Fluffy]

2♠ for me

 

I prefer a style in which the cheapest rebid is the least defined (unless there is a good reason for an exception)

That would be a case for an (artificial) 2♥, I suppose.

Me (and I think Frances as well) play 1M-2♣-2♦ as bal or diamonds, but with hearts it doesn't work that well.

 

2♠ is low enough

 

Every system I've played rebids 2♠ with this hand, I could accept a 2NT rebid with reluctantly*, but not 3♦.

 

 

I am probably not the only one who heard the bidding 1♠-2♦-3♦-4♠ then led ♦A trying to find partner's shortness and found opponents were 3-3 in that suit :)

 

*Edited after checking an online dictionary, I heard reluctantly several times in the forum and always though it was something like 'proud off', not very good hehe.

[joker_gib]

2♠, 2NT for me has extra's

 

Alain

[pclayton]

1.  A number of folks (myself included) might argue that ♦J92 doesn't constitute "support" for partner.  2♦ doesn't always promise a 5+ card suit.  Even if it did, this is still pretty crappy support.

 

2.  A Diamond raise makes a lot of sense if you are considering investigating a Diamond slam.  I would also chose a Diamond raise with Hxxx in support.  Here you have a minimum opening where the primary concern is deciding between 3N and 4♠, with 5♦ a distant third.  Both 2♠ and 2N provide much more bidding space for future exploration.

Partner knows whether he has 5 diamonds or not, and he should not expect more than 3 card support for my 3♦ bid.

 

And partner also knows whether he had game or slam in mind when he made his 2♦ call.

 

I have what I showed - an opening bid with support. My 3♦ bid does not promise extras.

I used to have this same opinion, but I've changed my outlook. 3♦ seems innocuous enough, but consider the situation from responder's side.

 

Lets say you hold a very ordinary 2=3=5=3.

 

1. Qx, xxx, AKQxx, Qxx. Do you try 3♠ looking for 3N if pard has stops in both pointed suits? Does 3♠ promise primary or secondary support? Do you just bypass 3N?

 

2. xx, xxx, AKJxx, KQx. You are really stuck here. 3N could be off the entire heart suit and there is no convenient way to show your club fragment.

 

3♦ should be reserved for non-minimums and should show 4 trump, or an exceptional hand with 3 trump. If the auction proceeds past 3N, opener should be willing to put down a dummy that is going to offer a better play for 5♦ than 3N, or have realistic hope that we might have a successful auction to 6♦.

 

2♠ or 2N is reasonable, and allows responder to bid out his hand. I personally like 2♠, since my stoppers are a little weak. Some have the agreement that 2N just shows a (5)332, and if thats the case, the call is fine.

[jdonn]

1.  A number of folks (myself included) might argue that ♦J92 doesn't constitute "support" for partner.  2♦ doesn't always promise a 5+ card suit.  Even if it did, this is still pretty crappy support.

 

2.  A Diamond raise makes a lot of sense if you are considering investigating a Diamond slam.  I would also chose a Diamond raise with Hxxx in support.  Here you have a minimum opening where the primary concern is deciding between 3N and 4♠, with 5♦ a distant third.  Both 2♠ and 2N provide much more bidding space for future exploration.

Partner knows whether he has 5 diamonds or not, and he should not expect more than 3 card support for my 3♦ bid.

 

And partner also knows whether he had game or slam in mind when he made his 2♦ call.

 

I have what I showed - an opening bid with support. My 3♦ bid does not promise extras.

You are making serious light of the issues partner would have over 3♦. For one thing, yes he knows whether or not he has 5 diamonds, but if he doesn't then he would really like to know whether or not you have 3 or 4, and if you are raising with crappy 3 card support he will never know. Also he will have serious issues with something like Jx of hearts (look at Phil's post). You have two heart stoppers here and he doesn't know if you have any.

 

I find it funny that you say "every other bid is flawed", as I can not see a single flaw to either 2♠ or 2NT. The only one you might say is the Qx of clubs for 2NT, which for me is a definite positive not a negative. To each his own I guess, but implying there is no choice but 3♦? Find me the expert who would not bid 2♠ or 2NT.

[ArtK78]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saq1098haxxdjxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1S - 2D

??[/hv]

This was the problem hand as it was originally presented.

 

Does the absence of the ♥10 change your opinion any? It seems that you place a great deal of importance on partner's hypothetical holding of the Jx of hearts. If the ♥10 is not in dummy in 3NT, how do you like your heart stopper now (to say nothing of the club stopper)?

 

In any case, that is not my main concern. So many partnerships rely upon nebulous cue bids and nebulous rebids. Here, many say that 2♠ is the obvious rebid. In other words, 2♠ is a mark-time bid - saying nothing. That's fine if it is your agreement. In fact, many would make this bid. But why make a mark-time bid when you actually have a reasonable alternative, such as supporting partner? And while Jxx may not be your idea of support, it is mine.

 

Partner may assume that you do not have 6 spades or 3 diamonds for your 2♠ call. He may also assume that you do not have 4 of either of the rounded suits. Therefore, you should be 5323. He may bid 3NT without a club stopper (or with 3 small, which may be adequate opposite most 3 card holdings). That could easily prove to be wrong.

 

2NT has been advocated by many. Apparently, 2NT shows a balanced hand and does not promise stoppers in the unbid suits. 2NT is a practical bid (if you consider raising on Jxx as impractical), but it could easily lead to a 3NT contract with Qx of clubs facing xx or xxx.

 

Some state that 2♥ should be artificial over 2♦. That's fine if you like that sort of thing, but it is not a part of 2/1 game forcing. And every artificiality takes away something - in this case, a natural 2♥ call. I am sure that if opener's hand were AQTxx Axxx Jx Qx, everyone would bid 2♥ and no one would mention that it is artificial.

 

You may like 2♠, 2NT or an artificial 2♥. But don't say that each of those calls does not have its flaws.

 

I will admit that 3♦ also has flaws. While it does not show anything more than what I hold, partner might get too optimistic about slam prospects when he has good diamonds and a reasonble hand. But 3♦ does have the advantage of actually showing what you have.

 

It is clear that many of the posters are not completely familiar with 2/1 game forcing. A 2NT rebid does not show any extra values. It is purely descriptive. Similarly, a raise to 3♦ does not show any extra values. You are already in a game forcing auction - 3♦ just says that opener has support.

 

Clearly, I am in the minority on this one (a minority of one?). But at least I am giving everyone something to think about.

[cherdano]

It is clear that many of the posters are not completely familiar with 2/1 game forcing. A 2NT rebid does not show any extra values. It is purely descriptive. Similarly, a raise to 3♦ does not show any extra values. You are already in a game forcing auction - 3♦ just says that opener has support.

Uhm. Many pairs play 2/1 GF AND that a raise of partner's 2m bid shows extras. Maybe it is you who is not completely familiar with 2/1...