boring 2/1 hand

[Codo]

It is really nice of you Art to give us something to think about.

OTOH here was written enough where you could have thought about but did not.

 

You say a 2 Spade bid shows nothing: Plain wrong, it shows minimum for many.

You say you have support for partner with Jxx: Wrong in the eyes of some posters.

 

Mayb you shoudl try to reread the posting and ask if something is not understandable.

 

You state that a 2 NT bid shows no extras. (I won´t subsrcirbe that this is in all 2/1 systems the case, but ok)

In this case, why do you bid 3 Diamond? 2 NT describes your hand perfectly. If pd is interessted in a diamond slam or in 5 Diamond, he can bid his suit again or he can bid 3 Club and you can show your weak support now.

 

The 95 % majority here does disagree with you, they just talk about 2 NT vs. 2 Spade or an artifical 2 Heart.

 

But maybe we are all wrong and so had been our teachers. Good luck that there are at least two who had seen the light.

 

P.S: there are (at least) two reasons why you shoudl reserve 3 Diamond for stronger hands with better support: 1. Your pd can judge your hand MUCH better and

2. The normal game when you have a minor fit is 3 NT, so you better search for this fiorst and for 5 Diamond later.

[kenrexford]

3♦ is sick.

[zasanya]

Trust the forum to convert a'boring hand' into a 'passionately discussed hand' :)

My Q to 2 ♠ bidders.Doesn't your P ever assume that you have a 6 card ♠ suit and put you in 4 ♠ with 2 card support?

My Q to all 2/1 theorists.Isn't it possible that even after a 2/1 response sometimes it could be prudent to stop in 4 of a minor?

BTW can it be that there are 4 versions of 2/1 (at least ) and your rebid depends on which one you are playing?

[Stephen Tu]

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?

 

Allowing 3d on mins with mediocre support

-- prevents you from having 3d promise extras, hurting you on hands where opener has extras but can no longer show them below 3nt

-- hurts when responder has extras, but can't afford to bypass 3nt opposite the more common minimums.

-- combination of these two tends to lead to either missed slams or 4nt/5d -1

-- consumes space generally, as noted making it harder to clarify the stopper situation for 3nt.

 

 

On the other hand, it is rather unclear when 3d here is likely to lead to a better contract than temporizing with 2M/2nt first. Perhaps you can provide examples? 3d may make most sense to you at this point, but it's no gain for you unless you reach a better eventual contract.

[helene_t]

My Q to 2 ♠ bidders.Doesn't your P ever assume that you have a 6 card ♠ suit and put you in 4 ♠ with 2 card support?

2♠ certainly cannot promise 6 here since you could have a 5♠5♣ hand too weak for 3♣. OK if 3♣ doesn't show extras then I suppose 2♠ should promise 6, but that style is rare if existent at all.

 

But it is possible that partner will take 2♠ followed by 3♦ as showing 6 spades and 3-4 diamonds. I suppose (I might be wrong) that this is something to discuss with p. If that is the case you probably have to rebid 2N with this hand.

 

Over a 2♣ response I would say that 2♠ should promise 6 in American style (not in French style) because you're allowed to rebid 2♦ on a 3-card as the most convenient bid.

[mike777]

3D

second choice 2nt.

Yes many play 2s promises only a minimum hand and only 5 spades but I am not convinced of the merits of that.

 

As usual we need to make alot of assumtions but I play all of these so:

1) This is a normal opener, I could have less.

2) 2s promises 6

3) 3D only promises 3 and does not promise extra.

4) 3H rebid by partner is assumed to be a 3nt try but it may an advanced cue if partner bids over 3nt.

 

It seems if you want to avoid these problems than just agree to pass balanced 12 pointers in first or second seat or agree what you will rebid here. Very common hand pattern.

[skjaeran]

2♠ or 2NT according to toagreements.

I've never had agreements where I'd raise 3♦ with this hand.

[Trumpace]

I think Fred's article on BBO recommends that 2m show a decent 5 card suit.

 

So looks like even Fred agrees that it is a matter of style and I don't understand why people are arguing :)

[jdonn]

[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?

Yes, I bid 2♠ without it, 2NT with it. But either bid is reasonable in either case.

 

Partner may assume that you do not have 6 spades or 3 diamonds for your 2♠ call.

??? Partner will think 2♠ DENIES 6 spades? How am I even supposed to have a serious discussion here?

 

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.

Qx has clear advantages in rightsiding which is part of why I like 2NT. But if you are very worried about clubs being unstopped, that is an excellent argument for 2♠. However, if you can figure out a way for opener to declare 3NT if he raises to 3♦ and responder has Axx or Kxx of clubs, I do want to hear that.

 

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

2NT has one potential flaw, which I had already mentioned. I still can see no flaw at all to 2♠, except for the possibility of wrongsiding which certainly is not an argument in favor of 3♦.

 

But 3♦ does have the advantage of actually showing what you have.

Comments like this don't really enlighten, the entire point is that no one else (sorry, go Mike777!) agrees that it shows what you have. Don't you agree that if you bid either 2♠ and 2NT first and THEN support diamonds on the next round, you are giving a more accurate depiction of your degree of support? I find that a difficult assertion to dispute, though of course people often surprise me.

[keylime]

I would bid 2♠, showing a minimum, playing slow arrival styles.

 

If I played the Bergen 12-14 NT catchall, 2NT, even tho I am not overly happy.

 

Otherwise, sigh, 3♦.

 

And from experience, there are many, many accidents from this type of sequence when pard does one action versus another in virgin 2/1 partnerships...a good problem hand here.

[ArtK78]

Partner may assume that you do not have 6 spades or 3 diamonds for your 2♠ call.

??? Partner will think 2♠ DENIES 6 spades? How am I even supposed to have a serious discussion here?

I did not say that the 2♠ rebid denied 6 spades (my exact words were "Partner may assume that you do not have 6 spades..."). Only that when you play a style in which the 2♠ rebid becomes a sort of catch-all bid, partner will assume the most likely distribution - 5 cards. He will not change his assumption until you bid spades again.

 

That is one of the flaws with the 2♠ rebid in this style - it says nothing.

[mike777]

btw assuming 2d is 100% game forcing what does

1s=2d

3nt show with no special agreements or conventions?

[pclayton]

btw assuming 2d is 100% game forcing what does

1s=2d

3nt show with no special agreements or conventions?

Usually a 15-17 5=3=2=3 that didn't want to open 1N.

[han]

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

1S - 2D

??[/hv]

This was the problem hand as it was originally presented.

No, it actually isn't but that is not very relevant.

 

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.

 

That is indeed the point. There are (at least) two different branches of 2/1 bidding. In one style you should show your shape regardless of whether you have extra values or not. In the other style the 2M rebid is made a catch all and all higher rebids are made more descriptive. For example, you would raise to 3D on AQxxx Jxx AQJx x but not on the given hand. The general idea of this second style is that the higher the rebid, the more descriptive it should be.

 

Now while it is true that the first style used to be reasonably fashionable, it seems that it has almost disappeared. I am not in a position to know for a fact that it is inferior to the second style, but that is my impression. Most of the posters who have responded here are familiar with these two styles, and seem to think that the second style is better. You are of course very welcome to defend the first style, but saying that we don't understand 2/1 bidding is uncalled for imo.

[jdonn]

Partner may assume that you do not have 6 spades or 3 diamonds for your 2♠ call.

??? Partner will think 2♠ DENIES 6 spades? How am I even supposed to have a serious discussion here?

I did not say that the 2♠ rebid denied 6 spades (my exact words were "Partner may assume that you do not have 6 spades..."). Only that when you play a style in which the 2♠ rebid becomes a sort of catch-all bid, partner will assume the most likely distribution - 5 cards. He will not change his assumption until you bid spades again.

 

That is one of the flaws with the 2♠ rebid in this style - it says nothing.

Why would partner assume anything? He will assume 5+ spades since we have shown 5+ spades. Are you seriously trying to suggest he will just bid 3NT with a doubleton spade all the time now because he is assuming we don't have 6 spades?

 

The fact 2♠ essentially shows nothing in this style is a benefit for every single other bid. Like when you raise partner to 3♦ tomorrow he doesn't have to worry you raised him to 3♦ on a balanced hand with Jxx of diamonds.

[mike777]

As others have mentioned this issue is brought up alot in these forums. Is the rebid of the major for minimum hands best with 5+ length promised more helpful compared to those that raise with 3 to an honor and unknown strength?

 

Since I play the latter I can only say this has not been a problem. We just assume partner has the minimum nt type hand and bid accordingly. Keep in mind that for me 2/1 shows 14+ hcp...not some 11 pt hand. That means if opener has extra's he knows responder has a decent hand. In practice opener so seldom has extras it is tough to remember when he did have support for D and extras. Often I just pray he has at least 11. :)

[mikeh]

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.

same here

 

In one current partnership, partner likes 2♠ to show 6, and he'd bid 2N... until we had a long discussion, after which he now rebids 2♠ as do my other regular partners.. but he would still bid 2N with others.

 

2♠ is a style choice. I and (obviously) other 2♠ bidders believe that, when one has to make a 'neutral' waiting bid, it is usually more efficient that this bid be the cheaper of two possibilities. Thus 2♠ affords room for a forcing 2N over which we have an easy 3♦ bid, and partner can hardly go wrong.. if he is concerned that we have 6 spades, as indeed we could, he'll bid 3♠ on the way to 3N if that is where we are going. If he has slam ambitions, we usually have room to work out what to do.

[kenrexford]

I have played both styles. I'm not sure that the "cheaper call" idea is all that important when Responder's suit is diamonds, as a 3♣ call from Responder (waiting) is also below 3♦.

 

That being said, as few of us like 2♦ after 2♣ to be diamonds or balanced. The cheaper call, below two of our major. If you like a 2♠ waiting call after a 2♦ (or 2♥) response, then I'm sure you would see the even more beneficial 2♦ rebid as appealing, eh?

 

--------------

 

Did I mention that an immediate 3♦ call is sick? LOL

[the hog]

We bid 2S in our partnership. 2NT is reserved for a strong single suited hand, which may or may not have 3 card support for responder or for a hand too strong for a 1NT opening and not quite strong enough for 2NT. This is a system thing.

 

For us, 3D is a hand that shows real D support, not a flat hand like the posted one.

 

To Helene: "Over a 2♣ response I would say that 2♠ should promise 6 in American style (not in French style) because you're allowed to rebid 2D on a 3-card as the most convenient bid."

This is illogical. What do you bid with a 5 3 2 3 shape ? Using your argument, you have to raise to 3C.

[han]

Ron, what are your follow ups after 2NT, natural or is 3C an ask?

[the hog]

Ron, what are your follow ups after 2NT, natural or is 3C an ask?

You have it right; 3C is an ask.

 

Over this 3NT shows the 18-19 balanced hand, and is forcing to 4NT with various continuations over 3NT.

 

4x, (or 3S if you opened 1H), over the 3C ask shows a one loser s/suiter with a low mid high s/t/void.

 

There are numerous other follow ups.

[helene_t]

To Helene: "Over a 2♣ response I would say that 2♠ should promise 6 in American style (not in French style) because you're allowed to rebid 2D on a 3-card as the most convenient bid."

This is illogical. What do you bid with a 5 3 2 3 shape ? Using your argument, you have to raise to 3C.

Or 2N. If 2N promises extras, obviously you can't play it that way. You could bid 2♦ on a doubleton, would be OK with me but not with a pick-up partner of course.

 

3♣ on a 3-card would be revolting, though. Then rather 2♠.

 

Just my personal opinion.

[Fluffy]

My Q to 2 ♠ bidders.Doesn't your P ever assume that you have a 6 card ♠ suit and put you in 4 ♠ with 2 card support?

There is no problem with 6 cards, 2♠ leaves you plenty of space to find out, responder will tend to rebid 2NT wich doesn't show much, but asks further.

 

I must admit I've had problems diferentiating 6 spades from 7 spades, it had not created heavy problems just yet, but it can.

 

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.

 

WTF???

 

btw assuming 2d is 100% game forcing what does

1s=2d

3nt show with no special agreements or conventions?

 

I realised I have no agreements, 2NT just shows 15+ for me, I don't like to preempt myself with unnecesary jumps. 3NT could have 2 meanings, void splinter or 7 solid cards in spades (for MP).