Mike Lawrence on 1H-2D-2S

[lexlogan]

[hv=d=s&s=sakj7haq875dq8c84]133|100|[/hv]

 

In the recent (Dec. 2007) ACBL bulletin, Mike Lawrence gives the

auction 1H-2D (game-forcing or nearly so) and the hand shown for opener. "I recommend you rebid 2H, not 2S. You have extra values, but there is no need to bid 2S. It just clogs up the bidding."

 

I wrote him and pointed out several advantages of rebidding 2S

(promising extras), such as making it easier for responder to rebid

2NT and limiting opener's strength on the auction 1H-2D-2H-2S-3S. I

pointed out that the only bid you deprive responder of is 2S, which if

that was his planned rebid will now fetch 3S and pave the way for cue-

bidding.

 

 

Here's his response:

 

Hi Paul,

 

I prefer to bid 2S, if ever, when I have some kind of special

distribution such as 6-4. Go ahead and write up your article. I

expect it will be the start of a few more notes on this hand.

 

For the record, I really do not like bidding 2S on hands like this one

even if I do not put it into satisfactory words.

 

Best,

Mike

 

OK, can anyone help him out? Why wouldn't you want to rebid 2S to show

extras?

 

--Paul Hightower, Lexington KY

[kenrexford]

IMO, I think he's onto something, but not quite for the same reason I would see.

 

I'm thinking through the auction possibilities when spades are agreed. If I bid 2♥, hear 2♠ from Responder, and if that 2♠ call cannot be made on a three-card suit, as a convenience bid, then that auction allows me to increase the definition for spade-fit auctions. I end up with:

 

1. I rebid spades and hear a 3♠ raise.

2. I redbid hearts and then raise spades to 3♠.

3. I rebid hearts and then, after a 2♠ rebid from partner, make some sort of Picture Jump.

 

Thus, if I were to follow the advice of Lawrence, I would tend to bid 2♥ with one of two hand types. I would either have the dead-bang minimum OR I would have a maximum with the right pattern for a Picture Jump.

 

The Picture Jumps that I would use after 1♥-2MINOR-2♥-2♠-JUMP would be:

 

1. a jump to 4♥ (no side control, two top spades, and three of the top four hearts

2. a jump to four of a minor, which is a stiff splinter with the same honor contributions as above

3. a jump to 4♠, which would either show the bust hand or some other missing picture bid, according to partnership agreements. If 4♠ shows the bust hand, then 3♠ should show a control-rich minimum.

 

In other words, I follow Lawrence but think he has not taken the idea far enough. The "I like to show 6-4" is an idea that merits the contempt you provided. Too simplistic. No explanation. It is sort of like picking a meaning for a bid because it sounds neat rather than because it accomplishes anything (like Flannery or Min-Roman 2♦).

[ASkolnick]

I think you should bid 2S with extras on this hand, however I can at least present his side of the argument much better than he can. I am also not thrilled that a person who publishes books cannot come up with a better explanation, but I think that is because most experts do not agree with his opinion. I also think if your spades are your clubs, his argument is much better.

 

But here is at least a few reasonable arugments:

 

1) By bidding 2H, this does not inhibit partner from bidding 2 spades. So your auction will sort of be the same. So it can go 1H-2D-2H-2S if partner has that hand. Since you are in a GF you can bid 3S would also imply extras and start whatever good sequence you want from responder's perspective.

 

2) You don't give away your distribution. Partner does not rate to have spades unless he is at least 5-4 in diamonds and spades so it is not that likely. Also, against NT, by hiding this suit you may get a spade lead.

 

3) Reserve for distributional hands. Not only will the bid show extras, but it will imply shortness. This way when two suits are bid, you know ruffs are available or that both off-suits need to be protected.

[mike777]

Let's back up.

 

2D in not game forcing, what does it show?

Does Mike play Walsh? What does he bid with long D and 4 spades and less than game force?

 

I do not know but it seems clear he wants 2spades here to promise 6-4 shape.

[EricK]

Bidding 2♥ on this and on a dead minimum with the same shape seems wrong. if partner does bid 2♠ then you have no fully satisfactory way to show or deny extras.

 

By bidding 2♠ on this and 2♥ (followed, if applicable, by a raise of the ♠) on weaker hands you let partner in on the possible slam potential of various hands.

[mikeh]

My suspicion,, and it is no more than that, is that, to Lawrence, the 2♠ reverse simply seems wrong without more impressive shape than 4=5=2=2: that with the 4=5=2=2, he feels more comfortable with the 'default' rebid of 2♥, to allow responder an opportunity to provide more information about his hand. I am not articulating my suspicion any better than he has articulated his feelings :)

 

Personally, I disagree with him on this hand, altho not on all 4=5=2=2 hands. I would have rebid 2♠ here, and would play it as 'extra values', creating a gf opposite the 'not quite gf' 2♦... altho I would also usually play that 2♦ already was gf, and I'd still want 2♠ to show extras.

 

On this hand, with that spade suit, I think that bidding 2♥ simply makes life too difficult for partner. What is partner to bid with, say, xx Kx AKxxxx QJx?

 

He can hardly bid 2N (well, I guess he could, but I really don't think he should) and 3♦ is non-forcing in the proposed method. And if 2♥ is the default 'stall' rebid on any 5 card suit, then 3♥ is problematic as well, altho on the actual hand, the partnership would usually survive. But there is a danger, on this auction, that opener will feel he has unexpressed extras..

 

No, to me, these hands seem much easier to bid via 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2N 3N, where opener has shown extra values via 2♠ and so won't feel obliged to consider moving beyond 3N.

 

I have great respect for Lawrence, who knows far more about the game than do I, but I think he is off-base here

[beatrix45]

:P I think one of Mike's points is that a 4-4 spade fit cannot be missed over a 2♥ rebid. The other point, and I hate to put words in Mike's mouth, is that I think he sees 2♠ in the same terms as a traditional jump shift - namely, that it shows a hand that will produce a laydown slam opposite partner's perfect minimum.

 

So, what produces a laydown six opposite:

 

AKJx

AQxxx

Qx

xx

 

xx

Kx

AKJxxx

Axx

 

Oooops, gotta have the king of hearts and the sixth diamond extra.

 

Q.E.D.

[kenberg]

My suspicion,, and it is no more than that, is that, to Lawrence, the 2♠ reverse simply seems wrong without more impressive shape than 4=5=2=2: that with the 4=5=2=2, he feels more comfortable with the 'default' rebid of 2♥, to allow responder an opportunity to provide more information about his hand. I am not articulating my suspicion any better than he has articulated his feelings :P

 

Personally, I disagree with him on this hand, altho not on all 4=5=2=2 hands. I would have rebid 2♠ here, and would play it as 'extra values', creating a gf opposite the 'not quite gf' 2♦... altho I would also usually play that 2♦ already was gf, and I'd still want 2♠ to show extras.

 

On this hand, with that spade suit, I think that bidding 2♥ simply makes life too difficult for partner. What is partner to bid with, say, xx Kx AKxxxx QJx?

 

He can hardly bid 2N (well, I guess he could, but I really don't think he should) and 3♦ is non-forcing in the proposed method. And if 2♥ is the default 'stall' rebid on any 5 card suit, then 3♥ is problematic as well, altho on the actual hand, the partnership would usually survive. But there is a danger, on this auction, that opener will feel he has unexpressed extras..

 

No, to me, these hands seem much easier to bid via 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2N 3N, where opener has shown extra values via 2♠ and so won't feel obliged to consider moving beyond 3N.

 

I have great respect for Lawrence, who knows far more about the game than do I, but I think he is off-base here

I think, in the ML approach, 1H-2D-2H-3D is still forcing. I have his disk on 2/1. I could not find exactly that point discussed but consider:

1S 2C

2S 3C

3D 4C

 

This auction is on the disk and he says 4C can be passed. No fit, NT unplayable. He presumably would have said 3C could be passed if he thought it could. He makes no such statement.

 

So the exit sequences are few and far between. For the purpose at hand, I think we can just take 2D as a gf.

 

Presumably this makes it less scary to rebid 2H when 4-5-2-2 with extras but I can sure see it causing trouble w/o discussion. Eg

 

1H 2D

2H 2S

3S

 

What is responder to think? Assuming the raise of spades is on four, responder must ask why 2S was not bid over 2D. Too weak? Six hearts? Too weak and six hearts? Certainly ML does not require sxi cards to rebid 2H, but rebidding on five presumably indicates a lack of ability to make a more descriptive bid. Maybe strong 3 card support and no club stop?

 

 

 

Of course I suppose the answer to that is that you discuss it first so partner knows you bid that way. Is it a good idea? I'm not about to contradict ML, but I have a tough time seeing it as a good thing. If you can show where nine of your cards are and can show extras, all in one fell swoop at the 2 level, it seems right to me.

[mike777]

From Mike's article:

1) opener can have a wide range of values for rebidding 2H, minimum hand up to a HUGE hand.

2) 1h=2d=2h=2s(responder must rebid 2s with 4 spades)

 

From Mike's workbook 2/1:

1) After a 2/1 the bidding can stop in 2nt or at the 3 level.

8...K83...AQJ954....T72 is enough for 1s=2d

2a) To figure out what bids can or cannot be passed you will need to study this book.

2b) If opener rebids a new suit then any rebid by responder except if he rebids his suit is game forcing.

2c) see book for other sequences.

[mike777]

I note Mike's article seems to say if responder has long D and 4s you start with 2d and rebid 2 spades. The article is unclear if you must start with one spade with less than a game force hand and long D.

[mikeh]

The concept of 2/1 being not quite gf is a common treatment, certainly my reading suggests that it is more common in the East than in the West... indeed, BWS uses this approach, as best as I recall. Responding 2/1 and then rebidding the suit is, unless opener has otherwise created a gf, passable.

 

So 1♠ 2♦ 3♣, where 3♣ shows extras (the 'high-level reverse') makes 3♦ forcing... not because 3♦ shows more than it would have opener rebid 2♠ but because opener has shown sufficient extras as to make this sequence gf opposite a non-gf 2♦ call.

 

Whether 1M 2m 2M 2N is passable is another matter for discussion: my preference is that it be forcing, since it is such a useful stall, especially when 2M is the default wide-range bid, as it is in most strong 2/1 methods.

 

As for the idea that we 'cannot miss' a 4-4 spade fit by opener rebidding 2♥, I am inclined to agree. I do think, however, that there will be hands on which responder will fake a 2♠ call on 3 good ones in order to see if opener can bid notrump: AQx xx AKJxxx xx... 3♦ is non-forcing over 2♥ so what are you to bid?

 

This is, however, an important area. If responder can have 3 card spades, opener will rarely be able to jump to 4♠, especially with a club stop or two... since 3N may be the spot.

 

And if he can't jump to 4♠ over 2♠, then we run into a common 2/1 issue: how do we get to slam when both players are about a King over minimum?

 

1♥  2♦ 2♥ 2♠....

 

We need to raise spades with all 4=5=2=2 hands, and we can't splinter. And we can't usually raise to 4♠. So we lump all hands into 3♠... and now what does responder do...when even after 3 rounds of bidding, opener is virtually unlimited?

 

It makes no sense: it offends one of the primary principles of constructive bidding: that at least one of the players should be trying to narrow the strength range of his hand during the early rounds of the auction: to allow the other partner to judge how far to probe. It is wrong, in my view, to design a method that establishes its fit at the level of 3♠ with neither partner having even hinted at their strength.

 

This is solved if one permits opener to rebid 2♠ on 4522s with, say, a King or more over a minimum. While there is still ambiguity inherent in responder's raise to 3♠, we know that responder has a gf (with less, he would respond 1♠, not 2♦) and that opener has extras. In Mike's sequence, we know only that responder has gf.

[cnszsun]

Some players would like to respond a gf 2minor rather than 1♠, if they are holding 4♠s+4minors and game forcing balanced hand. If you are playing such way, clearly ML's method is not compatible.

[mike777]

The very common version of 2/1 not being 100% g/f always or rebidding 5 card suits seems terribly complicated. Granted I never learned this version but it does seem just having openers rebids not promise extras (I just assume he has minimum opener, whatever that may mean) and rebid of suits promise 6 seems easier. I do understand though this is NOT the common version of 2/1.

[kenberg]

From Mike's article:

1) opener can have a wide range of values for rebidding 2H, minimum hand up to a HUGE hand.

2) 1h=2d=2h=2s(responder must rebid 2s with 4 spades)

 

From Mike's workbook 2/1:

1) After a 2/1 the bidding can stop in 2nt or at the 3 level.

8...K83...AQJ954....T72 is enough for 1s=2d

2a) To figure out what bids can or cannot be passed you will need to study this book.

2b) If opener rebids a new suit then any rebid by responder except if he rebids his suit is game forcing.

2c) see book for other sequences.

I am not so sure this is correct. In the workbook I believe some auctions can stop in 2NT, accent on some. On the disk (which is later than the workbook) I think the auction cannot stop in 2N.

 

 

The workbook, page 22, on an auction that begins 1S-2C-2N:

 

" When you bid a Two-Over-One you usually continue to game except when opener has both a minimum and a misfit. The 2NT bid shows a minimum, but more importantly it implies a tolerance or even a mild fit for partner's Two-Over-One suit. I think that since there is no misfit a game force has been established."

 

I haven't found the part where he allows an exit at 2NT but I believe it is there. Not a 2NT rebid by opener though. So if 1S-2C-2N establishes a gf and does not require anything extra from opener, it seems that the 2C must be up to par.

 

I really think that Mike's requirements for a 2/1 are that the hand is worth a gf, but, as he says, if opener is minimal AND the hand is a miosfit then there are prescribed ways to get out. I think the prescribed ways on the disk are fewer than in the workbook, but the 2N rebid by opener establishes a gf in both.

[mike777]

From Mike's article:

1) opener can have a wide range of values for rebidding 2H, minimum hand up to a HUGE hand.

2) 1h=2d=2h=2s(responder must rebid 2s with 4 spades)

 

From Mike's workbook 2/1:

1) After a 2/1 the bidding can stop in 2nt or at the 3 level.

8...K83...AQJ954....T72 is enough for 1s=2d

2a) To figure out what bids can or cannot be passed you will need to study this book.

2b) If opener rebids a new suit then any rebid by responder except if he rebids his suit is game forcing.

2c) see book for other sequences.

I am not so sure this is correct. In the workbook I believe some auctions can stop in 2NT, accent on some. On the disk (which is later than the workbook) I think the auction cannot stop in

 

 

The workbook, page 22, on an auction that begins 1S-2C-2N:

 

" When you bid a Two-Over-One you usually continue to game except when opener has both a minimum and a misfit. The 2NT bid shows a minimum, but more importantly it implies a tolerance or even a mild fit for partner's Two-Over-One suit. I think that since there is no misfit a game force has been established."

 

I haven't found the part where he allows an exit at 2NT but I believe it is there. Not a 2NT rebid by opener though. So if 1S-2C-2N establishes a gf and does not require anything extra from opener, it seems that the 2C must be up to par.

 

I really think that Mike's requirements for a 2/1 are that the hand is worth a gf, but, as he says, if opener is minimal AND the hand is a miosfit then there are prescribed ways to get out. I think the prescribed ways on the disk are fewer than in the workbook, but the 2N rebid by opener establishes a gf in both.

Yes, some auctions can stop in 2nt or at the 3 level. I got the book in front of me and I am still not sure when or how.....I did get if opener rebids a new suit that only a rebid of responder suit is NF. Whatelse, not sure. :P

 

As I said before I do not know if ML plays Walsh or not, and if so which version/style. B)

 

My example of 1s=2d is right out of his book.

[kenberg]

Presumably with the example hand you cite he plans on raising 2N to 3. Reasonable enough. Rebidding 3D over 2N is not passable (since the 2N established a gf) and thus presumably envisions contracts other than 3NT. Given the hand, I wouldn't think he would be envisioning anything, too busy praying for a well place king.

 

 

I guess one reason for playing absolute gf is so that you don't have this memory problem. It's a hell of a thing if one guy thinks it's a slam try and the other thinks it's an exit sequence. 1S-2D-2N-3D could well sound like an exit sequence if there is an agreement that there are some, but it isn't passable in ML and tends to be slam seeking.

 

BUT: Maybe we could prevail upon Mike to write up a page or so on what his thinking is on the 2H rebid with the originally posted hand? He knows twice as much about this game as I ever will, but it seems weird. I promise not to point out to him where he has made his mistakes.

[foo]

The hand in question reprinted for convenience

♠AKJ7 ♥AQ875 ♦Q8 ♣84

 

My humble opinions:

A= ML knows more about high level Bridge than 99.99+% of players

B= switch the ♦'s and ♣'s, and I understand ML's POV more

C= (The important one) I think it depends on whether you are playing 2/1 GF or not.

 

Playing 2/1 GF, the given hand has significant enough extras that a slam is far more possible than it would be playing Standard.

 

IMHO, if it is likely you have 5 level safety, you have enough extras to bid your shape naturally.

Since a Standard 2/1 is going to tend to have 8- losers, Opener needs 5-losers to have such safety playing Standard.

OTOH, playing 2/1 GF a 2/1 is going to tend to have 7- losers, which means opener only needs 6- losers to have likely 5 level safety.

 

The points here are that

1= "significant extras" is context dependent

2= the theme of "significant extras" for a 2/1 auction is slam exploration.

[lexlogan]

In a second follow-up letter, to which Mike replied but said he was too busy to continue replying further, he commented on two other auctions:

 

"1H-2D-3C This shows 5-5 with a better than average hand.

 

1H-2D-3D This can show a minimum hand with four trumps and quality points or extra values with three trumps."

 

Unfortunately, he skipped over my question of whether 1H-2D-2S required more points than his original example. Although his first reply included the dismissive "if ever", I think we can infer 1H-2D-2S shows 4-6 with extra values -- that would be consistent with 3C showing 5-5.

 

Bottom line seems to be 1H-2D-2H can show any range of points with any number of hearts; the only hands to rule out are 5332 minimums suitable for 2NT, hands that qualify for a raise to 3D, and some fairly rare 4-6, 5-5, or solid suit 6-card hands suitable for 2S, 3C or 3H.

 

I suppose I'd play that style if the benefit were that I got to play with Mike, but otherwise, no way. Clarifying the range of one partner or the other is crucial to slam investigation, and opener's rebid is the best time to start that process.

[y66]

In the style in Mike’s Workbook On The Two Over One System (1987), opener may pass after 1M 2m 2M 3m.

 

In the style in Mike’s Two Over One System CD (2002), opener may not pass after 1M 2m 2M 3m or after 1M 2m 2M 2N.

 

In either style, 1H 2m 2S shows extra values.

 

If you agree with these assertions, and that 1H 2m 2H 2S shows 4 spades, how do you evaluate the tradeoffs between bidding 1H 2m 2S to show (a) extras and (b) extras and 4=6=?=? shape (Mike’s suggestion)?

 

Is it possible to do this in a convincing way?

 

Personally, I don’t think so. Don't think it matters either. If you're discussing stuff like this in your partnership and defining your agreements you’re ahead of the field, whatever you decide, imo.

 

At my level (intermediate), this is rare.

 

p.s. I really like Mike’s idea of giving responder room to bid 2S! :)

[foo]

I can only tell you what the normal agreement is in all my partnerships:

 

In a 2/1 auction, Opener has enough extras to bid his shape naturally or make the stronger NT rebid if they have enough extras that they can expect Us to have 5 level safety.

 

Playing Inv+ 2/1's, that's a 5- loser hand or 18+ balanced.

Playng GF 2/1's, that's a 6- loser hand or ~16+ balanced.

 

All hands weaker than this can

a= bid their shape naturally as long as they do not reverse or go past 2N, or

b= rebid their suit, or

c= rebid NT in the agreed weakest way.

[whereagles]

OK, can anyone help him out? Why wouldn't you want to rebid 2S to show extras?

Beats me. I guess he's into the "shape first, hcp later" 2/1 school.

 

For the record, I prefer the school that blends shape and strength because it seems more efficient. Under this philosophy, the hand is a clear-cut 2♠, which promises extras.