2 clubs or 2 diamonds?

[dicklont]

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

 

Partner opens 1♠. You play 2/1 GF.

What is your call?

 

I'll show partners hand tomorrow.

[Blofeld]

2♣, treating the diamond suit as a 4-carder.

 

I think that either bid will work out wrong a good fraction of the time.

[P_Marlowe]

2D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

It's my experience that it's best to respond 2♣ with 5-5 in the minors. Bidding the suits in the "right" order takes up too much room, and to add insult to injury, 3♣ after 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 3♣ doesn't even have to be a suit. Or even worse: 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥ - ??

 

If we belong in diamonds, opener's rebid will be 2♦ over 2♣ and then I will be interested. If he doesn't rebid 2♦, we can't have more than a 5-3 fit and then it's not necessarily best to play in diamonds.

 

I know that some (especially in NA and UK) rebid 2♠ with six spades and four diamonds if they have minimal values. I don't, so I am not going to worry about that. If I have a two-suiter (and 6-4 is), I show at least nine of them, not just six by rebidding the opening suit.

 

Roland

[Blofeld]

Roland: Interesting. I hadn't thought about follow-ups like that.

 

Would you still bid 2♣ on this hand if you reversed the minor suit holdings?

[Walddk]

Roland: Interesting. I hadn't thought about follow-ups like that.

 

Would you still bid 2♣ on this hand if you reversed the minor suit holdings?

Yes. It's the only way we can locate a 5-4 club fit if we have one. As I mentioned above, we will always find our 5-4 fit in diamonds. It's only a question of who is going to declare if we end up there.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

2D, I think there is too much likelihood that we will belong in a 5-3 diamond fit as our clubs are not solid. With AKQJx that would be good enough for me to bid 2C.

 

I totally disagree with Roland that something like 1S-2D-2S-3C does not show clubs in 2/1 GF, to me the biggest advantage of 2/1 GF is that you don't have to invent suits. We have had the 1S-2D-2H-3C debate here before but surely if you bid 3C and then 4C you have shown a 5-5 so it shouldn't matter.

 

I don't understand why bidding diamonds clubs clubs takes up too much room, and surely it's way more descriptive than bidding clubs then NT.

[Walddk]

I totally disagree with Roland that something like 1S-2D-2S-3C does not show clubs in 2/1 GF, to me the biggest advantage of 2/1 GF is that you don't have to invent suits. We have had the 1S-2D-2H-3C debate here before but surely if you bid 3C and then 4C you have shown a 5-5 so it shouldn't matter.

Two things here, Justin:

 

1. Some play the Mike Lawrence 2/1 approach where responder's rebid of own minor is no longer GF, so they may have to invent a suit if they have game forcing values.

 

2. You are right about 3♣ followed by 4♣, but then you have bypassed 3NT which is often the right spot. Not so much with a hand as strong as this, but with a GF hand a little weaker.

 

Reversing the 5-5 responses (2♣ rather than 2♦) is not something I invented. Years ago Danish international Stig Werdelin told me about the logic behind it (follow-ups). I thought and still think he is worth listening to considering that he has played around 340 internationals and has a European silver and an Olympic bronze medal to his name.

 

I have followed his advice since he mentioned it, and I have never been disappointed.

 

Finally, I see your point when playing 2/1 game forcing. If you play Standard, Acol, SEF or any other natural system where a 2-over-1 response is not game forcing, I believe that it's better to respond 2♣.

 

Roland

[neilkaz]

2D, I think there is too much likelihood that we will belong in a 5-3 diamond fit as our clubs are not solid. With AKQJx that would be good enough for me to bid 2C.

 

I totally disagree with Roland that something like 1S-2D-2S-3C does not show clubs in 2/1 GF, to me the biggest advantage of 2/1 GF is that you don't have to invent suits. We have had the 1S-2D-2H-3C debate here before but surely if you bid 3C and then 4C you have shown a 5-5 so it shouldn't matter.

 

I don't understand why bidding diamonds clubs clubs takes up too much room, and surely it's way more descriptive than bidding clubs then NT.

What a fine thread this has become allready with the very talented American and Dane discussing bidding theory. As usual (although he overcalls at the 1 level on less than I will :( ) I agree 100% with Justin when it comes to bidding.

 

Note that I play 2/1 is 100% GF and while I have most of Lawrence's bidding books, I don't care for and won't play his rebid minor is not GF style since I can bid these hands just fine with forcing NT and in a pinch use the 3♣ jump over 1♦)

 

Anyhow, the responder's hand here sure looks SI to me and in the minors unless opener has a fist full of ♠. I'll also start with 2♦ and then pattern out with 3♣ and 4♣ over the likely 3NT which will show my 5-5 minor SI hand.

 

I do agree with Roland that if playing something where 2m is not GF, things may benefit from reversing the minors if somewhat weaker, but honestly I expect the same sequence with this really good hand and note that it is IMP so if my slam try is rejected and we end up in 5m taking 11 tricks, it is almost as good as 3NT taking 10 rather than bad at MP.

[jdonn]

Copping out but I don't hate either bid. I would bid 2♦ except in one partnership where (believe it or not) I have the agreement that when responder bids 2/1 then reverses, like 2♣ then 3♦ here, it shows 5-5 with the lower suit much better than the higher suit.

 

Roland's comments may be true but not in 2/1, surely there 3♣ is completely natural. The fact you can't properly bid hands like this if rebidding the 2/1 suit is not game forcing is one of the reasons I hate that system.

[pclayton]

The diamonds are just good enough to show IMO. If my hand was: ♠A ♥Ax ♦Jxxxx ♣AKQxx then I'd opt for 2♣.

 

How do the 2♣ bidders expect to to get to 6♦ opposite: ♠KJxxx ♥Axxx ♦Axx ♣x?

[kenrexford]

2♦.

 

I think that the 3♣ bid later might be semi-artificial, but there is a solution.

 

I'm imagining this auction:

 

1♠-P-2♦-P-

2NT-P-3♣

 

At this point, some might play that 3♣ is semi-artificial, to contrast a 3♦ call on a six-card suit with a slam-interested hand with only five diamonds.

 

OK. No problem on that sequence. If Opener has diamond interest, he bids 3♦. If he wants to focus clubs, instead, any call other than 3♦ or 3NT agrees clubs. If for some reason 3♠ is your call in that sequence to express renewed doubt about hearts (or 3♥, whatever the style), then the other call should be the method of artificially raising clubs.

[dicklont]

[hv=n=skqxxxhakdaxc10xxx&s=sahqxdkxxxxcakqxx]133|200|[/hv]

 

My partner choose to bid 2♣ because of the good suit quality, "when we belong in diamonds you'll bid them" he added, reasoning like Roland.

Thanks to this we had a lot of bidding space and the easiest route to 7 ever.

1♠ - 2♣

3♣ - 3♦ (3♣ = fit + extra values)

3♥ - 3♠

4♦ - 4NT

5♥ - 7♣

 

Things would have been much more difficult after a 2♦ response.

1♠ - 2♦

2♠ - 3♣

3NT - 4♣

Good judgment and very good bidding technique are needed now to find 7 clubs.

 

I see, from the posts above, that you can choose 3 arguments to decide on the first response:

- suit quality

- always diamonds first

- always clubs first

 

For now I go with Rolands advice to save bidding room.

I suppose partner will agree with that.

[Finch]

Your actual hand is not really a good example of why clubs first 'works' even when partner has four card support.

 

Playing 2/1, 1S - 2D - 2S - 3C is a real suit. Opener has extra high card values, 4-card support, and a super-suitable diamond holding. 3NT is a dreadful bid. After 1S - 2D - 2S - 3C - 4C grand should be just as easy to bid.

 

After opener's 3NT bid, if responder viewed to bid 4C, opener's best description of his hand would be 7C.

[benlessard]

easy 2C for me.

 

If my partner has 4D ill be better placed after 2C-2D-3D then after 2D-3D. So only when partner has 3 good diamonds and less then 3clubs and that 5D or 6D is the best contract that 2D will turn out better then 2C wich very unlikely.

 

I think that bidding 2C instead of 2D give way more all around benefits then the times where 5D or 6D in a 5-3 fit will be the best spot.

 

Partner with AQx or AJx in D & Jxx in clubs = 6C will be a unbiddable better spot.

[kenrexford]

Assuming your start of

 

1♠-P-2♦-P-

2♠-P-3♣-P-

 

Opener can now bid 3 to support diamonds. Whichever of 3♥, 3♠, or possibly both, that you elect to support clubs also works. For me, that would be 3♥ (3♠ would show new doubts about hearts for 3NT).

 

After 3♥ from Opener, an artificial club raise, Responder cuebids 3♠ (one of the top three spades), and Opener can suggest poor trumps and a signoff (3NT). 4♣ from Responder clarifies the club controls as very good. Whoever takes over at this point, the grand should be bid.

[foo]

Your actual hand is not really a good example of why clubs first 'works' even when partner has four card support.

 

Playing 2/1, 1S - 2D - 2S - 3C is a real suit. Opener has extra high card values, 4-card support, and a super-suitable diamond holding. 3NT is a dreadful bid. After 1S - 2D - 2S - 3C - 4C grand should be just as easy to bid.

 

After opener's 3NT bid, if responder viewed to bid 4C, opener's best description of his hand would be 7C.

What she said.

 

In general, I dislike distorting my shape with hands that have slam interest.

 

I have a lot of respect for the space saving argument, but I've found that it's usually easier to make GOP understand what is in my hand if I keep things as simple and as accurate as possible.

(unless playing in a =very= mature expert partnership with extensive system notes and excellent ATT memory. The are obviously not the norm.)

[lexlogan]

The diamonds are just good enough to show IMO. If my hand was: ♠A ♥Ax ♦Jxxxx ♣AKQxx then I'd opt for 2♣.

 

How do the 2♣ bidders expect to to get to 6♦ opposite: ♠KJxxx ♥Axxx ♦Axx ♣x?

Original hand:

♠A ♥Qx ♦Kxxxx ♣AKQxx

 

Are you confident you can avoid 6♦ opposite: ♠KJxxx ♥AKxx ♦Qxx ♣x? Kxxxx is just too weak a suit for me to go out of my way to bid it in a slam-going auction. Meanwhile, we could well belong in 6♣ opposite ♣Jx . I might not bend over backwards to avoid responding in a Kxxxx suit, but here I have an obvious alternative.

[whereagles]

I prefer 2♦. If it goes

 

1♠ 2♦

2♥ 3♣

 

then, if you play natural, 3♣ must be a 55 because with 54 you just bid 2NT. I don't really buy into the "if we belong in diamonds, you'll bid them" theory.

[benlessard]

then, if you play natural, 3♣ must be a 55 because with 54 you just bid 2NT.

 

with 0364 or 1264 you are going to bid 2Nt or 3D ?

[whereagles]

benlessard: I'd bid 2NT. Then pard can bid clubs with 5404 (perhaps also 5413, if it's your style).