1D-2C GF

[awm]

Now say you agree to play 1D-2C is absolutely GF. What would you assume about the follow-ups with a strong partner? What do you prefer to play (assuming you use this method)?

[mike777]

Now say you agree to play 1D-2C is absolutely GF. What would you assume about the follow-ups with a strong partner? What do you prefer to play (assuming you use this method)?

2d shows 6+d, all other bids natural and not promising extras.

Yes I guess you can come up with a hand where 2d is only 5 but so rare..not going to worry about it, I just assume 6d.

 

btw I expect responder to have the stronger hand very often.

[inquiry]

I voted for the artificial stuff..... as i like koskish relay over this 2♣

• 2D five+ diamonds
  
• 2H specifically 4441 (singleton club), not suited for 2♣ opener
  
• 2S strong club raise
  
• 2NT balanced minimum
  
• 3C club raise, weaker than 2S
  
• 3D solid diamond suit
  
• 3M splinter for clubs
  
• 3NT 17-19 balanced
  

[kenrexford]

I like "transfers" here:

 

2♦ = Opener has four hearts

2♥ = Opener has four spades but not four hearts

2♠ = Opener has at least 4-4 in the minors, no 4-card major

2NT = Opener is semi-balanced

3♣ = Opener has long diamonds

Higher = stronger diamond-oriented hands

 

Thus, basically "natural," but with Opener usually bidding below a second suit. This gains when a major can be raised at the two-level most notably or when Opener can "raise" clubs with a 2♠ call. If diamonds would have been rebid and raised, there is no end-result difference between a standard 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ and a "transfer" 1♦-2♣-3♣-3♦.

[lexlogan]

I play the same whether 2♣ is GF or merely forcing to 2NT:

2♦ promises 5+

2♥ or 2♠ do not promise extra values or diamonds, but could have both if opener later rebids diamonds

2NT is balanced minimum

3♣ promises extra values, about 15+

[Gerben42]

2D shows 5+D; 2NT denies 5+D; all other bids guarantee extras

 

I don't like to play this sequence as GF, maybe in Fantunes. Even there I don't think it's nice to have to save another bid for ♣.

[djehuti]

I also play kookish like Ben. But the other day something came up, i had ♠ x ♥ ATx ♦ QJx ♣AKxxxx and the response to 2♣ was the 1 in 1million 2♥ (4-4-4-1). I didnt know what to do since i wanted 3nt to be declared from his side. Or maybe play 4 ♥. We now have a scheme for this sequence.

[junyi_zhu]

Now say you agree to play 1D-2C is absolutely GF. What would you assume about the follow-ups with a strong partner? What do you prefer to play (assuming you use this method)?

Here, I use 2D to show any shape, but minimum, from 12 to bad 14.

2H: 5 or more D, extra.

2S: 4 or more H, extra.

2N: 4 or more S, extra.

3C: natural and extra.

3D: set up trumps.

3H/S: splinter.

 

Basically, all bids are quite natural and it's rather easy to handle IMO.

[cnszsun]

Here, I use 2D to show any shape, but minimum, from 12 to bad 14.

2H: 5 or more D, extra.

2S: 4 or more H, extra.

2N: 4 or more S, extra.

3C: natural and extra.

3D: set up trumps.

3H/S: splinter.

 

Basically, all bids are quite natural and it's rather easy to handle IMO.

With 4 hearts or spades plus 5+♦s and extra, do you first show majors or ♦s?

[jdonn]

FWIW this Kokish thing is very popular in the LA area and probably other areas as well, but I don't like it. I think 2♥ is too low of a bid to waste on just one shape, and it does nothing to solve the wasted space or potential wrongsiding when opener is a balanced minimum. The one nice aspect is having two strengths of club raise, but even that is not a very common gain, and when I have talked to people who claim to like the method they generally admit that it has rarely or never even come up. I would much rather play nothing special at all than play that.

 

I do strongly agree with playing 1♦ 2♣ as game forcing in 2/1. I refuse to create non-game forcing auctions after that start since any of those auctions are too useful on stronger hands that want to force.

[whereagles]

I do strongly agree with playing 1♦ 2♣ as game forcing in 2/1.

Then what are you going to bid on, say,

 

♠x ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣AJTxxx

 

♠xx ♥Jx ♦QJx ♣AQJTxx

 

♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦A ♣KQJxxx

[mike777]

I do strongly agree with playing 1♦ 2♣ as game forcing in 2/1.

Then what are you going to bid on, say,

 

♠x ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣AJTxxx

 

♠xx ♥Jx ♦QJx ♣AQJTxx

 

♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦A ♣KQJxxx

1nt for me ....maybe a 2nt depending on the spot cards....for me...:)

 

Need to choose to live with this system hole. I cannot bid 2c or 3c and 2nt shows 12-13.

 

 

Need to choose to live with this problem. Funny enough it seems to be very rare problem. At the table opp come in and bid something very very often.

Note partner knows I can have 11 hcp for 1nt and I know partner will very often have one of 3 types of hands:

1) Long D

2) 11-13 bal.

3) reverse into major.

[ArcLight]

In the Mike Lawrence 2/1

you rebid 2♦ with 5, you do not show a 4 card major yet.

 

3♣ implies a bit more than a minimum by opener.

4 Clubs or 3 good card support. Fit found, can’t stop in 4 of a minor.

 

2M is not a true reverse. Denies 5 diamonds, and didn’t want to bid NT.

[cherdano]

I do strongly agree with playing 1♦ 2♣ as game forcing in 2/1.

Then what are you going to bid on, say,

 

♠x ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣AJTxxx

 

♠xx ♥Jx ♦QJx ♣AQJTxx

 

♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦A ♣KQJxxx

These are easy 3♣ bids (invitational).

[whereagles]

I do strongly agree with playing 1♦ 2♣ as game forcing in 2/1.

Then what are you going to bid on, say,

 

♠x ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣AJTxxx

 

♠xx ♥Jx ♦QJx ♣AQJTxx

 

♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦A ♣KQJxxx

These are easy 3♣ bids (invitational).

What if the suit is weaker? Downgrade to 1NT?

[gwnn]

not only are we talking about minors here, but now we're talking about bad minor suits? obv. 1NT

[junyi_zhu]

Here, I use 2D to show any shape, but minimum, from 12 to bad 14.

2H: 5 or more D, extra.

2S: 4 or more H, extra.

2N: 4 or more S, extra.

3C: natural and extra.

3D: set up trumps.

3H/S: splinter.

 

Basically, all bids are quite natural and it's rather easy to handle IMO.

With 4 hearts or spades plus 5+♦s and extra, do you first show majors or ♦s?

yeah, I show 5D first, later, we usually have a chance to find our 4-4 fit either at two level or three level.

[jdonn]

I do strongly agree with playing 1♦ 2♣ as game forcing in 2/1.

Then what are you going to bid on, say,

 

♠x ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣AJTxxx

 

♠xx ♥Jx ♦QJx ♣AQJTxx

 

♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦A ♣KQJxxx

These are easy 3♣ bids (invitational).

What if the suit is weaker? Downgrade to 1NT?

Or upgrade and bid 2♣ anyway. And what's your point really, did I say it was perfect? I said it's what I strongly prefer. Being able to bid 2♣ then either 2NT or 3♣ on forcing hands is very valuable, and game forcing hands are far more common than the narrow range of invitational hands, not to mention those hands usually end up in game anyway.

[cherdano]

In my experience, the main problem with the method Josh is advocating (and that I prefer myself, with direct 2N or 3♣ invitational, and 2♣ GF) are hands such as xx xxx KQx AQxxx where you really don't want to play 2N from your side. (And I don't like the "bid 1♥ on 3 small" solution to the problem either.)

[jdonn]

In my experience, the main problem with the method Josh is advocating (and that I prefer myself, with direct 2N or 3♣ invitational, and 2♣ GF) are hands such as xx xxx KQx AQxxx where you really don't want to play 2N from your side. (And I don't like the "bid 1♥ on 3 small" solution to the problem either.)

I prefer methods where 2NT is game forcing, and the balanced invitation is included in some other bid like 2♥. It avoids wrongsiding at least some of the time.

 

I am very consistent in not catering my methods to invitational hands. Game forcing hands come first, then I make due with whatever is left.

 

BTW, the best bid on your example hand is very likely an inverted diamond raise, which is something many players refuse to consider on the hand.

[whereagles]

BTW, the best bid on your example hand is very likely an inverted diamond raise, which is something many players refuse to consider on the hand.

Agreed. But this requires some tweaking of the follow-ups. The standard follow-ups are pathetic anyway, so you might as well redo the whole thing :P