2M and 2NT as catch-alls in 2/1

[whereagles]

Hi all. Here's a hand that advertises for a 2/1 structure that uses 2M as an opener catch-all with weak hands and 2NT as a responder catch-all for hands that don't want to commit to a strain/level right away.

 

♠ KQTxx

♥ Kx

♦ KTxxx

♣ x

 

♠ x

♥ AJT8xxx

♦ Ax

♣ KQx

 

Normal bidding:

 

1♠ 2♥

3♦ 3♥

4♥ ?? <-- try for slam?

 

Opener didn't say how strong he was yet... But the 5 level is dangerous already due to having to guess the ♥Q.

 

With 2♠ and 2NT as catch-alls:

 

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 2NT

3♦ 3♥

4♥ pass

 

2♠ = weakish hand or 6 spades

2NT = tell me more

3♦ = weak hand with 54 or better. A bad 14-count is tops for this bidding.

 

Knowing opener is weakish, it requires low spade wastage for a slam to be on, so responder can pass with reasonable confidence.

 

Ok, nothing really fancy or new here. Just a thought I'd like to share.

[jdonn]

2NT by responder on this hand is sure new to me. Agree that opener bidding 2♠ is a good bid.

[kenrexford]

Very good point, but I'd suggest that the proof is not precisely as you put it. IMO, Opener's 4♥ call in the first auctiuon (and in the second) is weaker than a 4♣ call, which has to be a general cue in support of hearts. However, what this "proves" is that the waiting 2♠ allows four different ranges, rather than two.

 

There is a further problem, however. Opener's 2♠ call cannot logically promise a weak holding, as he might just have six spades. So, although the second auction sounds hesitant, it is not as assured as the difference of adding in the 4♣ call and the lack thereof as nuances.

 

1. 1♠-2♥-2♠-2NT-3♦-3♥-4♥ = sounds weakish, plus the failure to bid 4♣ confirms this.

 

2. 1♠-2♥-2♠-2NT-3♦-3♥-4♣ = negates the "sounds weakish" inference; Opener likely has six spades and contextual extras, heart support.

 

3. 1♠-2♥-3♦-3♥-4♥ = Opener has already announced sound values, but they are not (much) more than already announced.

 

4. 1♠-2♥-3♦-3♥-4♣ = Opener has a heart fit, and he really likes his hand a lot, contextually.

[mike777]

Hi all. Here's a hand that advertises for a 2/1 structure that uses 2M as an opener catch-all with weak hands and 2NT as a responder catch-all for hands that don't want to commit to a strain/level right away.

 

♠ KQTxx

♥ Kx

♦ KTxxx

♣ x

 

♠ x

♥ AJT8xxx

♦ Ax

♣ KQx

 

Normal bidding:

 

1♠ 2♥

3♦ 3♥

4♥ ?? <-- try for slam?

 

Opener didn't say how strong he was yet... But the 5 level is dangerous already due to having to guess the ♥Q.

 

With 2♠ and 2NT as catch-alls:

 

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 2NT

3♦ 3♥

4♥ pass

 

2♠ = weakish hand or 6 spades

2NT = tell me more

3♦ = weak hand with 54 or better. A bad 14-count is tops for this bidding.

 

Knowing opener is weakish, it requires low spade wastage for a slam to be on, so responder can pass with reasonable confidence.

 

Ok, nothing really fancy or new here. Just a thought I'd like to share.

Since I play 3d does not promise extra, 4H is not a slam try.

North has a minimum, South has a nice minimum but still pass.

If North has more than a minimum he needs to bid something other than 4H.

 

The other solution is not to open the North hand but I think that is not allowed in todays bidder world.

[kenrexford]

Since I play 3d does not promise extra, 4H is not a slam try.

North has a minimum, South has a nice minimum but still pass.

If North has more than a minimum he need to bid something other than 4H.

And that something is 4♣?

[han]

Interesting idea whereagles. Any artificial follow ups to 2NT?

 

What does it mean when responder does not ask with 2NT oer 2S?

 

How much extras do you need for 2NT?

 

I hope you don't play this over 1M-2C, that seems terrible.

[whereagles]

Opener's 4♥ call in the first auctiuon (and in the second) is weaker than a 4♣ call, which has to be a general cue in support of hearts. However, what this "proves" is that the waiting 2♠ allows four different ranges, rather than two.

Hum.. yes, you could use 4♣ as a good heart raise, and yes, this structure allows for more fine-tunning. Plus, the theory is general for all 2/1s.

[whereagles]

2NT by responder on this hand is sure new to me.

Sometime after I came up with the idea, I found out Ron (the_hog) was also using 2NT with a similar meaning. It has some potential because general 2/1 theory is still quite undeveloped.

[whereagles]

1. Since I play 3d does not promise extra, 4H is not a slam try.

North has a minimum, South has a nice minimum but still pass.

If North has more than a minimum he needs to bid something other than 4H.

 

2. The other solution is not to open the North hand but I think that is not allowed in todays bidder world.

1. Perhaps 4♣, as ken argued. The idea I presented keeps the bidding lower and thus allows for more fine-tunning. It's also slightly less muddy.

 

2. Pass would be a psyche, yes :)

[whereagles]

1. Any artificial follow ups to 2NT?

 

2. What does it mean when responder does not ask with 2NT oer 2S?

 

3. How much extras do you need for 2NT?

 

4. I hope you don't play this over 1M-2C, that seems terrible.

1. No. Since opener has shown a min, he can simply pattern out now. Actually, in the full scheme I'm playing, opener is allowed to have a 6 carder with 15-17 hcp and bad suit (with good suit he rebids 3M), which would bid 3NT over 2NT.

 

2. Usually it shows shape and no slam interest. But I'm still working on the whole scheme, so inferences aren't yet possible to draw with total confidence.

 

3. Usually it's a slam-bound hand, BUT... it can also be a min GF hand that needs complementary information. Kinda like fourth-suit-forcing. Again, still under construction.

 

4. Why terrible? It seems ok to me.

[han]

1. I meant after the artificial 2NT catch all. Opener can still have a lot of different kinds of hands and the level of the auction is already quite high. How are you going to deal with that?

 

2. OK, I'd love to see the complete structure when you are done.

 

3. Again, I meant 2NT by opener, how much extras do you need for that?

 

4. It seems really really bad to use 2S and 2NT as catch alls after 1S-2C. So much room, and you are wasting so much of it.

[Fluffy]

I've used 2NT by responder after opener rebid his suit as a kind of 4th suit forcing since forever. But with 7♥ I rebid my suit.

[whereagles]

1. I meant after the artificial 2NT catch all. Opener can still have a lot of different kinds of hands and the level of the auction is already quite high. How are you going to deal with that?

 

2. OK, I'd love to see the complete structure when you are done.

 

3. Again, I meant 2NT by opener, how much extras do you need for that?

 

4. It seems really really bad to use 2S and 2NT as catch alls after 1S-2C. So much room, and you are wasting so much of it.

Opener can still bid a lower ranking 4-card suit if below 2M, so he isn't always bound to bid 2M. The sort of hands that bid 2M would be:

 

- Balanced 12-14

- Unbalanced with 1-suiter or 2-suiter with a higher ranking suit

- Unbalanced with support for pard's suit but a min.

 

Obviously, if you're playing a weak NT with 5-card majors, the 1st possibility vanishes. Also, I scrapped the 15-17 1-suiter with bad trumps from 2M because I believe it's better to bid 2NT with that hand, so

 

1M 2x

2NT = 15-17, 1 suiter with bad trumps (~2+ losers opposite a singleton) OR balanced 15-17 if you're playing weak NT or strong NT without 5CM.

 

The provisional structure would be, for opener:

 

1M 2x

2y (non reverse) = min (11-14) or med (15-17) hand with 54 or better

2M = min (11-14), bal/unbal/support for x, no 2y bid available

2NT = med (15-17), bal/1 suiter with bad trumps

3x = med or max (15-20) with 4 card support for pard's suit x

3M = med (15-17), 1 suiter with good trumps

 

Other bids are natural, showing a med (15-17) or max (18-20), and you can used them the way you prefer. I, for instance, like to use 3z (non jump) as a 54 max (18-20), so that 2y gets a celling of 17 hcp.

 

For responder: (as I said, this needs a work out still)

 

1M 2x

2y 2NT = tell me more. Other bids by responder and follow-ups are natural. For instance:

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 2NT

3♣ = 54, min

3♦ = support min. Usually 4 cards but, since responder probably doesn't have spades, can be 3 if the hand is unsuitable for NT.

3♥ = this is open. You can play as 12-14 balanced, good hearts, worried about clubs, the unbid suit.

3♠ = 6 cards, min.

3NT = bal 5332, 12-14, scattered honors.

 

This structure is basically very similar to french standard (SEF), which doesn't use a 2/1 GF. The idea is to take the best of both worlds: take the advantages of 2/1 GF and couple those with a follow-up scheme that's more rational because it keeps the bidding low with common and min hands.

 

By the way, the difference from SEF to this scheme is that in SEF 1M-2x-2M-3M is NON-FORCING and 1M-2x-2M-2NT is also NF. Those bids can be used much, much better when the 2/1 is GF.

 

Sorry for the long post :)

[lexlogan]

For those who prefer to show pattern immediately on most hands, an alternate scheme is for the 2M rebid to promise extra length OR extra strength; minimum range hands (say, 14 hcp or less depending on style) bid 2NT, show their second suit, or raise partner. When opener rebids 2M, responder has even more incentive to use 2NT since he knows opener has something interesting to tell him.

 

The main reason I came up with this (untested) scheme is that most of my partners seem to resist having 2NT or raises promise extra values. I doubt they'd be any more comfortable with this idea :). Anyone think of any theoretical advantage to this weak-immediate, strong-slow approach?

 

What to do with jumps is another question. In a sequence like 1S-2C-2D, I assume 2D is neutral, neither promising nor denying extra values. I'm sure 1S-2C-3D ought to be 5-5 or better; seems normal to play it as srong, but weak would probably work also. 1S-2C-3S should probably be a very good suit; again, we could agree weak or strong. Here, it does seem like "semi-solid suit, minimum range" would be useful, so for consistency the jump shift shold probably be minimum range also.

[whereagles]

1. For those who prefer to show pattern immediately on most hands, an alternate scheme is for the 2M rebid to promise extra length OR extra strength; minimum range hands (say, 14 hcp or less depending on style) bid 2NT, show their second suit, or raise partner. When opener rebids 2M, responder has even more incentive to use 2NT since he knows opener has something interesting to tell him. (...) Anyone think of any theoretical advantage to this weak-immediate, strong-slow approach?

 

2. What to do with jumps is another question. In a sequence like 1S-2C-2D, I assume 2D is neutral, neither promising nor denying extra values. I'm sure 1S-2C-3D ought to be 5-5 or better; seems normal to play it as srong, but weak would probably work also. 1S-2C-3S should probably be a very good suit; again, we could agree weak or strong. Here, it does seem like "semi-solid suit, minimum range" would be useful, so for consistency the jump shift shold probably be minimum range also.

1. I would have to check Ron Hugues book (great one - get a copy if you're into system building), but this inversion seems to be hard to play (see below). However, it is true that you need a low-level catch-all bid of some sort (be it for strong or weak hands) in order to divide hand patterns/types by the various sequences and thus rationalize bidding space. SEF has this done. 2/1 hasn't, and that's where the scope for improvement is, since standard methods are very, very far from satisfactory.

 

2. Your philosophy has a problem. Unless you're ok with jumps showing a min 54, new suits as non-reverse (e.g. 1♠-2♣-2♦) would need to be 11-20 hcp. This is such wide a range that it must put opener in charge at a stage where he is ahead in showing his hand. It requires a lot of work to make things work from this stage. Not saying it's impossible; just that it's hard.

 

The min 6-carder, however, is easy to bid in your methods. Just bid 3M with a good suit and 2NT with a bad one.

[kenrexford]

For those who prefer to show pattern immediately on most hands, an alternate scheme is for the 2M rebid to promise extra length OR extra strength; minimum range hands (say, 14 hcp or less depending on style) bid 2NT, show their second suit, or raise partner. When opener rebids 2M, responder has even more incentive to use 2NT since he knows opener has something interesting to tell him.

 

The main reason I came up with this (untested) scheme is that most of my partners seem to resist having 2NT or raises promise extra values. I doubt they'd be any more comfortable with this idea :). Anyone think of any theoretical advantage to this weak-immediate, strong-slow approach?

 

What to do with jumps is another question. In a sequence like 1S-2C-2D, I assume 2D is neutral, neither promising nor denying extra values. I'm sure 1S-2C-3D ought to be 5-5 or better; seems normal to play it as srong, but weak would probably work also. 1S-2C-3S should probably be a very good suit; again, we could agree weak or strong. Here, it does seem like "semi-solid suit, minimum range" would be useful, so for consistency the jump shift shold probably be minimum range also.

Interesting idea. I'm in the process of testing this idea in the context of an inverted minor raise.

 

1♣-P-2♣ start.

 

Opener shows shortness if he is weak. The relay (2♦) shows sound+ of any type.

Responder then shows shortness if he is weakish. His relay (2♥ here) shows sound+ and is GF.

Opener can then show shortness, or make a waiting bid to allow Responder to show shortness.

 

The same basic idea could translate into major sequences, it seems.

[Finch]

Your hand (along with many others) is a good example of why _some form_ of structure after a 2/1 is a good idea, and in particular why both hands need a way to ask rather than show. As has been said, it's odd that there seems to be so little theory on continuations after a 2/1.

 

I play that step 1 by opener is the 'catch-all', with step 1 by responder after that a relay.

 

So, for example,

 

1S - 2C

 

2D = all other hands (diamonds or weak NT here)

2H = natural, 4+

2S = 6 spades

2NT = 15+ balanced

3C = 4 clubs

3D/H = splinter for clubs

3S = 1-loser or 0-loser suit, extra values

3NT = 15-17 5=3=3=2 poor controls (we don't open 1NT with that)

 

1S - 2C - 2D -

 

2H = relay ("tell me more")

2S = 3 spades

2NT = 4 spades

3C = good club suit

3D = 5/6 in the minors

3H I don't think exists(!) (probably short hearts and solid clubs)

3S = HHxx or Hxxxx in spades

3NT = minimum weak NT

4C = sets clubs as trumps

4S = 4225 picture, no red suit controls

 

obviously there is rather less room in other auctions, so e.g.

 

1S - 2H -

 

2S = all other hands, then 2NT relay

2NT = 6 spades

3C/3D = 5-5 non-minimum (about 13+ HCP)

3H = 3-card support (we play that 2H promises 5+ hearts)

 

The difference to your method, I think, is that we only play a relay by responder after opener's 'waiting' bid; in other auctions we bid naturally as opener has shown more about his hand. However it's still true that after, say, 1S - 2C - 2S - 2NT by responder says nothing about high cards; it shows uncertainty over at least one of strain or level.

 

Oddly on your sample hand with 7 hearts I would not use responder's relay, I would show my suit (1S - 2H - 2S (not strong enough for 3D) - 3H rather than 2NT relay - 4H (no aces).)

[whereagles]

1. it's odd that there seems to be so little theory on continuations after a 2/1.

 

2. I play that step 1 by opener is the 'catch-all', with step 1 by responder after that a relay.

1. I think this is because...

 

a. People kind of leave it to the principle of fast arrival to sort it out.

b. Things can go wrong, but only rarely (a 2/1 by itself is rare for starters), so nobody bothers much. Besides, you can always blame pard.. lol.

 

In french standard, where 2/1 is not forcing, a lot more care is put into the sequences, which is why they're a couple years ahead in systematics with respect to 2/1 auctions.

 

2. Hum.. it's monk relay style. Thx for sharing.

[mike777]

1. it's odd that there seems to be so little theory on continuations after a 2/1.

 

2. I play that step 1 by opener is the 'catch-all', with step 1 by responder after that a relay.

1. I think this is because...

 

a. People kind of leave it to the principle of fast arrival to sort it out.

b. Things can go wrong, but only rarely (a 2/1 by itself is rare for starters), so nobody bothers much. Besides, you can always blame pard.. lol.

 

In french standard, where 2/1 is not forcing, a lot more care is put into the sequences, which is why they're a couple years ahead in systematics with respect to 2/1 auctions.

 

2. Hum.. it's monk relay style. Thx for sharing.

I have often said I think this really depends on which hand you expect to be the stronger hand in a 2/1 auction.

 

1) If you expect opener to be the stronger hand very often.....then...perhaps catch all rebids are more important....

2) If you expect responder to be the stronger hand very often ...then......perhaps catch all rebids are far less important....

[whereagles]

Right. But the problem is both hand are equally likely to be stronger. Thus, both opener and responder need methods to seize/pass control of the auction. For instance, in my idea the scheme is:

 

Strong opener --> bypass 2M rebid or jump if really strong (18-20)

Weak opener --> don't bypass 2M

 

Strong responder --> ask with 2NT

Weak responder --> bypass 2NT

 

"Strong" means 15+ and "weak" means 11-14. If both are strong, there's usually 30 hcp around, so it should be no problem.

[Zelandakh]

Your hand (along with many others) is a good example of why _some form_ of structure after a 2/1 is a good idea, and in particular why both hands need a way to ask rather than show.  As has been said, it's odd that there seems to be so little theory on continuations after a 2/1.

 

I play that step 1 by opener is the 'catch-all', with step 1 by responder after that a relay.

♠ KQTxx

♥ Kx

♦ KTxxx

♣ x

 

♠ x

♥ AJT8xxx

♦ Ax

♣ KQx

 

If you are going to the extent of incorporating a relay structure, why not just go the whole hog?

 

eg

1♠ - 1NT ..... 5+ spades // relay

2♣ - 2♦ ..... min without 4 hearts // GF relay

2NT - 3♣ ..... 5+ diamonds // relay

3♥ - 3♠ ..... 5=2=5=1 // relay

4♣ - 4♥ ..... 3 Blue Team controls // better stop here

 

It strikes me that when you're getting to relay methods the system ceases to really be 2/1 any more, but rather some sort of hybrid. Also, if you want to use a catch-all, you could do worse than to turn it round and have it come from Responder, using 1M - 2♣ - look up Bocchi - Duboin's system notes for some minimal relays that hang together to produce an excellent whole. They don't play this as a GF though, at least not last time I vugraphed them...

 

 

(-: Zel :-)

[irdoz]

This is a perspective from someone whose regular partnership levels could be described as ranging from garbage to close to advanced+.

 

From the bbo random persepective the most common method is simply to play 2M rebids as minmum 6+ and higher level reverses as just showing shape and not promising extras. Of course, played at this level, this method is inferior when both hands are in the 15-17 range as you languish in 3nt while precision bidders bid their 6nt. However, for BBO random standards it works fine for finding the right strain and often makes responders rebids easier so it isnt all bad.

 

Next is the semi-regular partner/friend who you've actually discussed a few things with - so you decide to play what's recommended in BBO standard advanced 2/1 where a rebid of 2M is just a holding bid with a 5M+ (if 6 not good enough suit for 3M). Good idea - but you suddenly discover that most basic 2/1 descriptions lack further system description over this 2M catch-all holding bid - and without having 2nt being a responder relay where opener clarifies his hand then Im not sure how you play this method satisfactorily -and you wish 2/1 had better documented commonly agreed sequences after this 2M holding catch all, which exist in the expert community but are not as easily accessed at this level.

 

Then in your most regular partnership which has graduated from the garbage youve looked at a whole lot of methods and find threads like this illuminating.

So you look at Nightmare, Ambra and even Bocchi-Duboin for examples of different 2/1 structures and there they also use catch-all bids for openers first rebid - but after 1M-2m it is usually the next step - and in Ambra and Nightmare 2nt is 15 or 16+ showing a variety of hands (this seems potentially a lot better than wasting space with 2M and 2nt both min/max bids). And in all of these systems theres responder initiated relay sequences (complex in Bocchi-Duboins case, simple in Nightmare and a lot of them in Ambra although they have the same structure). But all of them have space problems with 1s-2h (although ambra does a fiddle swapping the meanings of 1s-2d and 1s-2h auctions)... but it does seem incorporating some other methods into 2/1 would improve clarifying openers min/non-min at the lowest level and giving responder the ability to take control would be a big improvement to the way my partnerships 2/1 system currently stands.

[whereagles]

Well, the point of the 2M/2NT catch-alls is to allow both players to sieze/relinquish control when they see fit. And yes, I agree we need more systematics in 2/1 GF auctions. The situation is ripe for someone to come in and do that work.

[hrothgar]

I have often said I think this really depends on which hand you expect to be the stronger hand in a 2/1 auction.

 

1) If you expect opener to be the stronger hand very often.....then...perhaps catch all rebids are more important....

2) If you expect responder to be the stronger hand very often ...then......perhaps catch all rebids are far less important....

You seem to be making an assumption that the stronger hand should ask and the weaker hand should show. From my own perspective, its much more desirable that the balanced hand is able to ask and that the unbalanced hand shows.

 

In part, this might also address some of Frances concerns about bidding space:

 

Frances noted that there is much less space available after 1♠ - 2♥ as opposed to 1♠ - 2♣

 

There might be some advantages in using 2♣ to show any balanced hand. (Perhaps even responding 2♣ with a 2=5=3=3 or some such). In turn, the immediate 2♥ would now promise either a genuine single suiter or a two suiter.