1M-2C on a doubleton

[cwiggins]

"Washington Standard" by Steve Robinson plays 2/1 as 100% game forcing and Jacoby. It then says 1S-2H shows 5+, 1M-2D shows 5+ or a very strong 4, and 2C shows all other game-forcing responses.

 

So if partner opens 1S and you have 3-4-4-2 or partner opens 1H and you have 4-3-4-2 (not a typo; the hand has 4 spades), Robinson says "Since responder is going to support opner's major at his next call, its better to respond 2C on a doubleton rather than 2D on only a four-card suit. In other words, opener treats a a 2C response as a suspect suit similar to a 1C opener, but treats 2D and 2H as a real suit." page 100.

 

I don't see any other suggestions on how to bid after 1M-2C.

 

Rodwell-Meckstroth and Versace-Lauria have notes on their convention cards that 1M-2C is either a club suit or a balanced hand but no further notes on follow ups.

 

Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands?

 

Thanks.

[rogerclee]

Some people play a relay structure over this (the below is shamelessly copied from Gnome), where opener usually puppets to 2♦ (any minimum without 6 spades) to allow the 2♣ bidder to finish describing his hand.

 

So over, say, 1♠-2♣, opener usually bids 2♦ and responder proceeds with:

 

2♥ - balanced GF, 2♠

2♠ - balanced GF, 3♠ and 5+♣

2NT - balanced GF, 3♠, 4 or fewer ♣

[kenrexford]

As one who uses this approach, it seems fairly easy.

 

Opener bids normally. If Responder's second bid supports the opened, or sometimes the secnd, major from Opener, then clubs might not be real. If Responder has real clubs, he may in some circumstances show this later with a jump.

 

Good to see I have good company. :ph34r:

[whereagles]

I've also been thinking of using 2♣ as either an invite with 3 card M or natural, GF. Trouble is, I'll have to let go some naturality and I'm not sure I want to do that.

[irdoz]

Playing 2c over 1M as balanced or clubs is a common method. I also include in 2c hands with 5 bad diamonds - that way you can guarantee 1M-2d is a good 5+ suit.

 

There's various schemes around from natural to full relay. I try to use one as natural as possible to ease memory (I think it's mainly/loosely based on Strefa a polish 2/1 like system).

 

 

So for example after 1s-2c

 

2d = natural min or max

2h = natural min or max

2s = other minimums

2nt = slammish - only side suit will be clubs if any

3c = 16+, 4+c

3d = 5/5 16+

3h = 5/5 18+

3s = 6+ spades semi-solid good controls

 

 

After 2d/2h responder can relay for shape - so for example after 1s-2c-2h then 2nt relays and :-

3c = 5413 (bid the 3 card frag)

3d = 5431

3h = 5/5 15-17

3s = 5422 max

3nt = 5422 min

4c = 5404

4d = 5440

4h = 5/5 min

4s = 6/4 good spades

 

1s-2c-2s then 2n relays and:

3c = 4+ cl min

3d/3h = good 3 card frag

3s = 6 spades

 

Theres a lot more but I tried to always make it for memory that as far as possible you were bidding a 'real' suit (even if it was only 3 cards).

[jtfanclub]

Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands?

All rebids are GCC legal except a relay.

 

Playing 1M-2C as a GF relay, forcing opener to bid 2D on virtually all hands, is Midchart, though you'd probably get away with it provided you don't have a second relay bid after it. Playing 1M-2C as weak with diamonds or GF relay is Superchart.

 

Playing 2C as invitational 3+ support or GF any is not GCC legal across a 1st or 2nd seat opening....Drury is only legal across a 3rd or 4th seat opening.

 

But Golady, or whatever you want to call it (2CL is GF, does not promise clubs, does not require opener to bid 2D with most hands) is most certainly GCC legal.

[helene_t]

So there is not forcing raise available for the 4342 hand?

 

Anyway, with 3442 it's ok with me to respond 2♣.

[david_c]

I disagree with the approach of the first two posters: IMO responder should make the same rebid on all balanced hands at his second turn.* So for example after 1♠:2♣,2♥ I think responder should always rebid 2NT on a balanced hand (assuming you've defined 2NT as natural here!) irrespective of whether he holds support for one of partner's suits. If he does have support then he can show that later. This is for three reasons:

 

(i) It means that a direct raise promises a real club suit.

 

(ii) When responder has a balanced hand you want him to be the one making the decisions. Bidding 2NT gets partner to describe his hand, which is what you want, rather than starting a co-operative cue-bidding sequence which you don't want. (Unless your name is Ken.)

 

(iii) You need as many bids as possible which show unbalanced hands. Whereas with a balanced hand you just want partner to describe his hand to you, with an unbalanced hand you need to describe what you've got. In order to make room for lots of ways of showing unbalanced hands, you can't afford to have more than one bid for the balanced hands.

 

Somewhat related to this, I think if you want a genuinely effective method it is vital for opener to have some way of describing his strength. It's OK for opener's first rebid to be wide-ranging if it is below 2NT, but once responder has shown a balanced hand, opener's next priority should be to say whether he is better than minimum. This can only really be done artificially. For example after 1♠:2♣,2♥:2NT you might play 3♣ as any minimum with other rebids showing better hands.

 

 

[*Assuming that opener's rebid was below 2NT.]

[foo]

Also, playing 2/1 GF with a Forcing NT (not a Semi-Forcing one), if pard opens 1M and I have 3 card support in a GF flat hand w/o a decent 2/1 suit, I can always use

 

1M-1N;foo-4M

 

to describe my hand.

[han]

I just posted this last week:

 

1S-2C shows either a balanced GF or an honest GF with clubs. Then:

 

2D = minimum but denies 4 cards in the other major.

...2H=ask, typically balanced. natural responses (2S showing 6).

...2S=artificial, honest GF with clubs, denies support.

...2NT=slam try in spades with honest clubs.

...3C = very good clubs.

...3D= at least 4-6 in diamonds and clubs.

...3H= at least 4-6 in hearts and clubs.

...3S= picture jump.

...3NT= 4333 choice of games.

...4S= sign off.

 

2H = catch all with extra values.

...2S = ask, often balanced. Then:

......2NT= any 6-4 (3C asks).

......3C,3D= exactly 5-4.

......3H= undefined for now.

......3S= 6-card major.

......3NT= balanced 17-19.

...2NT = slam try in spades with honest clubs.

etc.

 

2S = 5-4 in the majors, may or may not have extras.

... 2NT = ask, often balanced.

... 3C = very good clubs.

... 3D = at least 4-6.

... 3H = slam try in hearts with honest clubs.

... 3S = slam try in spades with honest clubs.

... 3NT = about 15-17 natural.

 

2NT = single suiter in spades, extras.

... 3C = 2+ spades, asks for shortness (no/l/m/h)

... 3D, 3H = at least 4-6.

... 3S = very good clubs.

 

3C, 3D, 3H = at least 5-5, extras.

 

3S = semi-solid spades, extras.

[foo]

I have never played 2/1 GF with 1M-2C! artificial.

 

If playing this system, what R hands are described by 1M-1N;foo-4M ?

[Cascade]

Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands?

Do whatever you like:

 

"ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second call." GCC

[Echognome]

Some people play a relay structure over this (the below is shamelessly copied from Gnome), where opener usually puppets to 2♦ (any minimum without 6 spades) to allow the 2♣ bidder to finish describing his hand.

 

So over, say, 1♠-2♣, opener usually bids 2♦ and responder proceeds with:

 

2♥ - balanced GF, 2♠

2♠ - balanced GF, 3♠ and 5+♣

2NT - balanced GF, 3♠, 4 or fewer ♣

I've since changed this thanks to suggestions from Han and Cherdano.

 

The idea I had in mind was a "pivot" around 2♥. That is to say, that all of openers rebids from 2♠+ are descriptive and shape-showing and show extras (however you want to define them). All minimum hands first bid 2♦, then can bid 2♠+ showing the same shapes as a direct 2♠+. You gain a lot of symmetry there, although there is still some asymmetry for responders options given he might hear any number of responses.

 

I disagree with David C's comments in this regard. I initially had all balanced hands rebidding 2NT, but I find that to be inefficient. The balanced hand should try to make the cheapest bid possible, so as to get out of the way and let the unbalanced hand describe his shape.

 

So as per the pivot bid (2♥ here), it should be there to take care of a given shape, but be agnostic to range. Initially I had this as any hand with 6+ in the major, but have subsequently changed it to show 4+ card in the other major. I think this flows smoother and is also an important aspect of a hand to show initially.

 

I haven't posted the full scheme yet, as I was still considering all of the different follow ups, but I believe it is a promising scheme!

[awm]

From Garozzo's Ambra notes (courtesy of Dan Neill's page):

 

1♠-2♣...

 

2♦ = 11/15 hcp without 4♥; 2♥ is GF relay and same as 2♠ plus below

2♥ = 4+♥

2♠ = 5+♠ and 4+♦ 16+ hcp (2NT relays, symmetric with 3♣ plus below)

2NT = 5+♠ no side suit 16+ hcp

3♣ = 5♠+4♣ 16+ hcp

3♦ = 6♠+4♣ 16+ hcp

3♥ = 5♠+5♣ short ♥ 16+ hcp

3♠ = 5♠+5♣ short ♦ 16+ hcp

3NT = 5044 exactly 16+ hcp

 

If opener rebids 2NT or 2♦ followed by 2NT, then after 3♣ relay:

 

3♦ = 6+♠ and side singleton (3♥ asks where)

3♥ = 6+♠ no singleton

3♠ = 5332 good spades

3NT = 5332 bad spades

 

(it does seem like it might be better to reallocate via 3♦=no shortage and then 3♥ asks spade length and/or strength, 3♥/3♠/3NT show 6+♠ and high/mid/low shortage)

 

If opener rebids 2♥ then 2♠ relays.

 

Failing to relay is often natural, although 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠ is used as a non-slammish relay (i.e. balanced hand no slam interest opposite minimum) and 1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT is used as a relay fixing hearts as trump.

 

I'm not sure why the structure Han (for example) suggests is supposed to be better than this one.

[jtfanclub]

Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands?

Do whatever you like:

 

"ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second call." GCC

Nope. #7 is nice, but it's #3 that makes 2♣ legal.

 

#3 says "May NOT be part of a relay system".

 

2♣ forcing 2♦ from partner is a puppet, and a puppet is considered part of a relay system. Therefore, I would argue that it should be illegal.

 

(edited for clarity)

[david_c]

I disagree with David C's comments in this regard. I initially had all balanced hands rebidding 2NT, but I find that to be inefficient. The balanced hand should try to make the cheapest bid possible, so as to get out of the way and let the unbalanced hand describe his shape.

Well, I said there should only be one rebid for the balanced hands, I didn't say it had to be 2NT :) Clearly after 2♦ it should be 2♥, so long as you don't mind playing artificial methods.

 

On the other hand, after 1M : 2♣ , 2♥ you don't gain a whole step by using 2♠ as the relay rather than 2NT. When responder is balanced and opener is not, it's important for responder to be declarer in 3NT: if responder hasn't already bid NT then that really restricts what you can do later. You do gain a little, but it's nowhere near as much as you would normally expect for an extra step. So I don't think it's obvious to use 2♠ as the relay there.

[Echognome]

I disagree with David C's comments in this regard.  I initially had all balanced hands rebidding 2NT, but I find that to be inefficient.  The balanced hand should try to make the cheapest bid possible, so as to get out of the way and let the unbalanced hand describe his shape.

Well, I said there should only be one rebid for the balanced hands, I didn't say it had to be 2NT :) Clearly after 2♦ it should be 2♥, so long as you don't mind playing artificial methods.

 

On the other hand, after 1M : 2♣ , 2♥ you don't gain a whole step by using 2♠ as the relay rather than 2NT. When responder is balanced and opener is not, it's important for responder to be declarer in 3NT: if responder hasn't already bid NT then that really restricts what you can do later. You do gain a little, but it's nowhere near as much as you would normally expect for an extra step. So I don't think it's obvious to use 2♠ as the relay there.

I agree. In fact, I think responder's option should really vary by the rebid. It's also important, however, to make them as parallel as possible for memory's sake.

[rbforster]

#3 <CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES> says "May NOT be part of a relay system".

 

2♣ forcing 2♦ from partner is a puppet, and a puppet is considered part of a relay system. 

If you really want to bid 2♣ with a doubleton your options under GCC are limited to only game forcing hands, with the caveat that your bid can't be part of a "relay system." Of course a relay system isn't defined anywhere, but the common interpretation is that a "system" isn't just one relay bid (it's several) and it's typically where one player keeps making the cheapest bid and the other keeps describing his hand. As long as both players have choices to make at each step (all minimums bid 2♦ over 1M-2♣, but stronger or more distributional hands bid something else), I think it's hard to argue that you're playing a relay system.

 

I will point out that if you're willing to tolerate 3+ clubs for your 1M-2♣ bid (for example, 2♥ 5+, 2♦ 4+, 2♣ 3+ over 1M), you can have your 2♣ hand show absolutely anything since 2♣ is "natural" when showing 3+. You can have balanced GF's, real 2/1's in clubs, invitational hands with clubs, even weak hands with clubs, etc. How many of these and which make sense is up to you.

[kenrexford]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the auction starts 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-?

 

If Responder has spade support, and real clubs, he can:

 

1. Jump to 4♠ as a picture bid to show no red control but a trick source in clubs and spade support.

 

2. Bid 2♠, and then after 2NT (my way not two top spades) bid:

a. 4♣ as another form of picture jump (real clubs)

b. 4♦/4♥ as picture splinters (real clubs)

c. Cuebid 3♣ (two top clubs), and then after 3♦:

i. jump to 4♠ as a picture jump (real clubs)

ii. jump to 4♥ as a picture jump (real clubs)

d. Cuebid 3♦ and then after 3♥ jump to 4♠ as another real-clubs picture jump

 

3. Bid 2♠, and then after 3♣ (two top spades, club card) make any number of different real-clubs picture jumps

 

4. Bid 2♠, and then after 3♦ make a number of real-clubs picture jumps

 

5. Cuebid himself and gather information, knowing that he has real clubs

 

If Responder has spades and non-real clubs, he sets trumps (2♠) and then cuebids, with Opener able to make any number of picture jumps if Opener is unbalanced, or delayed picture jumps, or cuebids.

 

If Responder has hearts, either just hearts or as a bonus to also having spades (maybe 3442), he can opt whichever makes sense, including many immediate and delayed picture jumps, by either person, or cuebids.

 

Thus, there are an amazing number of ways to show real-club hands and flexibility to opt to keep that "real" status to yourself if tactically best, even if the initial 2♠ is at least temporarily nebulous as to the club suit quality.

 

In contrast, one could bid 2♣ and then dedicate some call like a wild blast to 4♠ or a delayed blast to 4♠ just to make sure that the 2♠ call immediately shows real clubs.

 

If you really have a grasp on all of the cuebidding options, and nuances, and inferences from jumps, delayed jumps, and failures to jump, then this idea of a bid that is dedicated to "balanced hands" first seems like a really poor alternative. But, that's just my opinion.

[Echognome]

If you really have a grasp on all of the cuebidding options, and nuances, and inferences from jumps, delayed jumps, and failures to jump, then this idea of a bid that is dedicated to "balanced hands" first seems like a really poor alternative. But, that's just my opinion.

How is this comparison worth a lick of salt?

 

Is it comparing 2♣ showing real clubs GF or 2♣ showing clubs or balanced GF. When 2♣ arises which do you think would fair better?

 

Obviously the point isn't to add a multi-way to make a bid more convoluted. The point is to make 1M - 2♦ clearer, free up 1M - 2NT to show a raise rather than be balanced GF (which is a reasonable treatment) etc. etc.

 

So given that we want to include balanced GF's in with our 2♣ bid, how is any of what you mentioned relevant? If you aren't interested in such a treatment, that's fine. But you've gotta put those hands hands somewhere.

[kenrexford]

If you really have a grasp on all of the cuebidding options, and nuances, and inferences from jumps, delayed jumps, and failures to jump, then this idea of a bid that is dedicated to "balanced hands" first seems like a really poor alternative.  But, that's just my opinion.

How is this comparison worth a lick of salt?

 

Is it comparing 2♣ showing real clubs GF or 2♣ showing clubs or balanced GF. When 2♣ arises which do you think would fair better?

 

Obviously the point isn't to add a multi-way to make a bid more convoluted. The point is to make 1M - 2♦ clearer, free up 1M - 2NT to show a raise rather than be balanced GF (which is a reasonable treatment) etc. etc.

 

So given that we want to include balanced GF's in with our 2♣ bid, how is any of what you mentioned relevant? If you aren't interested in such a treatment, that's fine. But you've gotta put those hands hands somewhere.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. I'm not sure, but I think maybe you were confused about what I am saying. So, maybe I'll try to explain my thoughts better.

 

1. I very much prefer and like for 2♣ to be GF after a major opening with either a real club suit or balanced, preserving 2NT as fit-showing.

 

2. In fact, I would bid 2♣ with a lot of shocking holdings, including hands with three-card support for the opened major and five cards in the other major.

 

3. Some also like this idea, whether of limited application or of expansive application.

 

4. If you agree to do this, then unwinding the "are the clubs real" question could be done in one of two ways.

 

5. One idea is to have 2♣...raise show real clubs but 2♣...2NT...raise show fake clubs, apparently (or something similar).

 

6. An alternative is to have 2♣...raise possible with either real clubs (but not appropriate for an immediate picture jump) or fake clubs, with the real-or-fake maybe clarified later or maybe never clarified.

 

7. The first alternative (the three-step to show balanced support) seems to me to be unnecessary and unwise, as it seems to be an attempt to avoid a non-existent problem.

 

8. The second alternative seems to me to be ideal, even though the real-pr-fake question is resolved.

 

9. It seems that option #1 leaves the "fit-or-no-fit" question ambiguous, whereas option #2 leaves the "clubs-or-fake-clubs" question ambiguous, and I'd rather first clarify fit than first clarify clubs.

 

As to the "fringe benefit" of having 1M-P-2♦ less ambiguous, this is true. I, however, will also occasionally fudge diamonds with balanced hands, if as a sort of advanced cue. I will probably lack a club control for this to occur, and I will likely have two of the top three diamonds. Something like (43/34)-AQx-xxx works.

[Cascade]

Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands?

Do whatever you like:

 

"ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second call." GCC

Nope. #7 is nice, but it's #3 that makes 2♣ legal.

 

#3 says "May NOT be part of a relay system".

 

2♣ forcing 2♦ from partner is a puppet, and a puppet is considered part of a relay system. Therefore, I would argue that it should be illegal.

 

(edited for clarity)

I was saying anything after 2♣ is legal.

 

I did not investigate the legality of 2♣.

[foo]

So if I understand these systems,1st principle dictate something like?

 

1= 1M-2C!;foo-3N= 3cM min GF 4333 (w/ 4cM, you use J2N) CoG

2= 1M-1N;foo-4M= 3cM min GF 4432

3= 1M-2C!;foo-2N= Slam interested 4333's and 4432's w/ 3-M

4= 1M-2C!;foo-4M= 3cM in something like min GF 5332

5= 1M-2C!;foo-2M= shape as above, but slam interest.

6= 1M-2C!;foo-new= denies support, honest shape.

 

Interesting.

[david_c]

4. If you agree to do this, then unwinding the "are the clubs real" question could be done in one of two ways.

 

5. One idea is to have 2♣...raise show real clubs but 2♣...2NT...raise show fake clubs, apparently (or something similar).

 

6. An alternative is to have 2♣...raise possible with either real clubs (but not appropriate for an immediate picture jump) or fake clubs, with the real-or-fake maybe clarified later or maybe never clarified.

 

7. The first alternative (the three-step to show balanced support) seems to me to be unnecessary and unwise, as it seems to be an attempt to avoid a non-existent problem.

 

8. The second alternative seems to me to be ideal, even though the real-pr-fake question is resolved.

If you play 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ as showing 3-card support then you're probably right that your way is more efficient.

 

However, I don't play 2♠ as promising three. I think we've had this discussion before! In fact if I'm playing 2♣ as clubs or balanced then I usually try to arrange things so that 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ is an artificial GF promising 5+ clubs, saying nothing at all about spades. (Partly this is because I want it to be the same over a 1♥ opener.)

 

Also, the continuations after 2NT are relay-like, and I maintain that this is a better way to bid balanced hands than a cue-bidding sequence. Responder does not actually need to show support at all, he just relays out. (If you're playing under GCC rules you call it something different, of course...)

 

I know you (Ken) don't agree with this philosophy, but those are my reasons.

[kenrexford]

4. If you agree to do this, then unwinding the "are the clubs real" question could be done in one of two ways.

 

5. One idea is to have 2♣...raise show real clubs but 2♣...2NT...raise show fake clubs, apparently (or something similar).

 

6. An alternative is to have 2♣...raise possible with either real clubs (but not appropriate for an immediate picture jump) or fake clubs, with the real-or-fake maybe clarified later or maybe never clarified.

 

7. The first alternative (the three-step to show balanced support) seems to me to be unnecessary and unwise, as it seems to be an attempt to avoid a non-existent problem.

 

8. The second alternative seems to me to be ideal, even though the real-pr-fake question is resolved.

If you play 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ as showing 3-card support then you're probably right that your way is more efficient.

 

However, I don't play 2♠ as promising three. I think we've had this discussion before! In fact if I'm playing 2♣ as clubs or balanced then I usually try to arrange things so that 1♠:2♣,2♥:2♠ is an artificial GF promising 5+ clubs, saying nothing at all about spades. (Partly this is because I want it to be the same over a 1♥ opener.)

 

Also, the continuations after 2NT are relay-like, and I maintain that this is a better way to bid balanced hands than a cue-bidding sequence. Responder does not actually need to show support at all, he just relays out. (If you're playing under GCC rules you call it something different, of course...)

 

I know you (Ken) don't agree with this philosophy, but those are my reasons.

Actually, we agree here.

 

IMO, there are two decent ways to bid. I misunderstood and thought you were advocating something entirely different.

 

If Responder's next call of two of Opener's major agrees a fit, then, as you suggested, it seems that forcing Responder to validate clubs also with that call, in the context of an "artificial" 2♣, seems unnecessary and ill-advised. It kind of defeats one purpose of the call.

 

However, if the theory is not to establish the fit immediately but to explore pattern fully, with 2M as waiting-ish, then the dynamics are substantially altered and my analysis is not applicable in the same way at all. In that scenario, I like your thoughts.

 

I happen to believe that patterning out is a very good approach, as I would prefer this in the context of a canape system, for example. I just happen to have concluded that patterning out is perhaps slightly but IMO substantially less effective than enhanced cuebidding in a 2/1 system. Without enhanced cuebidding, and simply normal cuebidding, I think patterning out is better.