Style question

[pclayton]

Say you have a 3=4=1=5 14 count.

 

Pard opens 1♠, 2♣ by you (playing 2/1) and 2♦ by pard.

 

Do you prefer to show your 4 hearts or do you show pard support? Does it matter where your stuff is?

[jdonn]

2♠, wow is there really a style that bids a natural 2♥? I don't see the point.

[han]

Yep, 2S. The problem with 2H is that a later 3S bid won't show 3-card support.

[Finch]

I voted for 2 Rexfords because your poll assumes that 2H is natural.

For me (and for many others at least in my country) 2H is still FSF even if a game forcing auction.

 

Anyway I voted to 2 Rexfords in addition because in my methods 2D wasn't natural anyway...

[dicklont]

Support, make partner happy.

[Echognome]

2♠ (unless 2♦ is artificial and system). Partner doesn't have 4♥. I guess partner might be 5=4=4=0, but even then I think he'd bid 2♥.

 

Edited: I wrote 2♥ when I meant 2♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Show the support.

 

Else the auction will become really hard on normal

follow ups.

Maybe you play direct 3 card bal. raise as well, so

that the raise will already promise an unbal. hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[david_c]

Only question is whether to bid 2♠ or 3♠.

[skjaeran]

2♠, if that shows 3-card support, else 3♠. 2♥ is out of the question, partner hasn't got four of them (might have 5440 and ♥xxxx possibly).

[kenrexford]

2♠. Sure, might miss a superior 4-4 fit on occasion. Against that is saving a level a lot.

[pclayton]

So with a 5=4=4=0, you're bidding hearts first? I would have thought this is an UTL situation.

[TimG]

2♠, wow is there really a style that bids a natural 2♥? I don't see the point.

How about completing a shape picture? I see that Han doesn't think a later spade bid will show 3-card support, but wouldn't you expect 3415 from:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♥

2N-3♠?

 

I recognize that this probably isn't the expert approach these days; I'm not professing to be right. But, I am curious why this would be a bad approach.

 

Tim

[jdonn]

2♠, wow is there really a style that bids a natural 2♥? I don't see the point.

How about completing a shape picture? I see that Han doesn't think a later spade bid will show 3-card support, but wouldn't you expect 3415 from:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♥

2N-3♠?

 

I recognize that this probably isn't the expert approach these days; I'm not professing to be right. But, I am curious why this would be a bad approach.

 

Tim

It's not a bad approach if you can guarantee partner would bid 2NT next (and even then if you bid 2♠ then 3♥ you have given a good (and cheaper) description). On so many other auctions though, you are going to want to bid 3♠ later with fewer than three of them. What if over 2♥ partner bids 3♦, now 3♠ doesn't at all sound like real support.

 

If my partner had the auction you show, I would take him to be something like Ax KQxx x Axxxxx.

[han]

Or Qx KJxx xx AQJxx?

 

The Rexford option is clearly 2S as well, the guy has written a book about that auction. So this is a unanimous poll after all.

[Guest Jlall]

but wouldn't you expect 3415 from:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♥

2N-3♠?

No I would expect Hx. A 5-2 spade fit can easily be the right spot still. People do not play this as a pattern auction because with 3 spades responder would have supported already. People would have supported already with 3415 because as josh says, partner doesn't always bid 2N in which case there is huge value to showing 2 card spade support later.

[mike777]

but wouldn't you expect 3415 from:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♥

2N-3♠?

No I would expect Hx. A 5-2 spade fit can easily be the right spot still. People do not play this as a pattern auction because with 3 spades responder would have supported already. People would have supported already with 3415 because as josh says, partner doesn't always bid 2N in which case there is huge value to showing 2 card spade support later.

As non expert:

expect 2c=100% game force if playing lite opening...very good hand.

2d=natural....can be very minimum

2h=4sf unsure direction

2nt=dead minimum..if playing lite...11-13; can have super max but assume dead minimum ...11=13

3s=no heart stopper........2 spades...unsure of nt.....100% game force

[helene_t]

2♥ would typically be Hx-xxx-Hxx-HHxx or such. When the fourth suit is the cheapest bid it should be used with a hand without clear direction. So 2♠ shows a real fit here. Surely it can be used with four hearts also, but with 3 spades I have to support.

 

I think opener can still have four hearts. Maybe if he bids 3♥ over my 2♠ it is natural.

[gwnn]

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

[ArcLight]

In the Mike Lawrence 2/1 system you would bid 2♠

 

3♠ = ( A jump rebid openers 1st suit) with 3 trumps (good trump support = 2 honors) and a good hand (16+). Usually a J2NT bid is used with 4. A gentle slam try.

[y66]

2S

 

In Modern American Bidding, Kokish & Kraft suggest that after 1S 2C 2D 2S, a new suit by opener or a bid in responder's suit shows shortage.

 

If playing that, maybe opener can use 4H to show 5440 with slam interest.

[han]

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

No I would bid 2D. 2D still allows for finding a heart fit but 2H makes it very hard to find a diamond fit.

[pclayton]

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

No I would bid 2D. 2D still allows for finding a heart fit but 2H makes it very hard to find a diamond fit.

I would bid 2♦ also with a 5=4=4=0.

 

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

[kenrexford]

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

I don't think anyone is actually trying to find a heart fit after this sequence.

 

The questions, IMO, are these:

 

If Opener has five spades and four diamonds, and if Responder has three spades with four clubs (all four "or more"), how often will a heart fit exist?

 

Is it worthwhile to cater to those rare occurrences in order to find that 4-4 fit in hearts, or is it more worthwhile to focus spades with a clear and unambiguous auction and thereby have a better auction on the hands when we simply have a spade fit?

 

The major-neurotic approach of bidding 2♥ as Opener is fairly common. However, that type of call caters to the same situation of finding that major fit alternative to what will be in many instances a spade fit (when the decision matters), at the cost of not discovering as easily a possible diamond fit and possible diamond slam.

 

Plus, a big unknown, maybe the 4-4 fit would actually gain nothing on some of these occasions.

 

Thus, it seems like cost-benefit. You sacrifice an occasional inferior 5-3 spade fit instead of a superior 4-4 heart fit (maybe inferior and superior) to gain better spade agreement auctions and better diamond-strain exploration.

[jdonn]

I don't get it, don't you rebid 2♥ with a 5-4-4-0?

No I would bid 2D. 2D still allows for finding a heart fit but 2H makes it very hard to find a diamond fit.

I would bid 2♦ also with a 5=4=4=0.

 

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

I would bid 2♥ with that shape, very surprised you wouldn't. What is the downside, that when you have a heart fit you will have shown diamonds on the way? I can live with that. On any auction where partner doesn't raise, you save more room bidding hearts since you can make your third bid more cheaply.

[pclayton]

I'm wondering how everyone is expecting to find a 4-4 heart fit when they choose to show spade support with the OP.

I don't think anyone is actually trying to find a heart fit after this sequence.

 

The questions, IMO, are these:

 

If Opener has five spades and four diamonds, and if Responder has three spades with four clubs (all four "or more"), how often will a heart fit exist?

 

Is it worthwhile to cater to those rare occurrences in order to find that 4-4 fit in hearts, or is it more worthwhile to focus spades with a clear and unambiguous auction and thereby have a better auction on the hands when we simply have a spade fit?

 

The major-neurotic approach of bidding 2♥ as Opener is fairly common. However, that type of call caters to the same situation of finding that major fit alternative to what will be in many instances a spade fit (when the decision matters), at the cost of not discovering as easily a possible diamond fit and possible diamond slam.

 

Plus, a big unknown, maybe the 4-4 fit would actually gain nothing on some of these occasions.

 

Thus, it seems like cost-benefit. You sacrifice an occasional inferior 5-3 spade fit instead of a superior 4-4 heart fit (maybe inferior and superior) to gain better spade agreement auctions and better diamond-strain exploration.

What are we worried about missing after 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥?

 

When owner has six spades, we'll find out about it right now. Same with 4 hearts. We'll never miss a 6-2 spade fit.

 

Instead if we choose to raise to 2♠, then opener will pattern (even though I know that's not your style Ken), although we may be marooned in spades which you don't think is a big deal (I disagree).

 

I am acutely aware of the implications of showing primarily spade support on the 3rd round instead of the 2nd, and I want to probe this matter more.