Help me bid these

[TimG]

Playing standard there isn't much to add to jdonn's post. Some might bid 3H over 3C and then it would be a lot harder.

I think this explains why there wasn't much more discussion about the standard sequence.

 

FWIW, I did rebid 3H over 3C and it was harder, so hard that we could not bid the slam.

[jdonn]

Playing standard there isn't much to add to jdonn's post. Some might bid 3H over 3C and then it would be a lot harder.

I think this explains why there wasn't much more discussion about the standard sequence.

 

FWIW, I did rebid 3H over 3C and it was harder, so hard that we could not bid the slam.

3♥ is really a more descriptive bid, so I wouldn't be hard on yourself. I simply find it to be a less effective bid, since it's certainly common partner wants to support hearts.

[han]

For what its worth:

 

I posted a somewhat different version of this problem in a couple other forums:

 

In both cases, I provided folks with the following hand

 

Axxxx

xxx

Kx

AQx

 

explained that partner had opened 1♥, and asked what their response would be. In a somewhat suprising development, no one recommended a 2♣ response. Absolutely everyone responded 1♠. (A number of very good players couldn't even fathom why I bothered to ask this question)

 

I hate to suggest that many folks around here let their knowledge of opener's hand bias their response. However, it does seem fairly likely to me.

 

I am completely unconvinced about the merits of a 2♣ response playing "standard" methods. (I considered it particularly useless in for Tim and I since we're playing KS and 1H - 2C doesn't establish a game force)

 

I readily agree that a relay system will do a great job with these hands. An artificial 2♣ response that shows club or a balanced GF will also work fine. However, none of these response address the core question:

 

If you are playing standard methods, how should these hands best be bid? Personally, I found Josh's post the most interesting. I think its interesting to draw out the relative merits of the 3♦ and 3♥ rebids on the third round of the auction.

Hi Richard,

 

I agree with everything you wrote, except for the sentence that it is the knowledge of partner's hand that makes people bid 2C. Ken for example is well known as a proponent of bidding 2C with such hands, and many of us do play that 2C is GF with clubs or a GF balanced hand. By the way, is that really less standard than KS?

[han]

Adam, what does 2/1 have to do with it? And why have such players given up on playing 1NT after 1H-1S-1NT?

Okay, I will explain this slowly.

 

Playing the convention I described gives you substantial benefits in a number of situations. These include:

 

(1) When opener has a natural 2♦ rebid you will have much better auctions.

(2) When opener has a natural 3♦ rebid, you will have better auctions.

(3) When opener has a spade raise, including the dreaded bridge world death hand, you will have much better auctions because of the artificial 2♦ rebid showing a good spade raise.

 

The only negative to this convention is that you lose a natural 1NT rebid. Thus you can no longer play in 1NT in the auction that starts 1♥-1♠. So the question is, how big of a problem is that? Is it a sufficiently big problem that it outweighs all of the benefits of (1)-(3)? Obviously I cannot prove anything one way or another. But I can make this statement:

 

A very substantial number of bridge players have given up on playing in 1NT after they open 1♠, because they play a forcing 1NT response. Many of these players also give up on playing 1NT after they open 1♥, except possibly for the case where partner responds in spades at the one level. Some people who play "Kaplan Inversion" have given up on playing 1NT completely after they open 1♥. Of course, it is possible that all these players could be "wrong" and that in fact it might be very important to be able to play in 1NT after opening 1M. But the fact that so many players (including many very good players) have given up on playing 1NT after they open 1M in so many sequences, in exchange for various other mild gains elsewhere in their methods, suggests that the ability to play in 1NT after opening 1M is probably not that valuable.

 

I will also make the point that a lot of people like to raise partner's major suit response on three cards. If this is you, then a lot of 35(32) hands will end up raising spades after 1♥-1♠. This makes the already infrequent 1NT rebid even rarer (even if you add a few 15(34) patterns it tends not to compensate for the 35(32) ones). It does not make a whole lot of sense to play a method where opener's cheapest rebid is also among the least frequent, but because of the combination of promising limited strength and very limited shape, a 2♣ or 2♦ or 2♥ or 2♠ rebid will be a lot more frequent than 1NT in standard methods. This also suggests that my treatment (or in any case a treatment where opener's 1NT rebid is more common) has merit.

Thank you for your kind explanation. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I misunderstood your convention the first time around, I think your gadget is a nice idea because the standard sequence 1H-1S-2D-3C is truly awful. I do like to be able to play 1NT after 1M openings so I consider it a minus not to be able to do so. But then, almost all conventions come with a price.

[hrothgar]

Many of us do play that 2C is GF with clubs or a GF balanced hand. By the way, is that really less standard than KS?

KS uses a fairly boring response structure over 1M openings

 

2/1 are strong and forcing, though they don't establish an absolute game force

1NT is forcing. There are a few (minor) deviations from norm, but most of those are specific to rebids and the like.

 

I can't speak about Europe, but here in NA I'd guess that this is MUCH more more common than the 2♣ gimmick

[han]

You may be right. Over 1S most 2/1 players would bid 2C on 3-4-3-3 shapes but I guess only few will bid 1H-2C on a 3-card suit. And doing it systemically with 2 is not GCC legal, I believe.

[hrothgar]

You may be right. Over 1S most 2/1 players would bid 2C on 3-4-3-3 shapes but I guess only few will bid 1H-2C on a 3-card suit. And doing it systemically with 2 is not GCC legal, I believe.

I'm not sure about issues related to GCC legality...

 

I've heard arguments that an artifical GF 2♣is legal, so long as it doesn't fall afoul of the "relay system" prohibition.

 

Regretfully, I don't think that anyone actually understands what the relay system prohibition actually bans

[kenrexford]

I cannot imagine that I saw a post and commented without suggesting 2♣ where Advancer has ♠Axxxx ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣AQx. That's a screamer 2♣ for me. I must have missed that one.