what call after a 2/1 sequence?

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saqhxxxdaqxxxcj10x]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠-2♦

2♠-??[/hv]

2♦ forcing to game, 2♠ did not promise 6, what's your rebid?

[ochinko]

3♣ hoping to right-side 3NT. Partner must have points somewhere even if 2♠ means minimal opening.

 

If partner bids 4♣ instead I'm correcting to 4♠.

[Codo]

I bid 3 ♣ and later 3 Spade if pd asks me with 3 ♥.

[P_Marlowe]

2NT.

 

I guess, you have to ask yourself, which lie

is the least crime in your eyes.

 

2NT showes the bal. nature of your hand, but

promises stopper in the undbid suits.

3C showes values in clubs, which you have, ...

sort of, but indicates also a unbal. hand.

 

Take your pick.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

3♣, lets see what p really has.

[helene_t]

3♠.

[dicklont]

3♦ I must repeat my diamonds or lie.

It looks awfull but it's not so bad.

Either partner bids 3NT now, or else I finally support his spades.

[P_Marlowe]

3♦ I must repeat my diamonds or lie.

It looks awfull but it's not so bad.

Either partner bids 3NT now, or else I finally support his spades.

I am pretty sure 3D showes a six carder, i.e.

3D is also a lie ...

 

I wont argue with you, if this is a lesser or a bigger

lie than 2NT, 3C or 3S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

2NT, surprised to see any disagreement here.

[Finch]

2NT, surprised to see any disagreement here.

Surely the system bid is 2NT here. You don't have 3-card spade support, you don't have another suit to bid, you don't have 6 diamonds...

 

You don't want to bid 2NT with nothing much in either black suit? Then call it 3-card spade support and raise spades. I don't hate that totally, but it's no different from e.g.

 

xx

AKx

Qxx

AKQxx

 

after 1C P 1H ? when most people shrug their shoulders and make the normal systemic rebid of 2NT; if you want to invent a diamond reverse here, then invent a spade raise on the original question.

 

 

p.s. this hand is another advertisement for playing artificial continuations after a 2/1. It never fails to surprise me how few people play anything complex here when they play such detailed and sophisticated e.g. 1NT methods.

[dburn]

Perhaps people believe (correctly) that if you have to play artificial continuations over 2/1 in order to reach the right contract, you should not bother playing 2/1 in the first place.

[jdonn]

Perhaps people believe (correctly) that if you have to play artificial continuations over 2/1 in order to reach the right contract, you should not bother playing 2/1 in the first place.

Are you saying people shouldn't open 1NT, over which almost all bids are artificial?

 

I think what to bid here is greatly influenced by what 3NT by partner would mean if I bid 3♠ now. Even to the point that I base my current choice on that.

[Finch]

Perhaps people believe (correctly) that if you have to play artificial continuations over 2/1 in order to reach the right contract, you should not bother playing 2/1 in the first place.

eh?

 

As jdonn says, if the true test of a method is whether you need to play artificial continuations over it to make it worthwhile, we'd better give up opening 1NT, or 2C.

[awm]

I like 3♠ here. If partner has stuff in both unbid suits and only five spades, he would have bid 2NT over 2♦. So we either have a spade fit or there is a wide-open suit; in either case spades is highly likely to be the best strain.

 

Perhaps dburn's point is that we could play 2♣ relay over 1M (for example). This has the advantage of leading to pretty accurate auctions. The main reason people don't play it (as best I can tell) is that it requires a lot of artificial followups and a lot of memory work. But if playing 2/1 doesn't let you get to the right contract without a similar amount of artificiality and memorization, we might as well all switch to 2♣ relay and free up our other 2/1 responses for invitational hands (or some artificial meaning like strong raises).

[jdonn]

I like 3♠ here. If partner has stuff in both unbid suits and only five spades, he would have bid 2NT over 2♦.

Not with a singleton diamond.

[fred]

Yes 3S is supposed to show 3-card support, but my judgment suggests that it is more likely that 2NT will lead to a bad 3NT than that 3S will lead to a bad 4S.

 

There is no bid that describes this hand so just go with what you think rates to work best. For me that would be 3S.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[skjaeran]

3♣ shows 5-5 to me, so that's definitely out on JTx.

The alternatives would be 2NT and 3♠. 3♠ probably gives us the best chance for reaching the best spot.

[han]

OK, I should take back what I wrote earlier. I don't dislike 3S even though I never do this with 2 spades. I don't agree with part of what Fred wrote (that 2NT misdescribes this hand) but I do agree that 2NT may lead to the wrong contract when 3S won't.

 

As Josh wrote, part of the reason about not bidding 3S here is that 3NT by partner would not be a suggestion to play there for me, 3S gives up on playing in 3NT. Also, I don't bid 2NT as opener with diamond shortness as Adam does. If you do then that makes it less likely that 3NT is the best contract.

 

Still think that 3C and 3D should not be options on this hand.

[jdonn]

I'll mention that if you want artificial followups that are pretty simple, after a 2/1 that isn't in the suit right below opener's (so 1♠ 2♣, 1♠ 2♦, 1♥ 2♣), simply reverse the cheapest rebid with the suit rebid, and allow responder to 'support' the major with a doubleton if he can on the 2 level. All bidding after that can be essentially natural and very simple, although you can also do more complicated things if you want.

 

So I would be very happy to start this hand 1♠ 2♦ 2♥* 2♠, and base my next bid on whatever opener does.

 

It's true in a sense you create a new problem when opener has the second suit instead, but I believe this is both less common, and less damaging since it's a more informative bid. I have played this or things like it for years with lots of partners, and been very happy with it.

[Finch]

I'll mention that if you want artificial followups that are pretty simple, after a 2/1 that isn't in the suit right below opener's (so 1♠ 2♣, 1♠ 2♦, 1♥ 2♣), simply reverse the cheapest rebid with the suit rebid, and allow responder to 'support' the major with a doubleton if he can on the 2 level. All bidding after that can be essentially natural and very simple, although you can also do more complicated things if you want.

 

So I would be very happy to start this hand 1♠ 2♦ 2♥* 2♠, and base my next bid on whatever opener does.

 

It's true in a sense you create a new problem when opener has the second suit instead, but I believe this is both less common, and less damaging since it's a more informative bid. I have played this or things like it for years with lots of partners, and been very happy with it.

This is approximately what I do: step 1 by opener is the 'default' bid and everything else shows something special e.g. 1S - 2D - 2S shows 6 spades.

 

We've added some more artificiality recently, but the cost/benefit isn't as good as that first basic step.

[helene_t]

I thought it was obvious that 3NT by opener over my 3♠ would be natural but with hindsight I think it should probably be frivolous 3NT or whatever. In that case I am not so sure about 3♠. Hard to come up with a lesser evil, though.

[dburn]

Perhaps people believe (correctly) that if you have to play artificial continuations over 2/1 in order to reach the right contract, you should not bother playing 2/1 in the first place.

Are you saying people shouldn't open 1NT, over which almost all bids are artificial?

No - there is a considerable advantage to opening 1NT in the first place, since it provides a much more informative description of your hand than any other opening bid (except possibly 3NT or 7NT). Moreover, the various artificialities that people have devised over 1NT openings have provided measurable advantages over a long period of time.

 

The principal advantage claimed for 2/1 game-forcing, however, is that it provides a ready-made framework in which players can for the most part bid naturally, because they have enough space not to need artificial bids to describe their hands. If you then decide that even within this framework you need to make artificial bids anyway (from opener's rebid onwards) it seems to me that you might as well not bother - just play 1X-2♣ or even 1X-1NT as a relay.

 

Having said that, jdonn's suggestion appears at first sight to have the advantages of simplicity and efficiency possessed by many of the common methods of responding to 1NT. Whether it is as memorable, I am not sure (for example, if 1♠-2♦-2♥ is the "default bid" while 2♠ shows six spades, how does opener show four hearts?) But I am always prepared to be convinced of anything, except that celery is food.

[jdonn]

The principal advantage claimed for 2/1 game-forcing, however, is that it provides a ready-made framework in which players can for the most part bid naturally, because they have enough space not to need artificial bids to describe their hands. If you then decide that even within this framework you need to make artificial bids anyway (from opener's rebid onwards) it seems to me that you might as well not bother - just play 1X-2♣ or even 1X-1NT as a relay.

Fair enough. I have no real experience playing 2♣ as a complete relay, but I'm sure it works well.

 

Having said that, jdonn's suggestion appears at first sight to have the advantages of simplicity and efficiency possessed by many of the common methods of responding to 1NT. Whether it is as memorable, I am not sure (for example, if 1♠-2♦-2♥ is the "default bid" while 2♠ shows six spades, how does opener show four hearts?) But I am always prepared to be convinced of anything, except that celery is food.

I guess my explanation wasn't very clear.

2♥ = Any hands that would have rebid 2♠, including 6+ spades.

2♠ = 4+ hearts.

 

I like celery.

[mike777]

It seems 3s describes 12 of my 13 hcp....not sure how many spades I am suppose to promise for this bid in this style of 2/1. It seems in this stated style 3s may not even promise which game we are trying for yet.

 

Since I play 2s promises 6 now 3s is a slam try.

[pclayton]

2N.

 

If pard raises to 3 I will feel as though we are in the right spot, since pard will most likely be 5=3=2=3 but didn't want to rebid 2N because of a weakness somwhere. Over 3x, I have an easy 3♠ call, although I will probably just bid 4♠.

 

3N will be wrong sided for the 1st trick.

 

If I raise to 3♠, I can never get to 3N, because its frivolous.