Playing 2/1

[sceptic]

[hv=d=w&v=a&n=skjhq2dkt32cakt83&w=sqt54hk8daj987c42&e=s7632hjt543d5cqj6&s=sa98ha976dq64c975]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 Pass  1♣    Pass  1♥

 Pass  2♦    Pass  3♣

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

 

I bid 3 Clubs would 2NT be better, what would your call be

[Echognome]

A couple of points.

 

1. It's impossible to answer what the "right" bid without knowing your system.

 

2. Given that the "expert standard" you will find on this forum involves some type of Lebensohl or Ingberman over a reverse, most will play that your 3♣ is a forcing call that your partner passed (who obviously thought that 3♣ was NF).

 

3. Your partners choice to reverse with his hand was suspect and hopefully he did not decide to pass a forcing bid because he thought he was too light for his earlier actions.

 

4. I think most will agree with your 3♣ call given that it is forcing. You have a huge hand in support of clubs with diamonds as a secondary suit. Unfortunately, your partner didn't have much of a reverse.

[hrothgar]

There are a lot of different issues that need to be considered:

 

First, I think that the 2♦ reverse is abhorent on this hand. I consider this a pretty clear cut 1NT opening. If I weren't allowed to open 1N, I'd open 1♦ and rebid 2♣.

 

Second, I suspect that many (most ?) folks treat 3♣ as forcing....

[EricK]

After a reverse, you need some way of showing support for partner's first suit in a forcing manner without going past 3NT. Most, I think, play something artificial (a Lebensohl-ish 2NT for instance) so that your 3♣ would have been forcing.

 

If partner is going to pass 3♣, then he would likely pass 2NT as well, so that is no improvement. In such circumstances, probably the best you can do is bid 3NT, knowing that partner will not know what to do if he has eg a 1-3-4-5 hand.

 

FWIW, I think the North hand should simply open 1NT. This certainly simplifies everything (but might, depending on your methods, risk getting to an inferior 4M if partner has a 5521 type)

[matmat]

First, I think that the 2♦ reverse is abhorent on this hand.  I consider this a pretty clear cut 1NT opening.  If I weren't allowed to open 1N, I'd open 1♦ and rebid 2♣.

I agree that 2♦ is awful.

If I were not allowed to open 1N, however, I'd open 1♣ and rebid 1N, and if i were not allowed to do that I would thank my p for a lovely set of hands, point out that he perhaps doesn't enjoy playing the same kind of bridge that I do and never play with them again.

[sceptic]

no lebensohl what so ever agreed with my p

[paulg]

Your hand is worth game opposite a reverse and it's unclear where you wish to play.

 

In the absence of any agreement which, to be fair, is the position we'd all be in even if this were the forum indy, I suggest a 4th suit 2♠ is the bid least likely to be misunderstood. It may get a little murky afterwards, but it does not consume much space and at least it creates a forcing auction.

 

I won't comment on your partner's actions as you can only bid your own hand.

 

Paul

[Walddk]

Let me guess that this pair had no agreements regarding Lebensohl, Ingberman, whatever.

 

- 1. North does not have a reverse.

- 2. South had a perfectly normal 2NT*, given that the above mentioned conventions did not exist for them.

 

* In a pick-up partnership I would have bid 3NT, fearing that partner might pass 2NT. One of the reasons why I dislike pick-up partnerships with no agreements whatsoever. "2/1, partner?"

 

Roland

[kenberg]

I confess to being the anonymous partner here and I completely agree with all of the criticism and apologized after the hand. I was, as sometimes happens, far too quick to act, giving things little thought.

 

The sequence was something like:

1. Oh, I have an opening hand and clubs: 1C

2. Good God, what have I done, well maybe I can reverse and get out of this alive, 2D

3. Well, we haven't discussed this, maybe pard plays 3C as weak. I hope so.

 

 

Afterwards I said something along the lines of

I apologize, I'm fine with playing 3C as a non-minimum hand. My fault.

 

Some decisions I will defend even if no one else agrees. This isn't one of them.

 

 

Not in any way a defense but an observation: Of all the sequences that cause mishaps playing online, those that start with a reverse seem to be by far the most error prone in my experience. But I am not defending my choices here, not any of them.

 

Wayne: If you like, next time we play we could do the following:

After a reverse into 2D, the unbid major is weak until further notice and is a relay to clubs often for sign off.

After a reverse into a major, 2N is a relay.

In either case, rebidding the major at the 2 level is passable, anything else is forcing.

This may not be optimal, but I think it is playable.

[mike777]

1) Have north open 1nt

2) After reverse I play 3c as game forcing, would rebid 2nt or 2h(5 hearts) with nonforcing hand

[sceptic]

so as I know quite well 2 spades is game forcing ( and almost bid it)(and I did have a game forcing hand)( never considered 2nt as I assumed that is passable), is 3 clubs non forcing ( standard 2/1 ?)as I have had similar issues before with other pards with no lebensohl or ingbergman agreements

[the hog]

Agree totally with Richard.

[H_KARLUK]

I bid 2♠(4th SF). Maybe helps to play 3NT from correct side

[kenberg]

I am fine with Wayne's 3C bid and said so at the time. I have never seen the point of using 2S as fsf if 3C is already forcing. There is nothing to prevent opener (me in this case) from showing three card hard support over 3C if that is what I have, or from bidding 3N to get 3N played from my side (grab that nt) if with a different hand I think that is right. It seems to me that one of the calls, 2S or 2N, should be a relay to clubs and the other should show some values in the strain called, both forcing. I think that 2S is the more natural choice for a relay, with 2N then showing a stopper, but perhaps that is a minority view.

 

Playing pick-up we do what we can. But definitely I was off base here. Way off.

[Wackojack]

I was kibbing this hand and was critical of Wayne. The reverse (although sub minimum) can sometimes pay off if you find you can get to 6♣ when you otherwise would not if you open 1NT. OTOH a response of 3♣ after the reverse to 2♦ has no possible advantages in the absence of any agreed Ingberman or similar gadgets. Then surely 3♣ can reasonably be taken as showing minumum preference. After all there is a ready alternative of 2♠ that should keeps all options open. In all partnerships and in particular pick-ups, one should strive to avoid possible disasters. In the long run pragmatic bids score better than clever plunges into the unknown. Dont be the "Unlucky Expert"

[Tola18]

.... in the absence of any agreed Ingberman or similar gadgets. ...

I wonder. If you want to play simple, uncomplicated and good bridge Sayc with a pick up partner is what the doctor prescibes. If you propose 2/1 then you automatically agrees on the usual standard gadgets.

In any case, I think many takes it so.

 

 

Otherwise I agree with your comments. Like also with the openers Kenbergs comment the reverse is dangerous for pick up pairs. I want to add: especielly if they are under good adv level.

[kenberg]

I sort of agree except for the implicit suggestion that there is something called "the usual standard gadgets" when playing 2/1. I don't much care for Bergen raises, I do like Drury, I prefer it as reverse, clubs only, over both third and fourth, on if 2C is available as a call. Some folks agree with my choices, some prefer some changes, some prefer other changes. And we haven't yet gotten to whether 1H-2D-2H shows six hearts.

 

As it happens, Wayne had told the opponents that they were free to discuss the meaning of their bids during the auction, so it was a pretty informal setting. I am fine with that for the opps but I am almost congenitally incapable of asking my partner what his bid means, the words just stick in my throat (or in the word processor). I'm fine with informal but my way of informal is to just accept the disaster from time to time. No money changes hands. If the hand is too ridiculous to play out, then redeal.

 

 

If I am playing in a tourney, unless I know my partner pretty well, I completely agree that SAYC, or maybe BBO basic which is a close relative, is the way to go. Actually, SAYC with Capp (not officially part of SAYC) and nmf, I think is the way to go.

[sceptic]

I was kibbing this hand and was critical of Wayne. The reverse (although sub minimum) can sometimes pay off

 

That sort of game plan does not make it right or wrong, just lucky and that to me is bad bridge :P something, I could put expert on my profile and would not get critisised for :)