2009 and still dont get it

[awm]

I think 3♠ by opener over 2♠ is really clear-cut. Responder can then pass, and 3♠ has good chances to make.

 

It is standard in modern 2/1 that 1NT...2M preference is a fairly wide-ranging sequence and could be quite weak. Passing opening bids with a reasonable 6 hcp is not part of standard or 2/1 (it is a possible tactic in the context of a strong club system of course).

 

Opener needs something like two-three cover cards to make game. While this is possible (for example ♠Jx ♥AKx ♦JTxx ♣xxxx is a possible hand and game is great) it is by no means guaranteed.

[jillybean]

No, ... just nonsense, I used a word with bull in it, but deleted it,

because you seemed to be sensible, if it comes to language, this

was at least 2008 the case, maybe tis changed 2009?

I'd like to think Im sensible when it comes to the use of language but I think you may have meant sensitive? And yes, I still am sensitive in 2009, it wasn’t one of my resolutions to change that. Thanks for being sensible. :)

[dicklont]

1♠ - 1NT

2♥ - 2♠

shows a weak raise, and could be done with doubleton (maybe less?) support.

Opener takes a shot at game and has only himself or bad luck to blame, but not his partner.

 

BTW: I don't like the 2♥ bid at all; 2♠ is my call after 1NT.

[P_Marlowe]

jilly, pard's comment was just a ready-made excuse for his unsucessful flyer :)

why was it unsucessful, when he could pass?

 

Here's is a quote from the following respected site-- and you can find similar things in books:

 

http://www.bridgehands.com/Conventions/Two...rcing%20Notrump

 

In the section about forcing no trump

 

When partner opens 1S, the responder has a limited number of options which we respond in this sequence:

 

1. Pass, with less than a good 5 or 6 point hand

 

2. Raise opener’s Spade suit, with 3+ in opener’s major

 

3. Bid a new suit at the 2 level or higher. If responder’s bid is at the 2 level,

the 2/1 response is game forcing.

 

Hi,

 

Fine, and what will I do with a hand, which conatains

2 spades and 7 HCP, an example would be, if you add

a jack somewhere to the original hand.

Of course 2 kings are making the 6 HCP contained to a

good 6 count, but I am not going to discuss good / bad 6

counts in this thread.

 

The hand is hopefully strong enough, so that

#1 is no option

 

Given the fact, that we only have 2 spades

#2 is no option

 

The hand is certainly not strong enough, so that

#3 is an option

 

The only bid left between 1S and a bid on the 2 level is 1NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[matmat]

1. Pass, with less than a good 5 or 6 point hand

are you really arguing that this says this hand should pass?

 

just so we are clear... "less than" is not the same as "less than or equal."

 

two kings, is still 6HCP, and it is manifestly NOT less than 6HCP.

 

you do not pass this hand.

[Codo]

You can pass this hand, but doing so is highly speculative, it is absolute normal to bid 1 NT.

Partners 4 ♠ bid was speculative too. 3 ♠ is enough.

[bid_em_up]

BTW: I don't like the 2♥ bid at all; 2♠ is my call after 1NT.

Anyone who refuses to bid 2♥ on this holding deserves this dummy:

 

[hv=s=shkqxxxdkxxxcxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

[kenrexford]

Ken, reverse Flannery is a response, not an opening. Please clarify it as "Rexfordian modified Flannery" so we know what we are talking about.

 

Anyway, you could have passed 2♥, but 2♠ is probably the mainstream bid.

Huh?

 

I specifically play that a 2♦ opening shows five spades and four (or five) hearts, a.k.a. "Reverse Flannery," in one partnership. That convention has been around for years.

[Fluffy]

in Europe reverse F*** is not that I think. With my Italian friend we played 1♣-(ps)-2♦ as 4♠-5♥ weak, and 1♣-ps-2♥ as same shape 10-11. He told me that one of them was reverse F***, don't remember wich

[jdonn]

Ken, reverse Flannery is a response, not an opening. Please clarify it as "Rexfordian modified Flannery" so we know what we are talking about.

 

Anyway, you could have passed 2♥, but 2♠ is probably the mainstream bid.

Huh?

 

I specifically play that a 2♦ opening shows five spades and four (or five) hearts, a.k.a. "Reverse Flannery," in one partnership. That convention has been around for years.

The convention may have been around but the name is understood as the response, not the opening bid. Besides you could argue that calling an opening 'reverse flannery' should show 4 diamonds and 5 clubs.

[skjaeran]

The 1NT response and 2♠ preference are both absolutely normal, those are the bids any sane player would make. The jump to 4♠ are the only bid here that should be questioned. (Some wouldn't rebid 2♥, but bid_em_up shows why rebidding spades would be wrong.)

[jdonn]

Hmm I would rebid spades not hearts. True you could belong in hearts, but partner might also pass when spades is better (like if he is 1-3), and a major problem is that bidding hearts hampers partner's evaluation badly if he goes back to spades and you bid 3.

[mikeh]

Jb, as many have already posted, the fault lies with partner, not with you. It is your partner who 'doesn't get it'.

 

As for what I would do.... 2♥ is the best route to game IF partner has a maximum, and hearts, and I think it is the best call. Yes, josh is correct in that 2♥ may see partner pass with a poor hand and 1=3 in the majors.. but we are not down yet, and the hand may well not play any better in spades on that layout.

 

In the meantime, the money is in the game bidding, and there can be no doubt but that 2♥ will lead to more decent game contracts than will 2♠.

 

Now to opener.. having got a preference to 2♠, personally, I would pass... this hand is not (remotely) as good as it might seem... compare to AKQxxx Axxx Qx x.. same hcp, same shape.. entirely different playing strength.

 

Partner can't bid 2N... partner has only 2 spades, or (for some) 3 spades and a truly horrible hand, and we have a LOT of heart losers, and my minor Ace is stiff!

 

These are huge danger signs.. there will be many hands on which partner will properly move if we so much as breathe an invitation, on which we have very little or no play. I really think that bidding over 2♠ is anti-percentage.