2x2/1 questions

[jillybean]

Playing 2/1, Jacoby2nt

 

#1. 1M:1nt 2x:2nt

Do you play 2nt shows balanced 11-12ish or something else?

 

 

#2. Holding gf 3433, 3343, 3442 partner opens 1♠, how do you respond?

[cherdanno]

#1. Balanced, good 10 to bad 12.

#2. 2C when I have 3 clubs, 2D with 3442.

[jillybean]

#1. Balanced, good 10 to bad 12.

#2. 2C when I have 3 clubs, 2D with 3442.

So 2♣ with 3343 ?

[Walddk]

#1. Balanced, good 10 to bad 12.

#2. 2C when I have 3 clubs, 2D with 3442.

So 2♣ with 3343 ?

Agree with Arend on all counts. Yes, 2♣ is the most flexible call with 3433. 2♥ shows 5+.

 

Roland

[cherdanno]

#1. Balanced, good 10 to bad 12.

#2. 2C when I have 3 clubs, 2D with 3442.

So 2♣ with 3343 ?

Yes (and with 3433).

[jdonn]

Even with 3442 it's not that crazy. Think of it as having the agreement that 2♣ is either balanced or clubs, and for the time being opener simply treats it as clubs. He just has to remember not to insist on clubs if responder rebids notrump or supports opener's major.

 

Anyway I would bid 2♣ on any 3433 type hand, and 3442 with bad diamonds. Doing this always seems foreign to people who are unfamiliar with it and sometimes they resist, but it works.

[mikeh]

Even with 3442 it's not that crazy. Think of it as having the agreement that 2♣ is either balanced or clubs, and for the time being opener simply treats it as clubs. He just has to remember not to insist on clubs if responder rebids notrump or supports opener's major.

 

Anyway I would bid 2♣ on any 3433 type hand, and 3442 with bad diamonds. Doing this always seems foreign to people who are unfamiliar with it and sometimes they resist, but it works.

I agree entirely.

 

The purpose of making 2♥ show 5 is to allow opener to raise with 3 (thus avoiding tortuous auctions in which they have a 5-3 fit, but opener can't raise immediately, amongst other issues).

 

The purpose of making 2♦ promise a good suit, if based on a 4 card holding, is that while the auction will often end up in notrump or opener's major, on occasion we might want to explore for a minor suit slam, or a minor suit game, even on a 4-4, and when that happens, it is often critical that the trump holding be robust. Once you play one high contract with Jxxx opposite Kxxx, you begin to learn the attraction of the method described by josh.

[Stephen Tu]

Keep in mind that 2c=bal or clubs is a special agreement, not vanilla 2/1.

Without discussion most people would be surprised with 2c (rather than 2d) on 3442/3343, though not surprised with 3433.

 

There are also alternative non-std ways around this, some involve ditching J2nt for old-fashioned natural (as in fredg's 2/1 articles), others put some of these hands in 1ntf (which then better never be passed!).

[jillybean]

I've happily been using 2♣ to create a gf holding 3343's etc until we had an auction derail, I took the blame and was surprised to find it is not standard.

 

Do you alert 2♣ ?

[Stephen Tu]

2c should definitely be alerted if you are doing it on doubletons. I think you ought to alert it if you do it routinely with 3343/2443, it is unexpected.

[jillybean]

2c should definitely be alerted if you are doing it on doubletons.  I think you ought to alert it if you do it routinely with 3343, it is unexpected.

I agree its alertable but I dont think people do alert it.

[jdonn]

2c should definitely be alerted if you are doing it on doubletons.  I think you ought to alert it if you do it routinely with 3343, it is unexpected.

I agree its alertable but I dont think people do alert it.

It's probably technically not alertable with three, or at least the issue is debatable, since a minor suit call is considered natural with three. And given that there isn't much choice but 2♣ with 3433, holding 3343 is really not 'that' unusual (can your opponent really claim he would have done something differently if one of those shapes were possible but not both?) Still, alerting it is a nice courtesy, at the very least after the auction.

 

Yes it's definitely a special style/agreement, I guess I was taking your question literally, what would I do.

[jillybean]

delete

[Stephen Tu]

And given that there isn't much choice but 2♣ with 3433, holding 3343 is really not 'that' unusual (can your opponent really claim he would have done something differently if one of those shapes were possible but not both?)

 

I think so. At least it is possible that you might want to be able to double 2c to show clubs vs. an opponent who is bidding 2c on (3433/3343/2443/3442) while using it to show something else vs. an opponent who is only bidding 3cd clubs with (3433). The frequencies do change quite a bit when you are putting a lot of balanced hands in there.

[jonottawa]

Does nobody bid 3N with 3-3-3-4 or 3-3-4-3 and 13-15?

 

I'm one of those who find the idea of bidding 2♣ with 3-4-4-2 foreign. Have to lose a few IMPs before I buy.

[andy_h]

Does nobody bid 3N with 3-3-3-4 or 3-3-4-3 and 13-15?

That's correct, because there is no rush to punt the final contract. It may seem like the 'best' contract from your point of view, but certainly not partner's if partner has 5-5, 6-4 etc. 2♣ keeps all options open and allows a smooth auction to find the best strain (could even be 5m) and allows the leeway for cue-bidding. Imagine what 1M-3NT does.

[Phil]

1. A good 10 to a bad 12.

 

2. Depends. With intelligent partners, 2♣ can be short. With lesser partners, 1N followed by 4♠.

[Codo]

Does nobody bid 3N with 3-3-3-4 or 3-3-4-3 and 13-15?

That's correct, because there is no rush to punt the final contract. It may seem like the 'best' contract from your point of view, but certainly not partner's if partner has 5-5, 6-4 etc. 2♣ keeps all options open and allows a smooth auction to find the best strain (could even be 5m) and allows the leeway for cue-bidding. Imagine what 1M-3NT does.

I guess you misunderstood the concept:

 

3 NT promies a balanced hand with exactly 3 card support, no 4 card in the other major and 13-15 HCPS.

So it is no problem for partner to bid on.

 

(I do not claim that this idea is good or bad, just that it is different from your understanding.)

[kenrexford]

2♣ almost always.

 

3NT with 3343/3334 but only if the hand type is as agreed, meaning wither an "expect quacks" agreement or an "expect primes" agreement. I won't bid 3NT with this shape unless I'm purely quacked or purely primed, whichever partner wants me to have, and not either-or. Too hard for partner to know what to do when I could be quacked, primed, or blended.

[rbforster]

"standard" 2/1 I think is to have 2♥ 5+, 2♦ 3+ but usually 4, and 2♣ 3+. You can debate which minor to bid with 3433 (better one, probably).

 

If you're going to get into fancier treatments like bidding 2♣ on a doubleton, you should also give specific meanings to 2 other more obvious ways to show balanced hands:

 

1♠-3N

1♠-1N(f)-2X-3N

 

the latter could probably include 3433 since opener will have a chance to show his hearts if he has them.

[helene_t]

"standard" 2/1 I think is to have 2♥ 5+, 2♦ 3+ but usually 4, and 2♣ 3+. You can debate which minor to bid with 3433 (better one, probably).

Bidding 2♦ on a 3-card would be highly unusual, I think.

[jmcw]

1. = 10+ to 12

2. = 3NT, 3NT, 2♦

[rbforster]

Bidding 2♦ on a 3-card would be highly unusual, I think.

I guess I don't have firm agreements with my partners on this, but I would certainly respond 2♦ with

 

Kxx

Axxx

AKx

Jxx

 

rather than responding 2♣ barring any special understandings. I think with a 3433 hand, I'd be choose to bid my better minor and while I might pick clubs if things were close, I'm certainly not bidding 2♣ on xxx vs 2♦ on AKQ :)

[jdonn]

Bidding 2♦ on a 3-card would be highly unusual, I think.

I guess I don't have firm agreements with my partners on this, but I would certainly respond 2♦ with

 

Kxx

Axxx

AKx

Jxx

 

rather than responding 2♣ barring any special understandings. I think with a 3433 hand, I'd be choose to bid my better minor and while I might pick clubs if things were close, I'm certainly not bidding 2♣ on xxx vs 2♦ on AKQ :)

I certainly wouldn't call that standard 2/1. Part of the purpose behind responding 2♣ on balanced hands is so 2♦ can always promise a real suit.

[RichMor]

Bidding 2♦ on a 3-card would be highly unusual, I think.

I guess I don't have firm agreements with my partners on this, but I would certainly respond 2♦ with

 

Kxx

Axxx

AKx

Jxx

 

rather than responding 2♣ barring any special understandings. I think with a 3433 hand, I'd be choose to bid my better minor and while I might pick clubs if things were close, I'm certainly not bidding 2♣ on xxx vs 2♦ on AKQ :)

I certainly wouldn't call that standard 2/1. Part of the purpose behind responding 2♣ on balanced hands is so 2♦ can always promise a real suit.

The hand is similar to one that appeared in an old MSC problem. A small plurality voted for 2♣ but several voted for 2♦.

 

The vote assumed 2NT was a forcing major raise.

 

I have no strong opinion but would generally respond 2♣ with 3=4=3=3 unless the Diamonds were much stronger.

 

RichM