Which bid should be ambigous?

[Bende]

Consider a 2/1 system with the following agreements:

 

a) 2-over-1 is game forcing even if suit is re-bid

b) 1M - 2NT = 3+ support and invitational or 4+ support and GF

c) 1M - 2x; 2NT = 11-13 balanced, 20+ balanced or some unbalanced hands without a better bid available

d) 1M - 2x; 2M = 6+M, 14+

e) 1M - 2x; 3y = (non-jump) 5+M, 4+y, not complete minimum (13+, some slam interest)

g) 1M - 2x; jump = splinter in support of x

h) 1M - 2x; 3y - 4M = picture jump (i.e. not fast arrival)

i) non-serious 3NT when major is agreed

j) cue bid bypassing non-serious 3NT shows stronger slam interest

 

Holding the following hand

 

♠92

♥AKJ95

♦KJ8

♣874

 

you hear partner open 1♠, you bid a game forcing 2♥ and partner bids an at least semi-positive 3♦. Now, it would be nice if 3♥ showed a 6+suit, 3♠ showed 3-card support and 3NT showed a club stopper. However that seem to leave us without a bid.

 

Now for my questions:

 

1. What would you bid with the following hand?

2. If you think that the only reason for being in this difficult position is silly agreements, which agreement would you like to change?

[rbforster]

For this problem, I think I'd bid 3♥ to emphasize my nice ♥ suit, which will probably play better in 4♥ opposite Qx and short clubs than anywhere else. It also leaves as much space as possible for partner to bid 3N himself or 3♠ perhaps.

 

In general, I think you're always going to have this problem since partner can always make a space-consuming 3♦ rebid over your 2♥s. Perhaps expanding 1♠-2♥-2N to include hands with stoppers in both minors would help some, even allowing a stiff in hearts like 51(43). This would allow 1♠-2♥-3m to promises a purer hand with extra strength and/or a 5 card minor, so it's more reasonable that you make the 3N-vs-not decision purely on your own.

[jdonn]

I prefer 3NT to either 3♥ or 3♠. I think those bids are too important for either one to be ambiguous, but I'm not willing to bypass 3NT at this point. If we wrongside I just hope it ends up not mattering.

[Cascade]

I prefer 3NT to either 3♥ or 3♠. I think those bids are too important for either one to be ambiguous, but I'm not willing to bypass 3NT at this point. If we wrongside I just hope it ends up not mattering.

I am not worried so much about wrong siding I am worried about partner passing with a completely unsuitable club holding:

 

♠ AKxxx

♥ xx

♦ AQxxx

♣ x

 

or similar looks like an obvious pass to me.

[jdonn]

I agree, but I see no satisfactory way around it. Even if you could convince me 3♥ is right with this hand (in fact I'm probably changing my mind, I'm starting to regret my original choice) you couldn't if the hearts were just a little worse. And of course raising diamonds works best opposite a hand like yours, but if partner is 5143 or something then you have missed your 3NT to play in something probably ridiculous.

 

There is no doubt it's a tough situation.

[kenrexford]

Death auction. Every call east up the maximum amount of space.

 

I agree with the idea that rebidding hearts is the right call with a hole in clubs. I hate it, but what else can you do? 3NT is only right when Opener has clubs well-stopped, which means that he has short hearts, which means that he will bid 3NT anyway if we repeat hearts.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3NT is out, they will lead a club after this auction, and

we may or may not have a club stopper, and partner

will pass 3NT out, if he has a 5422 shape.

 

This leaves 3H and 3S, I did not find anything about 3S,

I guess it would promise a fit, setting the suit and showing

slam interest? (would be the conseq. of 2)) If yes, this is

out as well, hence 3H is what is left.

 

As a matter of fact, I am not sure, I would force to game

with the given hand, the hand looks like an invite, and

at least partially, the origin of your current problems is,

that you hold a dead (sub) min for the 2H call.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[fred]

It appears I see this problem differently than everyone else...

 

Where I come from, it is fine to bid 3S with a doubleton, but I think 4D is the right call with this hand.

 

I can (barely) stomach 3H, but my stomach is too weak for 3NT.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

We don't play 2/1 but this auction would be identical for us except that responder could be less than game force.

 

We have a general rule that when fourth suit is not available we can give false preference to opener's first suit.

[jdonn]

Admitting that I'm even more regretting 3NT and wish to change to 3♥, I don't care for 4♦. It is the only call the bypasses a contract that might be the right one. 3♠ on a doubleton is doable although if partner bids 4♦ it might lead to confusion in setting trumps (not on this hand, but if you want to cuebid or keycard). But I don't see why 3♥ should be that hard to stomach, a 5-2 heart fit is probably fine since our suit is good and we have the club length.

[gnasher]

Death auction. Every call east up the maximum amount of space.

I'm confused. Why haven't you told us that we should have responded 2♣?

[kenrexford]

Death auction.  Every call east up the maximum amount of space.

I'm confused. Why haven't you told us that we should have responded 2♣?

I only bid a manufactured 2♣ in one situation -- spade support, 3+ spades. Otherwise, my 1♣ call is normal (4+ if 2434, 2344, 2434). I might on occasion lie with a balanced hand, but not this hand.

 

I also don't like 4♦ because it preempts partner's ability to rebid spades effectively, BTW.

[fred]

2. If you think that the only reason for being in this difficult position is silly agreements, which agreement would you like to change?

I don't know if I would go as far as to call them "silly", but I think you will do better if you allow opener to be the one to make a more ambigious rebid. Either:

 

1) Allow opener to rebid 2S with a 5-card suit (my preference)

 

or

 

2) Allow opener to rebid 2NT with a wider variety of hands (it sounds like you are already leaning in this direction)

 

IMO you will often run into problems like this one (among others) unless opener's 3-level reverse is defined as either 5-5 with 2 strong suits or 5-4 with significant extra high card values with a strong 4-card holding in his second suit. This bid should be seen as a statement, not as a question.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

FWIW, this is the ONLY sequence where 4SF is not available, excepting jumps if jumps aren't specialized. Hence, there is probably cause to consider this auction specifically without adjusting anything else about the normal approach.

 

So, if you are going to make an exception, you can limit it precisely to (1) only when 1♠ is opened, (2) only when Responder bids 2♥, and (3) only if Opener has/bids diamonds.

[mich-b]

I would bid 3♠ now, which should show (for now) only a doubleton.

If I do have 3 card ♠ support, I can always bid spades again on the next round.

[whereagles]

I would fake a 6th heart and rebid 3♥.

 

The reason I deviate from a normal 3NT rebid isn't the lack of club stopper. Rather, it's the possibility that we end up in a silly 3NT when anything from 4♥ to 6♠ is the right contract.

 

By bidding 3♥ we might end up in a silly 4♥ contract, but we'll get to some good (and right-sided :)) 3NTs and a couple good 4M/6♦/6Ms.

 

So 3♥ seems to cater for more good contracts being reached than 3NT.

 

A good example to show that principles, like for instance "shape/strength first", should not be put before objectives (reaching the right contract). Following such a principle blindly would lead here to a 3NT rebid that could be right.. or wrong.

[whereagles]

I think 4D is the right call with this hand.

Must confess this is rather surprising to me. I can only mildly understand the bid if you now play that opener's 4M is not a cue but a proposal to play there.

 

And you'll still miss a couple 3NTs that are right, opposite, say a 5143 with 15 hcp or so.

[fred]

I think 4D is the right call with this hand.

Must confess this is rather surprising to me. I can only mildly understand the bid if you now play that opener's 4M is not a cue but a proposal to play there.

How I play the sequence is not really relevant, because I don't play anywhere close to the same schedule of opener's rebids after 2H that the OP presented.

 

But if you do play, like he does, that 3D doesn't really mean much, then it makes complete sense to me that 4H/4S over 4D are non-forcing. The theory is "game before slam". To me there is a reasonably strong case to play this way even if 3D is more narrowly defined.

 

And you'll still miss a couple 3NTs that are right, opposite, say a 5143 with 15 hcp or so.

 

Not if partner has a club stopper. He should bid 2NT instead of 3D with a hand like that.

 

If partner doesn't have a club stopper then you are right, but we are not going to get to 3NT no matter what I do in that case (unless I bid 3NT myself of course and that is not going to happen).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[y66]

Which bid should be ambiguous? 3S

 

I really like this problem.

[whereagles]

And you'll still miss a couple 3NTs that are right, opposite, say a 5143 with 15 hcp or so.

 

Not if partner has a club stopper. He should bid 2NT instead of 3D with a hand like that.

hum.. well, dumping that hand into 2NT can widen the range of that rebid, both in terms of shape and strength, and I'm not sure one wants that.

 

Unless one uses 2M and 2NT as catch-alls (one for 11-14 hands, the other for 15-17s), that wide range might put responder in for a bit of guesswork.

 

Ok, I suppose you can sort this all out with a bit of tweaking. But this is the sort of stuff that sometimes gives 2/1 a bad name B)

[kenrexford]

Fred's dead right that 4M after 4♦ has to be to play, but that itself creates a problem, namely that a 4♦ call largely forces Opener to place the contract.

[fred]

Fred's dead right that 4M after 4♦ has to be to play, but that itself creates a problem, namely that a 4♦ call largely forces Opener to place the contract.

Responder is still unlimited. Opener can suggest a final contract, but he can't place the final contract.

 

So I would characterize 4M is "non-forcing" as opposed to "to play" or "signoff".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

hum.. well, dumping that hand into 2NT can widen the range of that rebid, both in terms of shape and strength, and I'm not sure one wants that.

Remember, we are basing this discussion on the system proposed by the OP.

 

In that system, 2NT can include 5143 so we are not widening the proposed range in terms of shape.

 

In that system, 3D is also acceptable with 5143 provided that the hand is not a complete minimum.

 

That being the case, one of these bids needs to have a wide range in terms of strength and I think it is clearly better to use the cheaper bid for that purpose - that will leave you more room to work things out.

 

Unless one uses 2M and 2NT as catch-alls (one for 11-14 hands, the other for 15-17s), that wide range might put responder in for a bit of guesswork.

 

My previous post suggested that you should use one of these bids as a catch-all (I prefer 2M) and leave the rest of opener's rebids pure. You certainly don't need to use both 2M and 2NT as catch-all bids.

 

Any way you do it there will sometimes be guesswork, but by making the catch-all bid as cheap as possible you maximize the space and time you have to resolve the ambiguity of the catch-all bid. This in turn will minimize the need to eventually resort to guesswork. A further advantage of using 2M instead of 2NT as the catch-all is that this increases the chances that, if 3NT is the right contract, it will be played from the right side of the table.

 

IMO the proposed system suffers from the lack of a catch-all bid - the result is that most of opener's rebids are not well-defined which increases the chances of the need for guesswork later.

 

Ok, I suppose you can sort this all out with a bit of tweaking. But this is the sort of stuff that sometimes gives 2/1 a bad name :P

 

It is actually not that difficult (in fact it is considerably easier and considerably more accurate than non-2/1 in my view). I suspect that most of those who think that 2/1 deserves a bad name are either being stubborn or they have never learned to play the system in a reasonable manner (or both).

 

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1, but given that almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings, I doubt it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

Ok, I suppose you can sort this all out with a bit of tweaking. But this is the sort of stuff that sometimes gives 2/1 a bad name :P

FWIW, what bad name?

 

I personally don't play 2/1 and I don't think it is my "cup of tea". But, I don't think it has a bad name.

 

All systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Just because your pet system has some difficult areas does not necessarily make it bad overall system.

 

Nick

[JLOL]

I think 3S can obv be a doubleton in this auction. Not sure I agree that 4D is the best bid, I think I prefer 3S.