1M:2D

[Cascade]

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1M , with a gf xx42 hand do you start with 2♣ or 2♦?

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.)

Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion).

 

This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler.

What do you bid after partner opens 1♠ and you hold gf 2443, unsuitable for 3nt?

Guess.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with guessing. It happens in any system.

 

You might choose to play the 5=2 major fit.

[fromageGB]

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1M , with a gf xx42 hand do you start with 2♣ or 2♦?

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.)

Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion).

 

This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler.

What do you bid after partner opens 1♠ and you hold gf 2443, unsuitable for 3nt?

In the methods my partner and I play, we have a bid of 2M+2 (eg 1♥ 2NT, or 1♠ 3♣) that is defined as typically 13-15 and 3 card support, no sensible 5 card suit.

 

If opener rebids 3M, this is a command to cue bid.

If opener rebids 3NT it shows a hand that is happy to play there.

If opener rebids the other major it shows a natural 4+ card suit in case it fits better.

 

We can make this 2M+2 bid, because it is otherwise free, with 2M+1 being the 4 card support shortage inquiry, and both 2M+3 and 2M+4 being Bergen raises. It was an otherwise unused bid for us.

 

If we are that sort of shape but stronger, we actually start off with a forcing next step but show it on the next round.

 

I think there are advantages in having a 2♣/♦ immediate response as showing a decent 5 card suit.

[Fluffy]

I would normally bid 2♦ over 1♠ with 2443 but honnor allocation might make me switch to 2♣.

[fromageGB]

Sorry, I misread the hand quoted.

With only 2 cards in partner's major we would normally bid just a simple 3NT with 13-15. Yes, I agree that there could be a side suit wide open, but that is never guaranteed. However, with this particular hand only, I may bid 2♦, which allows partner to show hearts if he has them, and if he supports diamonds I have a chance at escaping in 3NT. If he insists, then 5♦ may not be disastrous.

 

We would only do this with 4 hearts, and then we may bid a 4 card minor.

[Jlall]

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

 

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

[hrothgar]

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Are you really this much of an idiot?

 

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

 

Hi Justin:

 

 

 

I suspect that he is making a rather oblique reference to the BSC overcall debate that cropped up a while ago. This discussion hinged on the definition of a 1♣; specifically whether a 1♣ opening that showed 2+ Clubs was natural or artificial.

 

This 2♣ response feels quite similar

[gnasher]

If you respond 2♣ to 1M on all balanced hands, shouldn't you also open 1♣ with all balanced hands, so as to make 1♦ show 5+? It seems to me that the arguments for the former are almost equally applicable to the latter.

[cherdanno]

If you respond 2♣ to 1M on all balanced hands, shouldn't you also open 1♣ with all balanced hands, so as to make 1♦ show 5+? It seems to me that the arguments for the former are almost equally applicable to the latter.

The debate about what to open with 4432 should be mostly about competitive bidding. After 1M-2m, competition is rather unlikely.

[kenrexford]

If you respond 2♣ to 1M on all balanced hands, shouldn't you also open 1♣ with all balanced hands, so as to make 1♦ show 5+? It seems to me that the arguments for the former are almost equally applicable to the latter.

Funny you should ask...

 

Actually, I only open, in preferred agreements, 1♦ when I have a stiff or void in the hand. 3rd/4th seat might be different. Can make exceptions when 7222 or maybe 6322 is insist. But, pretty much guarantees unbalanced. Hence, 1♣ could easily be opened with 3352 shape, or worse.

 

I have been doing this for 20+ years. Seems like a lot of people have been doing this recently.

[Free]

I think standard 1M-2♦ is 4+♦.

I think 5+♦ is becoming more and more standard.

I prefer (5)6+♦ (5 only with fit) and 1M-2♣ as a relay holding many hand types.

[skjaeran]

I'd prefer to bid 2♣ over 1♠ with 3442, exception for a very good diamond suit. Never had this agreement in a regular partnership though.

[Cascade]

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Are you really this much of an idiot?

 

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

 

 

 

Why would it occur to anyone that your "natural" only referred to responses to some artificial bid? Why can't responses to a relay be "natural"?

 

It certainly appeared to me that you were suggesting that a 2♣ response on a doubleton suit was part of a "natural" structure. It plainly is not. I believe any ambiguity or inaccuracy was in your post not in my interpretation of it. There has been some history where I believe North Americans have treated bids in short suits as "natural" when plainly they are not. Those arguments have been used to gain unfair advantages for players playing certain methods. The argument is fallicious. I reserve my right to point out that bidding a doubleton as your first entry into an auction is not "natural".

 

Personally I think the forums would be much better without personal attacks which I doubt very much are within the terms of use of these forums.

[awm]

It seems safe to say that:

 

(1) There are many advantages to a style where, by agreement, balanced GF hands bid 2♣.

(2) Such agreement makes the 2♣ response both artificial and alertable.

(3) There are merits to responding 2♣ with 4♦ and 2-3♣ without special agreements.

(4) However, responding this way w/o agreement is riskier since partner may misevaluate.

(5) Responding 2♣ on such hands is not "just bridge" nor is it the universal expert choice.

 

It may also be worth mentioning that some very good regular posters to these fora feel very strongly that it is best practice to respond 2♣ on such hands, even in the absence of special agreement. However, these individuals are part of a single close-knit "clique" of expert players (i.e. those who post on BBF) and it's not clear that their views reflect the views of the expert community at large.

[cherdanno]

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Are you really this much of an idiot?

 

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

 

 

 

Why would it occur to anyone that your "natural" only referred to responses to some artificial bid? Why can't responses to a relay be "natural"?

 

It certainly appeared to me that you were suggesting that a 2♣ response on a doubleton suit was part of a "natural" structure. It plainly is not. I believe any ambiguity or inaccuracy was in your post not in my interpretation of it. There has been some history where I believe North Americans have treated bids in short suits as "natural" when plainly they are not. Those arguments have been used to gain unfair advantages for players playing certain methods. The argument is fallicious. I reserve my right to point out that bidding a doubleton as your first entry into an auction is not "natural".

 

Personally I think the forums would be much better without personal attacks which I doubt very much are within the terms of use of these forums.

Well, maybe you are a little too obsessed with the North Americans gaining unfair advantages if

- you misunderstand Justin's post in this way,

- you feel the need to drive home your point about those unfair advantages in a completely unrelated post,

- even after Justin clarified that he didn't intend to say that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call, you still have to repeat and justify your opinion that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call.

 

Given all that (and more), it is hardly surprising that some people here find you annoying. Personally, I think the forum would be a better place if you didn't take 1000s posts to convince everyone else of your pet peeves even in completely unrelated threads and even when you have already said everything that can be said in favor of your pet peeve, and regardless whether everyone else already disagrees or agrees with you.

[Cascade]

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

 

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

 

Why would it occur to anyone that your "natural" only referred to responses to some artificial bid? Why can't responses to a relay be "natural"?

 

It certainly appeared to me that you were suggesting that a 2♣ response on a doubleton suit was part of a "natural" structure. It plainly is not. I believe any ambiguity or inaccuracy was in your post not in my interpretation of it. There has been some history where I believe North Americans have treated bids in short suits as "natural" when plainly they are not. Those arguments have been used to gain unfair advantages for players playing certain methods. The argument is fallicious. I reserve my right to point out that bidding a doubleton as your first entry into an auction is not "natural".

 

Personally I think the forums would be much better without personal attacks which I doubt very much are within the terms of use of these forums.

Well, maybe you are a little too obsessed with the North Americans gaining unfair advantages if

- you misunderstand Justin's post in this way,

- you feel the need to drive home your point about those unfair advantages in a completely unrelated post,

- even after Justin clarified that he didn't intend to say that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call, you still have to repeat and justify your opinion that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call.

 

Given all that (and more), it is hardly surprising that some people here find you annoying. Personally, I think the forum would be a better place if you didn't take 1000s posts to convince everyone else of your pet peeves even in completely unrelated threads and even when you have already said everything that can be said in favor of your pet peeve, and regardless whether everyone else already disagrees or agrees with you.

I didn't misunderstand anything.

 

Justin said "just bidding natural " and then "2C with bal or clubs".

 

These statements are plainly contradictory. It is not "just" "natural" if your 2♣ bid does not show clubs.

 

Maybe Justin didn't mean this by there is no way of telling this from his post. It certainly reads like he thinks that 2♣ that can be short is a subset of "natural".

 

I made a simple factual statement about the inaccuracy in Justin's post. Then first Justin insults me and now you respond with emotive terms like "pet peeve" and gross exaggerations about my posting habits. I doubt that you would be able to come close to substantiating that I have made anything like 1000s of posts supporting any "pet peeves". My posts are intended to be constructive based on bridge arguments or to rebutt specific views that I do not believe are correct or accurate. In my view that approach is far more reasonable than what you seem to be advocating where personal attacks and the like are accepted.

[gnasher]

If you take Justin's post in context (Jlall: "2C, clubs or bal GF". Gwnn: "I think this (agreeing to 2+♣, 5+♦) almost requires artificial follow-ups to 2♣." Jlall: Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural ..."), it's obvious what was intended.

 

On the other hand, these were buried in amongst many other, much longer posts, and Justin hadn't bothered to quote the post he was replying to.

 

This sort of misunderstanding occurs all the time on internet forums. Usually the best way to deal with it is for one party to say "I misunderstood", and the other to say "I didn't make it very clear".

[Jlall]

OK, I guess when it was still explained to Cascade and he STILL did not understand he is just not very smart. Fair enough. I had always assumed his literal take on everything without thinking of context was on purpose rather than stupidity. My bad.

 

Gnasher: You say it was obvious in the context, but that I should say I didn't explain myself very clearly. That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. I will assume all readers have read a thread and don't just read my post individually and take it out of the context of the thread.

[Free]

OK, I guess when it was still explained to Cascade and he STILL did not understand he is just not very smart. Fair enough. I had always assumed his literal take on everything without thinking of context was on purpose rather than stupidity. My bad.

 

Gnasher: You say it was obvious in the context, but that I should say I didn't explain myself very clearly. That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. I will assume all readers have read a thread and don't just read my post individually and take it out of the context of the thread.

You assume a lot ;)

[Cascade]

If you take Justin's post in context (Jlall: "2C, clubs or bal GF".  Gwnn: "I think this (agreeing to 2+♣, 5+♦) almost requires artificial follow-ups to 2♣." Jlall: Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural ..."), it's obvious what was intended.

There is nothing inherently obvious in the connection that you are making.

 

1. Gwnn's post that you are quoting is 10 posts prior to Jlall's

 

2. Gwnn's post that you quoted does not mention relays. It mentions artificial follow-ups. Artificial follow-ups and relays are not synonymous.

 

3. There is another post by Gwnn two post's before Jlall's post that is the first post in the thread to mention relays. That post does not make it clear what the relay is nor whether the responses to the relays are artificial. The one auction that is quoted is 1Maj 2♣; 3♣. There is no mention of the length of the club suit shown by the 2♣ bid but I assume two. The rebid 3♣ however is described as showing five clubs which certainly appears to be natural.

 

4. Given this context I am imagining an auction that develops

 

1Maj 2♣ Artificial Relay

3♣ and other rebids followed up by more relays. Both Gwnn and Jlall use the plural "relays" not the singular "relay" which strongly suggests more than one "relay".

 

My understanding of "relay" is a bid usually very economical that is used as a waiting bid that simply asks for further information from one's partner. In this context it appears that the constrained 2♣ response is the first relay.

 

5. In this context Jlall writes "Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs ..."

 

His construction suggests that he is contrasting "relays", which from the context appear to start with an artificial 2♣, with "natural". This "natural" is emphasized by the preceding phrase "just bidding" as if "natural" is the only style employed in the auction. He then appears to contradict himself with a description of a non-"natural" 2♣ response. This non-"natural" 2♣ response and its like have been characterized as "natural' elsewhere on these forums and in other places.

 

6. In his reconstruction of what he had earlier written Jlall writes "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..."

 

To me there is a big difference between "relays" which emphasizes the relay bids although could be used for the entire structure - relays and responses - and "relay responses to". In fact rather than "relay responses to" I would construct "responses to the relay" with some preceding qualifier. The responses are not "relays". Or at least I don't think that that is what Jlall intended. Jlall also removes the emphasis on "natural" with the omission of the qualifier "just" in this reconstruction.

 

Therefore I don't think it was at all unreasonable to point out that this 2♣ bid is not "natural".

 

I certainly don't expect to be called names or attacked personally for reasoning as above.

[Free]

Can you grownup (?) guys please take your discussions somewhere else? Without a quote, JLall's post may be confusing. Later he cleared that up in a non-friendly way as usual.

 

1M-2♣ is not considered natural, but it's about the continuations. Relays are better, but even playing natural continuations after 1M-2♣ is a better approach than bidding 2♦ with xx42.

 

Please stop calling each other names, and stop discussing these things in the open. Haven't you 2 destroyed enough threads already?

 

I won't pick any sides, but I have a message for both of you:

@JLall: calling names in public starts discussions like these, and just isn't worth it

@Cascade: keeping defending yourself won't stop discussions like these, and just won't change anyone's opinion anyway

@both: if just one of you stops posting about this issue we can finally get back on topic.

[Cascade]

Can you grownup (?) guys please take your discussions somewhere else? Without a quote, JLall's post may be confusing. Later he cleared that up in a non-friendly way as usual.

 

1M-2♣ is not considered natural, but it's about the continuations. Relays are better, but even playing natural continuations after 1M-2♣ is a better approach than bidding 2♦ with xx42.

 

Please stop calling each other names, and stop discussing these things in the open. Haven't you 2 destroyed enough threads already?

 

I won't pick any sides, but I have a message for both of you:

@JLall: calling names in public starts discussions like these, and just isn't worth it

@Cascade: keeping defending yourself won't stop discussions like these, and just won't change anyone's opinion anyway

@both: if just one of you stops posting about this issue we can finally get back on topic.

Non-friendly may be your euphemism for anti-social and plainly rude.

 

You telling me to grow up is not a whole lot better than Justin's insults.

 

I made what I thought was quite a normal post disagreeing that 2♣ was natural.

 

I don't expect to have to be publically subject to a barrage of insults from Justin, cherdanno and now you. I don't believe that is the purpose of these forums. In fact I am pretty sure that it is outside the terms of use.

 

I try to make constructive posts that are on topic but I will not agree to just ignore posts from Justin, cherdanno, JDonn, yourself or others if you wish to insult me. I will respond as I see fit and I will report posts that are primarily insulting.

[skjaeran]

Can you grownup (?) guys please take your discussions somewhere else?  Without a quote, JLall's post may be confusing.  Later he cleared that up in a non-friendly way as usual.

 

1M-2♣ is not considered natural, but it's about the continuations.  Relays are better, but even playing natural continuations after 1M-2♣ is a better approach than bidding 2♦ with xx42.

 

Please stop calling each other names, and stop discussing these things in the open.  Haven't you 2 destroyed enough threads already?

 

I won't pick any sides, but I have a message for both of you:

@JLall: calling names in public starts discussions like these, and just isn't worth it

@Cascade: keeping defending yourself won't stop discussions like these, and just won't change anyone's opinion anyway

@both: if just one of you stops posting about this issue we can finally get back on topic.

Non-friendly may be your euphemism for anti-social and plainly rude.

 

You telling me to grow up is not a whole lot better than Justin's insults.

 

I made what I thought was quite a normal post disagreeing that 2♣ was natural.

 

I don't expect to have to be publically subject to a barrage of insults from Justin, cherdanno and now you. I don't believe that is the purpose of these forums. In fact I am pretty sure that it is outside the terms of use.

 

I try to make constructive posts that are on topic but I will not agree to just ignore posts from Justin, cherdanno, JDonn, yourself or others if you wish to insult me. I will respond as I see fit and I will report posts that are primarily insulting.

Wayne, you should be able to catch the irony in Fred's post, don't be that over-sensitive.

 

Obviously you and Justin (and Josh, before he left) use any possibility to quarrel. Intentional or not.

 

There's no point in trying to blame one or the other, it takes two to tango.

 

It's time the two of you stop this. Either by not commenting each other posts, or doing your best to try to understand each others posts instead of doing your best (worst?) to misunderstand whenever possible. Or, if the other one posts something seemingly incredible or stupid, try a polite question to clear up a possible unclear point.

[helene_t]

Agree with Frederick and Harald.

[Fluffy]

Frederick is the man.

 

Mate I missed you so much, thx for coming back.

 

But I think you ain't as crazy anymore :(. Have you grown up?, I hope not much! :)

[inquiry]

For what it is worth, I think this thread has some good ideas in it or I would have deleted it. As a moderator, I have been forced to edit extensively a number of post that attacked people rather than the ideas they expressed. A few players will get reminded of the rules of this site privately, but come on, try not to be intentionally antagonistic.

 

The editing was way more (more post, more words) than usual. So for instance three specific examples of words spoken against one player was changed to "attacked personally". I hope I did not change the flavor of the BRIDGE discussion...