1M:2D

[Sadie3]

For what is is worth, in ACBL talk, a response of a minor suit to a Major opening is considered natural if it consists of a minimum 3 card suit according to the GCC. Most 2/1 bidders have several ways to show a gf without resorting to using 2c (with 2) as an option. Many play that any 2 level gf bid except clubs promises 5 (and sometimes lie). Many have modified Jac 2 NT to be 3 card gf support. Many use 3NT as the gf force bid, and many just bid 1S over 1H even with gf values because 1S is forcing if bid by an unpassed hand.

 

To get on target here, if 2C could be a 2 card suit, I think it is an illegal bid in ACBL land. I am not sure it is accepted even if alerted as "could be short". Can anyone quote GCC on this issue?

[awm]

Under allowed on the General Convention Chart in ACBL:

 

3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. May not be part of a relay system.

 

So 2♣ showing "clubs or balanced" is perfectly fine as long as it's game forcing. If it includes invitational hands as well it would be mid-chart. Of course, it does require an alert. I'd argue that even if 2♣ shows 3+ clubs, if it is frequently bid on 3 clubs in hands with longer diamonds, it would be "highly unexpected" and thus require an alert (but this is obviously more opinion than clear-cut because "highly unexpected" is basically director's discretion).

[Sadie3]

Conventional responses require an alert. Natural responses do not and 3C and 3D with a minimum of 3 is considered a natural response.

 

"1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it

shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more

cards in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

[Jlall]

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...

heh, fair enough.

[awm]

Conventional responses require an alert. Natural responses do not...

This is simply not true. From the ACBL alert chart:

 

Natural calls not specifically noted:

 

No alert if about expected strength and shape

Alert if highly unusual strength, shape, etc.

 

More details are available in the alert procedure document on the ACBL site. Suffice to say that it is clear that many natural calls are alertable, with examples including weak jump shifts and non-forcing 2/1 calls.

 

Openings in the majors which could be canape (i.e. 1♥ showing 4+♥ frequently including a longer minor) are also alertable in ACBL. It's not clear exactly what criteria would make a 2♣ response to 1M which shows 3+♣ alertable. However, it seems clear that if the 2♣ call often contains 3-4♣ with a much longer side suit (i.e. if I bid canape style) then it would be alertable. For example if I normally bid 1♠-2♣ with 1363 shape (6♦, 3♣) then this would be highly unexpected and require an alert.

 

Whether bidding 1♠-2♣ with 3343 is "highly unexpected" is certainly a judgement call. If this is "just bridge" for you, how about (32)53? The line is very fuzzy but there is certainly a line where it becomes alertable.

[jillybean]

Kathryn, in the relays Han taught me

 

1♠-2♣

3♣

 

showed a good hand with 5-5 (and I think it's something that is usual in this style). Why not bid 3♣ with 5-5? You can describe your hand relatively cheaply.

I missed this until now, good point thx.

[Winstonm]

If you play 1M-3M as forcing and 2N as natural you don't have this problem.

[Winstonm]

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...

Does this mean I can't call Justin an asshole anymore? :P

[gwnn]

Except we're in 2009 not 1959 <_<

[Winstonm]

Except we're in 2009 not 1959 <_<

The screw up that occurred between 1959 and 2009 was not in 1M-3M as forcing and 2N as natural but in stuffing all limit raises and forcing raises inside the two lousy ideas of 3M and J2N.

 

Just utilize a better major raise structure and you have it all covered.

 

1M-2N: forcing

1M-3C: 4-card limit raise or different types of game-forcing raises

1M-3D: 3-card limit raise or game forcing raise with no slam interest

1M-3M: Forcing raise with limited controls that would cooperated with a slam try

 

Once you have better raise structures, the problem of 2/1 minors is largely resolved.

[Cascade]

How does that change in the raise structure help your 2/1s?

[Winstonm]

How does that change in the raise structure help your 2/1s?

If you hold, Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx you simply bid 1S-3S (or you could bid 2N equally effectively as both are forcing bids). In other words, the first bid made shows the raise of the major, and thus if the first bid made is a minor the emphasis is on the minor.

 

If I hold these two hand types: Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx and Qxx, xx, Kxx, AKJxx I bid them two different ways: 1S-3S on the first and 1S-2C on the second and later supporting spades.

[kenrexford]

How does that change in the raise structure help your 2/1s?

If you hold, Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx you simply bid 1S-3S (or you could bid 2N equally effectively as both are forcing bids). In other words, the first bid made shows the raise of the major, and thus if the first bid made is a minor the emphasis is on the minor.

 

If I hold these two hand types: Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx and Qxx, xx, Kxx, AKJxx I bid them two different ways: 1S-3S on the first and 1S-2C on the second and later supporting spades.

If you have an external KJx and AKxx, bidding a simple 3♠ is not all that simple. You have no idea what shape partner has, what strength partner has, what trump honors partner has, or what needs partner has. However, you have only one level of bidding left to resolve all of this. What you end up resolving is probably simply controls and general strength.

 

I mean, make this simple. Partner has AKxxx in trumps and AQxxx in a side suit, with a stiff in another side suit.

 

If his stiff is in hearts and his AQxxx in clubs, life is good.

 

If his stiff is in diamonds and his AQxxx in clubs, life is not good.

 

If his stiff is in clubs and his AQxxx in hearts, life is not good.

 

If his stiff is in diamonds and his AQxxx in hearts, life really sucks.

 

I mean, if your approach to bidding is to add HCP and distribution points to see if you get to 32, and then to address controls, you still don't know much here, because Opener has such a range (11-21?) to divide between serious, non-serious, and hopeless. Hopefully serious or frivolous is available.

 

But, youi do know the largely irrelevant fact that you have three trumps instead of four with your 4-3-3-3 shape.

[awm]

Even if we ignore the impact on our raise structure and the elimination of whatever other useful purpose we set for our jump shifts (I like invitational if 2/1 is GF and strong if 2/1 is only F1) it's not clear how much the forcing 2NT bid helps us.

 

If we view the goal as being responder describing his hand, it's certainly true that the immediate 2NT describes responder's shape a lot better than 2♣. But when responder is balanced, it's frequently more valuable for opener to do the describing. Once responder knows opener's long suit(s) and shortness, he usually has a good idea of the final contract. For example:

 

1♠ - 2♣(1)

2♥ - 2NT

3♣

 

(1) Clubs or balanced

 

Here responder more or less knows opener's complete shape (5413, or maybe a diamond void with an extra card in one of the other three suits). Compare this to:

 

1♠ - 2NT(1)

3♥

 

(1) Natural and forcing

 

Here responder has much less information. If responder has weak diamonds and good clubs (for example ♠Kx ♥Qxx ♦Qxxx ♣AQJx) he knows to try a moysian major suit contract on the first auction (and even has space to intelligently determine which), but really doesn't know what to do on the second.

[Winstonm]

But, youi do know the largely irrelevant fact that you have three trumps instead of four with your 4-3-3-3 shape.

 

Well, there's a ton of understandings that I didn't mention because I didn't feel like re-creating the article from The Bridge World that covered all this.

 

I was trying to give a simple answer to the question asked.

[Winstonm]

1♠ - 2♣(1)

2♥ - 2NT

3♣

 

(1) Clubs or balanced

 

Yes, and for every time you have this auction you can have this auction:

 

1S-2C(1)

3C-3S

 

(1) Clubs

 

1♠ - 2NT(1)

3♥

 

(1) Natural and forcing

 

Here responder has much less information.

 

Right. But what if the diamond was the J and responder held Q10xx? There is no way to know this. Besides, opener knows he is facing a balanced 12-15 and he suggested 3H. Responder can bid 3S now showing some doubt. Is that as accurate or is it perfect. No. But neither is the either/or approach you suggest. The other consideration is that with real weakness in a suit such as Kx, Kxx, xxxx, AKJx, there is no rule against bidding 2C instead of 2N.

 

 

If we view the goal as being responder describing his hand, it's certainly true that the immediate 2NT describes responder's shape a lot better than 2♣. But when responder is balanced, it's frequently more valuable for opener to do the describing.

 

I don't understand at all this argument - it is certainly not true that it is better for responder to describe his hand to an opening NT bidder. The reason bidding is so accurate after a 1NT opening is that the shape and size of the NT hand is quantified in 1 bid.

[kenrexford]

If we view the goal as being responder describing his hand, it's certainly true that the immediate 2NT describes responder's shape a lot better than 2♣. But when responder is balanced, it's frequently more valuable for opener to do the describing.

 

I don't understand at all this argument - it is certainly not true that it is better for responder to describe his hand to an opening NT bidder. The reason bidding is so accurate after a 1NT opening is that the shape and size of the NT hand is quantified in 1 bid.

This is one of the strangest things I have read in a while.

 

If we simply ignore the fact that the vast majority of NT bidding, exception being puppet and stayman, is a matter of Responder describing Responder's shape, the premise still is absurd.

 

Opener's distributional advertisement is 2+ in every suit (probably). Hence, he has described 8 of his 13 cards. Each suit could be 2-card to 5-card. Maybe 6-card if a minor. So, other than 2+ in every suit, little distributional description has been made.

 

Furthermore, absolutely nothing has been said, or will be said for a while if ever, about honor type in each suit, whether slow values, fast values, no values, concentrated values, whatever,

 

When Opener has no shortness, and usually nothign remarkable distributionall, two features need to be described by Opener -- fit, and spread of honor type.

 

As to the first, knowledge of Responder's distribution is one of the key means of Opener knowing whether he has or lacks fit and then announcing his findings accordingly. As to the second, the easiest method of stating the honor spread and type is by knowing partner's pattern and the responding honor fit for that pattern.

 

I mean, could you imagine some sort of silly Alpha/Beta/Gamma asking bid structure over 1NT openings? That would be sick, probably. No one does that for a reason.

 

So, I would suggested that it in fact is generally better for responder to describe his hand to a 1NT opener. I would even suggest that the meat of Stayman sequences actually is in Responder's acceptance more than Opener's description and thus actually fits in the "describe" category rather than "ask" category.

[Winstonm]

So, I would suggested that it in fact is generally better for responder to describe his hand to a 1NT opener.

 

I don't want to get into a long-winded debate about this so if you can show me how the standard NT responses are "showing" bids where the opening NT bidder determines the final contract, level and suit, I will say you won. (Note, we are not talking about simply being given the choice of playing NT or a suit - that is a dialogue between both hands.)

[kenrexford]

So, I would suggested that it in fact is generally better for responder to describe his hand to a 1NT opener.

 

I don't want to get into a long-winded debate about this so if you can show me how the standard NT responses are "showing" bids where the opening NT bidder determines the final contract, level and suit, I will say you won. (Note, we are not talking about simply being given the choice of playing NT or a suit - that is a dialogue between both hands.)

I just cannot help you with understanding this.

 

When one partner has 2-5 cards in every suit, and the other has 0-11 cards in every suit, system structure typically focuses on hand types for the wildly unknown.

 

When one partner has described a huge distributional feature in his hand, system structure typically enables that partner to complete pattern.

 

Understanding the shape of the unbalanced hand is critical to knowing whether honors in the balanced hand fit or do not fit. Understanding the exact shape of the balanced hand typically does little to help the cause of the unbalanced hand.

 

This seems rather elementary. Imagine this sort of structure: Opener starts with 2D, Flannery. Responder knows that a major fit exists. My thought might be for Opener to then describe his minors, so I know which is short. Typically, Responder won't show his minor shape, as that is usually much less important. Your theory seems to suggest that strange alternative course.

[Free]

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

 

So after a 1NT opening, it's better to let responder show his hand, rather than just ask his shape (ending high at 3-level) and having to ask strength and position of honours in 4 suits with limited space. If you can describe an unbalanced hand with a shortness, you only need to find honours in 3 suits with almost the same amount of space available as the case above.

[Cascade]

I gave up on relays (except Stayman on some hands) in this situation in favour of responder showing distribution. This seems to work very well.

 

In fact our Stayman is almost completely restricted to hands without a singleton or void if game forcing. There is one specific exception. So even that is showing in a way.

[Winstonm]

O.K., fine. Let's start with an routine opening 1N of 15-17 and fairly standard responses.

 

2C - Stayman. This does not show shape.

transfers: These are not designed to show shape.

[Winstonm]

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

 

Sorry, but I have to call "rubbish" on this claim.

 

It is general knowledge that a 1NT bidder transfers captaincy to his partner unless his partner later asks for his help in the decision.

[jillybean]

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

 

Sorry, but I have to call "rubbish" on this claim.

 

It is general knowledge that a 1NT bidder transfers captaincy to his partner unless his partner later asks for his help in the decision.

Could you please Quote the Quoter when you Quote, otherwise I have to scroll back up to find out who said what. :)

[awm]

O.K., fine. Let's start with an routine opening 1N of 15-17 and fairly standard responses.

 

2C - Stayman. This does not show shape.

transfers: These are not designed to show shape.

Transfers are designed to show shape. You have auctions like:

 

1NT - 2♦(1)

2♥(2) - 3♣(3)

 

(1) I have hearts

(2) tell me more

(3) I have clubs also, and game-going strength

 

Now opener gets to decide what he thinks about his hand -- does he have a fit for either of responder's suits? Does he have stoppers in the pointed suits? Are his stoppers "fast cards" or "slow cards"? This pattern of responder describing is even more extreme if you play transfer extensions, where you might have what looks very much like a relay auction:

 

1NT - 2♦(1)

2♥(2) - 2NT(3)

3♣(4) - 3♠(5)

 

(1) I have hearts

(2) tell me more

(3) I have clubs also, and game strength

(4) tell me more

(5) spade fragment, so 3514 or similar (assuming natural style)

 

Basically you have sequences where after bidding 1NT, opener never makes another call that describes his shape. Responder describes his shape via a series of forcing bids and then opener places the contract.

 

It's true that stayman bucks this trend somewhat. But if you play puppet it's again responder doing most of the describing. And many of the other things people play over notrump involve responder describing (like three-level splinter bids for example).

 

The reason this approach is "right" is that selecting the proper contract often depends on the holding opposite a singleton. With slow cards (say KQTx) opposite a stiff you usually want to play in 3NT (and this can be right even with a major suit fit). With no values opposite a stiff (say xxx) 3NT is ridiculous and you can often make a slam on light values. With a weak holding (say Qxx) you normally want to avoid 3NT to play a major suit moysian or a minor suit game (i.e. avoid 3NT even if there's no major suit fit). Thus it makes sense for the person with the shapely hand to describe his shape so that partner can look at his honor structure and select the contract.