flytoox Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Playing 2 OVER 1 in a local tournament, I had a few problems. Bd1. Both vul, sitting south, you are dealt withS: T92H: AQJ54D: KJT98C: --- W N E S- - - 1HP 2S* - ?2S shows a game forcing raise. What do you bid now? Should we emphasize our side suit by 3D or show our shortage by 4C? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 side suit- the bid is cheaper and you can show your shortage later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 side suit- the bid is cheaper and you can show your shortage later. oops too slow and Roland beat me to it :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 If you play this method it seems like you should have well structured followups, even if they're simple. For instance even jacoby 2N has well structured followups. I guess I'd just bid 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'd 3♦ it. Shows my side suit and allows more space for investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 3♦ to show my source of tricks for a possible slam.I can show short clubs later if partner invites slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The side suit is more important, and if you are going to bother to play 2S (good idea) as a forcing raise, I'd some up with some definitions of what the follow-ups are. Also, its important to discuss what different bids mean if they interfere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The side suit is more important, and if you are going to bother to play 2S (good idea) as a forcing raise, I'd some up with some definitions of what the follow-ups are. Also, its important to discuss what different bids mean if they interfere. Too those that play this method, I ask how much is gained by using 2♠ rather than 2NT as the forcing raise over 1♥? To me, all that is saved is that now opener can rebid 2NT to show something. Is that worth the risk of the opp doubling 2♠ either for lead or to steer partner into a cheap 4♠ sac that might not be found since you wouldn't bid over 2NT?( I do realize that some of the hands that sac 4♠ might have been overcalled 1♠) Is it worth the loss of 2♠ as a WJS or SJS? My personal opinion is that all this is way too much to give up and I just play J2NT, but I am asking so I can learn. .. neilkaz ..who doesn't want to make it easier for opps to interfere in ♠ when his side has ♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 The side suit is more important, and if you are going to bother to play 2S (good idea) as a forcing raise, I'd some up with some definitions of what the follow-ups are. Also, its important to discuss what different bids mean if they interfere. Too those that play this method, I ask how much is gained by using 2♠ rather than 2NT as the forcing raise over 1♥? To me, all that is saved is that now opener can rebid 2NT to show something. Is that worth the risk of the opp doubling 2♠ either for lead or to steer partner into a cheap 4♠ sac that might not be found since you wouldn't bid over 2NT?( I do realize that some of the hands that sac 4♠ might have been overcalled 1♠) Is it worth the loss of 2♠ as a WJS or SJS? My personal opinion is that all this is way too much to give up and I just play J2NT, but I am asking so I can learn. .. neilkaz ..who doesn't want to make it easier for opps to interfere in ♠ when his side has ♥ To me, having 2N as natural balanced game forcing is good enough. As for giving up 2S showing a strong hand, it is relatively a small loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Is that worth the risk of the opp doubling 2♠ either for lead or to steer partner into a cheap 4♠ sac that might not be found since you wouldn't bid over 2NT?( I do realize that some of the hands that sac 4♠ might have been overcalled 1♠) Its not a small deal, mostly because on paper, 4th chair can double 2♠. In practice, if RHO has spades they are usually bid which is a better weapon against an artificial raise since it usually takes the opener out of singleton showing situation and into natural bidding. 1♠ - 3♣ is less of a problem. If you play some sort of 1 minor 2 major as artificial, this becomes a bigger issue, since frequently you are talking about a dangerous lead against 3N. The loss of a WJS 2♠ is not a loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 If you don't play 2♠ as spades of some strength, how do you cope with all of your spade one-suiters after, say, 1♥-1♠;2♦? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 If you don't play 2♠ as spades of some strength, how do you cope with all of your spade one-suiters after, say, 1♥-1♠;2♦? 2♠ weak, 3♠ invitational, 3♣ then 3♠ game forcing? Of course it's not perfect but there isn't an inherent problem since all hand types are covered. While it's not what I would play with myself necessarily, it's what I have played on over 99% of the bridge hands of my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Ive started playing 1H 2S invitational and really like it fwiw. On the other hand I think that playing 1M 2N as natural and forcing is completely awful since starting with 2C is way better (opener gets 3 bids in below 3N always) and more logical. I mean you lose in that 2C no longer shows a 5 card suit, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Agree with everything Justin has said: 1. I also play 1♥-P-2♠ as invitational and like it. 2. I also hate 2NT as a balanced force because 2♣ works better for the reasons he stated. 3. I also find it silly to play that 2♠ is a forcing heart raise without a structure as to what happens next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.