Please suggest an auction

[hrothgar]

[hv=d=s&v=i&n=sj964h976d82cqjt4&s=s8hakq5dakjt5ca63]133|200|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]

 

I was hoping that folks would recommend a good auction for these two hands playing 2/1 GF

[gnasher]

1♦-pass

[hrothgar]

Second question:

 

Assume that the auction started

 

2♣ - 2♥

 

where 2♥ is a double negative.

 

Is 3♦ forcing?

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

100% forcing.

 

Regards,

Robert

[dake50]

1H-2H-

3C-4H.

 

Treat 4xH:AKQx as 5xH. 3C asks C-stuff.

[jdonn]

Second question:

 

Assume that the auction started

 

2♣ - 2♥

 

where 2♥ is a double negative.

 

Is 3♦ forcing?

Yes.

 

First question:

1♦ 1♠

2♥ 2NT (leb)

3NT P (gulp)

 

Not a good contract. At least opener's hand is good enough that we have a shot.

[Siegmund]

One more vote here for 1♦-swish.

 

(And there are people who play 2♣-2♥-3♦ as nonforcing. But if you're going to drop this hand in a partscore opposite a weak response, might as well drop it in one as in three...)

[awm]

I'd bid 1♦-Pass on these. I'm not sure what makes the north hand worth responding for Josh here -- I understand that responding light can win in some cases, but this hand is balanced, no ace or king, no five-card suit. If you're responding with this hand, when do you pass? And if you really pass this rarely, maybe you should play 1♦ as forcing, which could substantially help in some 2♣ auctions...

 

If I did open 2♣ on the south hand, I'd expect to end in 3NT after a sequence like 2♣-2♥-3♦-3NT. Note that even if south rebids 2NT, north's 4-count is enough for game opposite 22-24 flat. Obviously 3NT is not the best contract to reach.

[Winstonm]

Most likely 2/1 auction IMO is 1D-P.

 

The follow up question about 2C-2H is the reason I think #1 most likely - there really is no good way to bid these hands in 2/1, regardless of the start. But to answer the question I think 3D should be non-forcing after 2C-2H-3D.

 

Otherwise, what is the purpose of playing double negative 2H?

[mike777]

1d=pass.

 

4 count, no 5+ major or nice dist feature with working hcp.

 

 

no 3d is not 100% forcing after 2h......but partner should strain to bid on almost anything.

[rogerclee]

I'd bid 1♦-Pass on these. I'm not sure what makes the north hand worth responding for Josh here -- I understand that responding light can win in some cases, but this hand is balanced, no ace or king, no five-card suit.

Agree with this, and I want to add that I would respond with a yarb, but this hand has just enough so that I don't think we are stealing, but not enough so that I think game is likely at all to make.

 

Also want to add that I think the south hand is about a queen away from opening 2C.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=i&n=sj964h976d82cqjt4&s=s8hakq5dakjt5ca63]133|200|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]

 

I was hoping that folks would recommend a good auction for these two hands playing 2/1 GF

I am partial to 1♦ (P) P (P) but I will try to bid the unseen hands :)

[jdonn]

That will teach me to be honest! Ok clearly this is the worst hand responder can possibly hold. It does not have a QJT. It does not have any 9s. In fact I must be looking at it wrong, it appears to be 4333. We can't have game. They can't have game. I just don't understand bridge. Is there any other revelation I missed? :)

[gnasher]

But to answer the question I think 3D should be non-forcing after 2C-2H-3D.

 

Otherwise, what is the purpose of playing double negative 2H?

I think that the main purpose of a double-negative 2♥ is to help with slam bidding. For example:

 

- With a balanced 27-count, opener can happily stop in 3NT opposite a 2♥ response, but make a slam try opposite a 2♦ response.

 

- In a crowded sequence like 2♣-2♦;3♦-3♠;4♠, responder can happily pass with moderate values, knowing that he's already shown them.

 

- Playing 2♦ as a relay with no upper limit, it's useful to play a sequence like 2♣-2♦;2♥-3♥ as showing real slam interest. If you do that, but also play that 2♦ has no lower limit, the weaker ways of supporting hearts have an uncomfortably wide range.

[Jlall]

I think if you start

 

1D 1S

2H

 

At this point responder has to pass

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

A reasonable auction could go

 

1D - Pass.

 

You have 21 HCPs, but you basically have a 2 (or even 3 suiter), and playing

2/1 with only 2C as the only forcing bid, so ...

 

If you open 2C, you basically commit your self to game, you will raise the

relais 2D to 3D, and partner will bid 3S, followed by 3NT from opener.

 

Sry, no better suggestion, just open 1D, and hope for the best.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

I think that the main purpose of a double-negative 2♥ is to help with slam bidding.

 

This depends almost entirely on the nature of your opening 2C bids. It is easy to produce big hands that fit this scenario, but if you always open 5431 21 counts 2C then stopping before getting too high becomes critical.

 

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

[jdonn]

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

Opening the in between hands at the 1 level and responding light? Ok ok maybe I've said enough, the secret is already leaking out.

[Cyberyeti]

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

Opening the in between hands at the 1 level and responding light? Ok ok maybe I've said enough, the secret is already leaking out.

This is what we do, and we'd respond with a stiff diamond, but this actual hand is a complete coin toss whether we treat it as a 5 count and respond or not.

 

Our auction would be either:

 

1♦-P

 

or

 

1♦-1♠-2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)-3♥-3N

 

This shows a better hand than 1♦-1♠-2♥ which is still a full reverse but you'd pass

[whereagles]

Second question:

 

Assume that the auction started

 

2♣ - 2♥

 

where 2♥ is a double negative.

 

Is 3♦ forcing?

1st question:

 

1♦-pass

 

or

 

1♦ 1♠

2♥ 2NT (meant as artificial weak, but I'm ok with it natural as well

3♦ pass

 

 

2nd question:

 

2♣ 2♥

??

 

Here's a suggestion: play transfers. I.e.

 

2♠ = balanced unlimited. Reponder bids as if 2NT had been opened (except the obvious 2NT rebid, which means "would have passed a 23-24 2NT opener")

 

2NT...3♥ = transfer to next suit. Responder now completes transfer meaning "continue at your own risk" (fit not guaranteed even!), else bids natural GF

 

3♠ = 5♠ + 4♥ GF

 

3NT = 55 majors GF

[gnasher]

1♦ 1♠

2♥ 2NT (meant as artificial weak, but I'm ok with it natural as well

3♦ pass

Surely 3♦ here is non-forcing opposite normal responding values? That is, it's what you'd bid with a 4-6 16-count. With his actual hand, opener would raise 2NT to 3NT.

 

I'm usually very reluctant to break partnership discipline, but I'm sure Justin's right about this: if you respond 1♠ you should pass 2♥.

[Jlall]

Wow a hand gnasher will pass a forcing bid! I guess that's why gnasher would never bid 1S though :rolleyes:

[jdonn]

I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids but I like to really be certain it's right. Maybe on this hand it is. I still want to respond to the opening, and still worry partner will be 3361 or that he will have a hand that makes game (T AKxx AKQxxx Kx, maybe some 5-6 hands) but I'm willing to compromise on passing 2♥ since it seems like it will usually be right.

[Winstonm]

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

Opening the in between hands at the 1 level and responding light? Ok ok maybe I've said enough, the secret is already leaking out.

Why not play a forcing club or forcing pass system then and save the room and get the benefit of limited 1-bids?

[jdonn]

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

Opening the in between hands at the 1 level and responding light? Ok ok maybe I've said enough, the secret is already leaking out.

Why not play a forcing club or forcing pass system then and save the room and get the benefit of limited 1-bids?

I agree. See now we've got two good solutions (depending what you consider 'standard type bidding'), that'll teach you to say there are none.