3 over 1

[Hanoi5]

You hold:

 

♠AT9xx

♥8

♦AQ87x

♣J9

 

1♠-2♥

???

 

Is 3♦ normal and wtp? Is 2♠ (catch-all) better?

[MarkDean]

I used to play a style where this was a 3♦ bid, but I have been converted and now play this is a 2♠ catch all. Partner bids 2NT if it is at all possible, and then we can bid 3♦. I was skeptical at first, but it does seem to work out reasonably well.

[neilkaz]

I used to play a style where this was a 3♦ bid, but I have been converted and now play this is a 2♠ catch all.  Partner bids 2NT if it is at all possible, and then we can bid 3♦.  I was skeptical at first, but it does seem to work out reasonably well.

Me also, not so long ago, but not I prefer to have at least a bit of extra playing strength for 3♦ and this hand doesn't have it so 2♠ also.

[jillybean]

I think 3♦ is old fashioned, this is a routine 2♠ for me.

[ArtK78]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned. In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game. It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

 

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

[jillybean]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned. In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game. It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

 

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

[peachy]

Whether playing 2/1 or SAYC, 3D is an overbid with this. 2S.

[CSGibson]

3♦. I have an opportunity to describe to partner a salient feature of my hand, so I will do so (assuming that we're playing 2/1. Sayc I'm a 2♠ bidder).

[gwnn]

I'd definitely bid 3D with AQ AQ, but this would be alittle too much for my liking.

[mike777]

You hold:

 

♠AT9xx

♥8

♦AQ87x

♣J9

 

1♠-2♥

???

 

Is 3♦ normal and wtp? Is 2♠ (catch-all) better?

easy 3d if 2s promise 6...

 

3d can be ten hcp often...

 

of course that means 2h is a really good hand, not crap.

 

 

----------------

 

 

if 2s shows 5 and most others catch all...than i guess 2s is forced

 

2h can be much weaker now.

[rogerclee]

In a normal American 2/1 style, you can argue about where to draw the line with 5-5, but this is not particularly close to it.

[whereagles]

hanoi, if you're bidding 3♦ on both that hand and some monster with 18 hcp, you're gonna have serious problems latter finding the right level of play.

 

Thus 2♠ is better.

[helene_t]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

 

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

I the really old days it was a 2♠. When Hardy's book came it became fashionable to bid 3♦. But now 2♠ is standard I believe.

 

I generally prefer not to play the 2♠ catch-all but I would like to make an exception for this specific situation where the fourth suit is at the 4-level. This would make it impossible to sort out both strain and level in some situation. Say responder bids 3♠ over 3♦. IMHO this can't promise 3-card support since it is the only waiting bid available for a hand with no clear direction and 3NT as a possible strain - 3♥ should show 6. So after 3♠ we still need to sort out strain. I am afraid we can't do that while at the same time sorting out the strength of at least one of the two hands.

[mich-b]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

 

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

I the really old days it was a 2♠. When Hardy's book came it became fashionable to bid 3♦. But now 2♠ is standard I believe.

 

I generally prefer not to play the 2♠ catch-all but I would like to make an exception for this specific situation where the fourth suit is at the 4-level. This would make it impossible to sort out both strain and level in some situation. Say responder bids 3♠ over 3♦. IMHO this can't promise 3-card support since it is the only waiting bid available for a hand with no clear direction and 3NT as a possible strain - 3♥ should show 6. So after 3♠ we still need to sort out strain. I am afraid we can't do that while at the same time sorting out the strength of at least one of the two hands.

It has been suggested that in the specific sequence :

1♠ - 2♥

3♦ - ?

 

it is better to reverse 3♠ and 4♣, so that

3♠ = 4th suit forcing,

4♣ = 3♠s , good hand

 

This avoids the problem of using 4th suit forcing on the 4 level.

[gordontd]

I'd definitely bid 3D with AQ AQ, but this would be alittle too much for my liking.

So you play that a high reverse shows extra, but not much extra?

[gwnn]

yes, and I like to play it as 5-5. AQ AQ is pushing it but I want to show my shape. it will get crowded but it's always crowded over 1S-2H.

[gordontd]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

 

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

There feels like a contradiction or a typo in this.

 

However, I think 2♠ is the truly modern approach - because 2NT would show six spades and 3♦ would show extras. So, all hands with only five spades and no extras will rebid 2♠.

[ArtK78]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

 

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

There feels like a contradiction or a typo in this.

 

However, I think 2♠ is the truly modern approach - because 2NT would show six spades and 3♦ would show extras. So, all hands with only five spades and no extras will rebid 2♠.

Yes. It was a sort of a typo. More like a brain fart.

 

I got interrupted between the first paragraph and the last sentence.

 

2♠ is the old fashioned approach, as the hand is not good enough for a 3♦ bid.

 

Now, there is more of a division between 2♠ and 3♦. If you play that 2♠ promises 6, then you cannot bid 2♠ and are endplayed into bidding 3♦. Clearly, 3♦ does not show extras in this method.

 

If you promise extras with the 3♦ rebid, then you have to bid 2♠.

 

I strongly suspect that most players playing Standard methods would bid 2♠ on these cards.

[Vampyr]

I thought that if you were playing 2/1 GF, then you could rebid all manner of things without showing extras.

[Hanoi5]

I think the problem lies in that several hands are opened with a very low HCP level and if you find yourself in 1♠-2♥-3♦ with 10 HCP's in front of 13 HCP's and no fit, then things get ugly.

 

The concept of 'catch-all' pretty much helps with this problem, I think.

[hanp]

2S is old fashioned and modern. In between some people bid 3D.

[mikeh]

The problem with bidding 3♦ on shape is not merely (or even) that you end up too high when opener has a minimum and responder a 13 count gf: after all....if you open shapely 10 or 11 counts and partner forces to game with 13 and no fit, you are in trouble whether you bid 3D or 2S....your method has already committed you to a likely minus score.

 

The problems actually arise in the context of slam bidding.

 

Take a typical responder hand of, say xx AKQxx Kxx A10x.

 

Partner opens 1S and rebids, over your 2H, 3D with both of:

 

AKQxx x AQJxx xx and A109xx x AQxxx Jx

 

How on earth is responder to bid accurately?

 

If your argument is that he bids 3N on both and opener has to show his extras by bidding beyond 3N on the strong hand, let's give responder x KQJxx Kx KQxxx. Any issue with a 2/1 on that?

 

And it can make finding a slam in opener's second suit problematic.

 

What, for example, is responder to bid over a wise range 3♦ with say x KQ10xx KJxx KQ10? This is a powerful hand in support of a 15+ hcp pointed two-suiter...imagine AJxxx x AQxxx Ax, but opposite KJxxx x Axxxx Ax, we can easily end up in the wrong spot if responder tries for slam. BTW, I didn't spend much time setting up hands....I just wanted to show some areas of ambiguity.

 

Thus the problem is that when opener's 3-level rebid is unconstrained as to strength, it preempts the bidding and leaves both partners guessing. Many 2/1 partnerships, who play this shape-showing style, languish in 3N when slams were available or end up too high when one of them adopts an optimistic view.

 

Now, if you are playing a limited opening style, it makes a great deal more sense to bid shape in priority to strength on opener's rebid in a 2/1 sequence.

[ONEferBRID]

It has been suggested that in the specific sequence :

1♠ - 2♥

3♦ -  ?

 

it is better to reverse 3♠ and 4♣, so that

3♠ = 4th suit forcing,

4♣ = 3♠s , good hand

 

This avoids the problem of using 4th suit forcing on the 4 level.

Interesting...

Just for my edification....

I'm assuming your 3S! ( '4th suit forcing').. is "asking" for a stop in the 4th suit ( Cl ) for 3NT ?

 

[ Because with Cl-stop(s), Responder could just bid 3NT ] .

[mike777]

two keys if you are going to play a style where you rebid 3d with this hand

 

1: 2/1=14+ not less

2: responder assumes opener has a minimum and bids such. Why? because opener almost always will have a minimum. Opener will strain to open 14-16 hands with offshape nt often.

 

This is basically barry crane's style.

 

---------------

 

 

fwiw I think if it starts:

 

1s=2h

3d=.....3s=slam try in spades......4c=slam try in D.

[mikeh]

two keys if you are going to play a style where you rebid 3d with this hand

 

1: 2/1=14+ not less

2: responder assumes opener has a minimum and bids such. Why? because opener almost always will have a minimum. Opener will strain to open 14-16 hands with offshape nt often.

 

This is basically barry crane's style.

 

---------------

 

 

fwiw I think if it starts:

 

1s=2h

3d=.....3s=slam try in spades......4c=slam try in D.

Barry Crane doesn't have a style....he's been very dead for a very long time...his death ranks right up there with the murder of Elwell as the most mysterious unsolved bridge puzzles of the 20th century.

 

But Barry will be rolling around in his grave (or his ashes will be swirling in a cloud somewhere) when you accuse him of playing anything resembling 2/1. I once read a description of his method and it ain't anything like what we talk about here when discussing 2/1.