Jump to content

Where is wrong?


cnszsun

Recommended Posts

N should rebid 3H instead of eating up all that space with the quantitative 4N.

 

S shouldn't accept, remember partner shouldn't have much help in hearts. But of course 4N isn't exactly a good contract either. I would not call it a contract at all actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you wanna start with 2 you've got to rebid 2NT, then when partner bids 3 you can cuebid.

 

starting with 1 might get you stablishing a fake spade fit before using blackwood, wich is not a bad thing since K is a keycard anyway and KQ are already allocated. But how to find the control I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disagree, I really like 2. it establishes a GF immediately so we don't need to look for forcing bids later.

Don't need forcing bids later: 1 - 1 - 2 - 6 :)

 

But... if you want forcing bids they're not hard to find. After 1 - 1 - 2, then 3, 3, 4 NT and 4(available if you cuebid 2nd round controls) are forcing.

 

Bidding 2 on that may have established a GF, but it's also established a mess.

 

By bidding 1 you get more room for exploring strain and level. If partner rebids 1NT, it's more likely you belong in NT (and you can still force by using XY-NT or the like...) If partner rebids 2, you've found a fit at the 2-level.

 

And another bonus: You don't need to lie about / length and strength like you do when bidding 2 and rebidding ...

 

In my partnership it might have gone like the first sequence of my post - not the craziest of punts. An alternative: 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 (denies -control) - 4 - 4 - 4NT etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends a lot on the meaning of 2, but without alerts I'd definitely say 2 is wrong.  You can just respond 1.  Bidding like this suggests 5+ and 4.

The other positives for 1;

a.) partner gets a better valuation on the K if he has it and tends to devalue a singleton as probable wastage

 

b.) if 2 over 2 is ambiguous it is less so over 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disagree, I really like 2. it establishes a GF immediately so we don't need to look for forcing bids later.

Don't need forcing bids later: 1 - 1 - 2 - 6 ;)

 

But... if you want forcing bids they're not hard to find. After 1 - 1 - 2, then 3, 3, 4 NT and 4(available if you cuebid 2nd round controls) are forcing.

 

Bidding 2 on that may have established a GF, but it's also established a mess.

 

By bidding 1 you get more room for exploring strain and level. If partner rebids 1NT, it's more likely you belong in NT (and you can still force by using XY-NT or the like...) If partner rebids 2, you've found a fit at the 2-level.

 

And another bonus: You don't need to lie about / length and strength like you do when bidding 2 and rebidding ...

 

In my partnership it might have gone like the first sequence of my post - not the craziest of punts. An alternative: 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 (denies -control) - 4 - 4 - 4NT etc.

Both approaches have nice advantages and nice disadvantages. I wasn't looking to change anyone's mind, I just mentioned one of the nice advantages of the approach preferred by me. I guess if I say that I am not alone in the forums who play it this way I sound elitist or something like that. This issue is complicated and I am not interested in changing anyone's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hv=d=s&n=saqjxhkqdkqxcqxxx&s=skxxhaj109xxdaxxcx]133|200|1H-2C

2H-2S

2NT-4NT

6NT[/hv]

What is with the 2S rebid ?

I'm assuing 2C! was a 2/1 GF ( as putrid of a suit that it is ).

Opener has denied 4s with the 2H rebid.. AND has shown 6+h ( with only 5 cards, Opener would have had a 3C or 3D or 2NT rebid -- even if one of the unbid suits were unstopped [ as Phillip Alder would say: " that's what partners are for " ] ).

 

1H - 2C!

2H - 3H ( now you have agreed trumps at a low level and no worry about a passout)

3S - 4D ( going past 3NT w/cue, yet denying a Cl Ctrl in his 2/1 suit; thus, have strength )

4NT - 5S ( 2 + hQ )

6H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with mike777, 2C is good, 2S is bad.

I agree. Establish the GF first. Imo, one shouldn't respond 1S with a GF hand unless holding 5 spades. It's difficult to establish a GF after introducing a 4-cd spade suit, it's difficult coping with competition after doing so, and it gets really messy if opener decides to raise spades with 3.

 

I also think opener with a 4/6 hand should rebid 2S and then rebid hearts later. This means that 1H-2C, 2H-2S is 4S/5C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 for me, and it's clear of mind. Allow pard to have 4-5-x-x or 4-6-x-x to support you, and now you can reeval your hand. I disagree with 2 to set the GF, because you know it's your hand already; the opps are likely to stay out. Additionally, if pard finds a jump bid, the KQ of trumps, is prime cards for a slam try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends a lot on the meaning of 2, but without alerts I'd definitely say 2 is wrong. You can just respond 1. Bidding like this suggests 5+ and 4.

Agree. I would certainly bid 1S and it is pretty obvious. There is a school of thought on this site that bids 2C "to establish the game force", (as if you couldn't do it buy other means), and there have been a number of posts on this. For me, the bidding shows 5C and 4S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play 2 as a GF relay as well, and opener will immediately show if he has 4 or not. Then we can relay out the entire hand, which gives us an easier auction and better judgement from the balanced responder.

 

HOWEVER, OP didn't say 2 was GF nor artificial or possibly short... :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opener has denied 4s with the 2H rebid.. AND has shown 6+h ( with only 5 cards, Opener would have had a 3C or 3D or 2NT rebid -- even if one of the unbid suits were unstopped [ as Phillip Alder would say:  " that's what partners are for " ] ).

It is fairly common to play that after 2/1, 2M rebid doesn't promise 6+ cards, and that 1-2-2 shows extra (which means 1-2-2 doesn't deny 4 spades either). Of course that is not the only way of playing 2/1, but I think you will find plenty of players (and majority of experts) who DON'T play the way you described.

 

That being said, I do agree that 2 is not a good bid. Once you decide to start the auction with 2 (which has merits and problems), you should give up finding 4-4 spade fit after partner rebids 2. The 2 bid implies a much better club suit. I think a simple 2NT is best here. If partner raises to 3NT, you can bid quant 4NT. If partner rebids 3 (as he should for this hand), you can start cuebidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...