jh51 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1np2np3s]133|100[/hv] Assume the following:System is 2/1 GF1NT opening is 15-17The 2NT shows 17-18 HCP balanced What, if anything, should 3♠ mean? Or is this a bid that simply cannot happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I never have seen it. I guess I could speculate that it is the ace of spades and a hand that was going to make a three card limit raise had the auction gone 1♥-1NT-2♣. I suppose he figures that if opener now bids 3NT and he corrects to 4♥, opener will figure it out. But I dunno. Looks like a "guess what I am doing" bid. Maybe he pulled the wrong card from the box. I wouldn't pass. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Barring special agreements then both minors. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I would guess that South is short in spades and is trying to avoid 3NT unless North has an antipositional stopper. Which kind of implies both minors, but would possibly also offer a 5-2 heart fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_dude Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I would guess that South is short in spades and is trying to avoid 3NT unless North has an antipositional stopper. Which kind of implies both minors, but would possibly also offer a 5-2 heart fit. Without a prearranged agreement .. that was my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Without agreement, it should be natural (good 3 cards, worried of a minor?). However, since opener will now bid 3NT like 110% of the time, responder may then bid something to clarify what he meant by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Both minors. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Minors without any other agreements, probably heart tolerance as well, but definitely short ♠ and less than 3 hearts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why definitely short spades? What would one bid with xx x AQxxx KQxxx? We might make 6 of a minor, so I'd bid 3S showing the minors. Yes we are known to have less than 4 spades and less than 3 hearts from the auction, and yes if we have a shortness it's more likely to be spades than hearts since we are limited to ~12 and partner is 18-19ish, and we might be short in both, so we will often have short spades but I don't think that 3S really says anything about spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1np2np3s]133|100[/hv] Assume the following:System is 2/1 GF1NT opening is 15-17The 2NT shows 17-18 HCP balanced What, if anything, should 3♠ mean? Or is this a bid that simply cannot happen? I would think that it showed a hand with 5-5 in the minors, game forcing after your 2N call. (have not looked at other replies yet, sorry if this is a repeat) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 imo it must be both minors, like in the sequence 1♥-1NT-2♥-2♠. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobElliott Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 I play this as a 3 card limit raise of ♥ since 3♥ would be 5-7 pts w/3♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 I play this as a 3 card limit raise of ♥ since 3♥ would be 5-7 pts w/3♥. Would I be correct in assuming that you play a direct raise as constructive, i.e. 8-9(10?) w/3♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Assume the following:System is 2/1 GFWould I be correct in assuming that you play a direct raise as constructive, i.e. 8-9(10?) w/3♥?You stated that the system is 2/1. Constructive raises are part of 2/1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 2/1 is not clearly defined. Several treatments are either in or not in 2/1. I don't know what % of 2/1 players play constructive raises, but it is definitely not 100%, or anything close. The only thing that is part of 2/1 is that a 2/1 bid establishes a GF (except, perhaps, if responder rebids his suit). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 You stated that the system is 2/1. Constructive raises are part of 2/1... I am not sure. It is a treatment i believe. But i know a lot of people who dont like it much, and definetely hates it by passed hand. I believe it is more common in europe though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 2/1 is not clearly defined. Several treatments are either in or not in 2/1. I don't know what % of 2/1 players play constructive raises, but it is definitely not 100%, or anything close. The only thing that is part of 2/1 is that a 2/1 bid establishes a GF (except, perhaps, if responder rebids his suit). Which is precisely why I asked whether BobElliot's methods included contructive raises. I have read discussions of 2/1 that argue strongly against using constructive raises. I have not incorporated them into the methods I typically use with my partners, but I am aware of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Huh? With a limit raise I bid 4♥ in this auction, no matter what the rest of my agreements are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWO4BRIDGE Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 The following auction is an extention of the "Impossible Spade" :1H - 1NTF!2H - 2S! = both minors,weak or invitational. ( Ken Rexford has written about this ... in his Cuebidding series ). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3S! in the present auction probably should mean the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 You stated that the system is 2/1. Constructive raises are part of 2/1... Not true. It is a matter of agreement, not an automatic part of 2/1. It is giving no headaches to play whatever major suit raise structures one chooses, none of them obstruct the system at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Not true. It is a matter of agreement, not an automatic part of 2/1. It is giving no headaches to play whatever major suit raise structures one chooses, none of them obstruct the system at all.It's true that you can play whatever raise structure that you want ofcourse. One can play Gazzilli in 2/1 as well, but that doesn't mean 1♠-1NT-2♣ in standard 2/1 can be done with less than 3♣s. Maybe it's a difference in culture. If I sit down and my partner says "2/1", then I consider 1M-2M constructive and 1M-1NT absolutely forcing which can also contain raises with 5-7HCP or invites. 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.