What is going on here?

[jillybean]

2/1

 

1♠:1N*

2♣:3♦

3♠:

[menggq]

I think the key question is what's the 3♦ meaning?

1.3♦=SPL ♦single ♣5+(since 2♣ can be 4-cards) 10hcp+

2.3♦=good ♦suit inv hand

 

I prefer 3♦=SPL for ♣ FIT ♦single.

[Hanoi5]

Opener has a nice hand with clubs and 6 spades, responder some 10-12 with diamonds, very probably not balanced.

[Phil]

What is a direct 3♦?

[jillybean]

What is a direct 3♦?

Bergen

[tolvyrj]

Im not a 2/1 expert so i would like to know what 2♦ would have meant?

[Lurpoa]

2/1

 

1♠:1N*

2♣:3♦

3♠:

 

 

 

 

Well, I play BWS2001 (with BART), and

in this sequence 3♦ is preemptive to play (Not invitational).

[Finch]

Without any specific other agreements, 3D is natural invitational - a decent 6-card suit. Opener would usually pass or bid 3NT; 3S should be forcing with good spades - with an unsuitable hand for diamonds, just pass.

[helene_t]

Im not a 2/1 expert so i would like to know what 2♦ would have meant?

The basic idea is that after a 1NT response, responder's second bid means the same as it would in a non-2/1 style but that bids that would be "impossible" in a non-2/1 style can be used for hands that are stronger than a 1NT-responce in non-2/1 style, i.e. appr 11 points.

 

Also, responder tries to cater to opener having only three clubs. So (needless to say the "points" should not be taken too literally except for the 2NT rebid):

1♠-1NT

2♣-?

 

- Pass: 5-7 points, 4+ clubs

- 2♦/♥: 5-9 points 5+ in the suit (non-2/1 textbooks might say 6+ but with 1(54)3 you have no other option since opener might have only 3 clubs)

- 2♠: 5-9 with two spades or 5-6(7) with three spades, depending on your agreements about the strength required for a direct 2♠

- 2NT: "impossible": appr 11 points, less than three spades

- 3♣: appr. 8-9 points, hopefully 5+ clubs. Try to bid 2NT with 11 points as that sounds more encouraging. Try to bid something else with only four clubs.

- 3♦/♥: "impossible": 10-11 points, 6+ card suit, hopefully a good suit

- 3♠: "impossible", 3-card limit raise. A direct 3♠ would show 4 (but some partnerships disagree with this, and some have other ways of showing a 3-card limit raise directly)

 

Some play a direct 3♦/♥ as showing a single suited hand with invitational values. Then you can use the indirect 3♦/♥ to show a splinter. Also, some play a different structure after the 2♣ rebid with responder's 2♦ now being artificial.

[helene_t]

duplicate response

[fromageGB]

Also, some play a different structure after the 2♣ rebid with responder's 2♦ now being artificial.

Elaborating, if 2♣ is natural, then 2♦ would be weak, to play. However, you may agree that 2♣ could be any strong hand (say 17+) and not necessarily clubs. Then a 2♦ reply would be a GF artificial positive to ask opener to clarify his hand. If this is the case, then a 3♦ rebid rather than a 2♦ rebid shows a very weak hand (6/7 count) with long diamonds, and can be passed. After this, 3♠ is a game force.

[jillybean]

Without any specific other agreements, 3D is natural invitational - a decent 6-card suit. Opener would usually pass or bid 3NT; 3S should be forcing with good spades - with an unsuitable hand for diamonds, just pass.

This is how I hoped it would be understood. I held Axxxxx,Qx,x,AKJx and decided my A 6th spades weren't good enough to bid 3♠/1N (corrected typo, 3♠ not 2♠}

but hoped my 3♠ bid later would show 6.

Edited May 16, 2011 by jillybean

[Gerben42]

With a minimum, partner should pass 3♦ so he has extras with 6 - 4 but no stopper in ♥ and wants you to pick a game. Perhaps he has:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=saqt652h4dk6ckq95&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp1n(forcing)p2cp3dp3s]133|200[/hv]

 

Note that 6 - 4 hands with a minimum would bid 2♠ directly, so that also

1♠ - 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ shows this kind of hand.

[jillybean]

So, how do you bid 14hcp 6232 hands after 1♠:1N 2♣:3♦?

 

Do you support ♦'s and give up on a ♠ fit?

[cherdano]

So, how do you bid 14hcp 6232 hands after 1♠:1N 2♣:3♦?

 

Do you support ♦'s and give up on a ♠ fit?

You don't. I mean, you don't bid 2♣ with 6232 - either bid 2♠ or 3♠. Maybe rarely there is a hand where you would bid 2♦, but I would not do it very often, and certainly not with a 14hcp hand.

Edited May 16, 2011 by cherdano

[mike777]

BART

 

fwiw BART is a very common convention here.

 

 

3d=6d less than invite.

 

 

1s=1nt

2c=3d

 

iam rather surprised I am the first to mention this very very common conv.

 

AKxxx...xxx...x...AJxx

 

x....xxxx....AKJxxx....xx

 

 

2d here is artificial/most common is weakish with 5+h.

[jillybean]

You don't. I mean, you don't bid 2♣ with 6232 - either bid 2♠ or 3♠. Maybe rarely there is a hand where you would bid 3♦, but I would not do it very often, and certainly not with a 14hcp hand.

Partner bid 3♦, Im not suggesting opener bids 3♦.

Unless I have a weak hand with 6♠, I routinely bid 2♣/1N, why shouldnt I?

[helene_t]

Partner bid 3♦, Im not suggesting opener bids 3♦.

Unless I have a weak hand with 6♠, I routinely bid 2♣/1N, why shouldnt I?

Partner might pass 2♣ :(

Or raise clubs. Then with extras I suppose you could bid 3♠ but that could get you too high. And p might insist on clubs, taking you back to 4♣/5♣.

It is true that 2♣ only shows three but that is when you have a balanced hand. Once you bid the spades again he will assume 6-4.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

We play 3D in this seq. as a Fit Jump, but we also play that the direct 3D bid

showes the inv. single suiter.

 

The weak single suiter, can be shown via 2D.

 

If you play, that 2D over 1S is GF - than it may make sense to play the delayed

jump as inv.

 

So the answer to the question, what 3D in the given seq. showes depends heavily on

the answers to the question, what does

 

1S - 3D and what does it mean if responder rebids his suit on the 3 level.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Partner bid 3♦, Im not suggesting opener bids 3♦.

Unless I have a weak hand with 6♠, I routinely bid 2♣/1N, why shouldnt I?

 

If you have a bid to show the 6th spade, instead of a bid that could be based

on a 3 card suit - why would you choose the less descriptive bid?

of course, if you play some artifical stuff, that involves a 2C relais to differentiate

various hand types / strengts, than by all means play it, but than menationed it and

hopefully your partner knoes as well, that 2C is artificial and forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[cherdano]

Partner bid 3♦, Im not suggesting opener bids 3♦.

Unless I have a weak hand with 6♠, I routinely bid 2♣/1N, why shouldnt I?

Sorry 3♦ was a typo, I meant 2♦. Don't bid 2♣ on a 2-card suit.

[gwnn]

Unless I have a weak hand with 6♠, I routinely bid 2♣/1N, why shouldnt I?

Because you have 6 spades and you don't have 4 clubs.

[Lurpoa]

BART

 

fwiw BART is a very common convention here.

 

 

3d=6d less than invite.

 

 

1s=1nt

2c=3d

 

iam rather surprised I am the first to mention this very very common conv.

 

AKxxx...xxx...x...AJxx

 

x....xxxx....AKJxxx....xx

 

 

2d here is artificial/most common is weakish with 5+h.

 

 

 

Right; and part of BWS2001 !

[jillybean]

I obviously have a basic misunderstanding of how these hands should be bid.

What is your response after 1♠:1N* with these hands

 

 

5332

5323

5233

 

Minimum hand:

6322

6323

6233

 

Maximum hand:

6322

6323

6233

[cherdano]

(Answers inserted, sorry for the formatting)

 

I obviously have a basic misunderstanding of how these hands should be bid.

What is your response after 1♠:1N* with these hands

 

 

5332

2♦

5323

5233

2♣ on both of them

 

Minimum hand:

6322

6323

6233

2♠

 

Maximum hand:

6322

6323

6233

Depends on what maximum means - if too good for 2♠ you bid 3♠, if too good for that you bid 3NT or jump-shift into your 3-card suit.

It used to be a popular forum style in the last decade to rebid your 3-card minor with 6=2=(3-2) when you have an inbetweeen hand - i.e. too good for 2♠ and not good enough for 3♠. The idea is that you then raise the expected 2♠ preference to 3♠ - at least this way you avoid playing 3♠ opposite a minimum with a spade singleton.

But really, the hand where that is right seems to come up rarely.