atb

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=st8754hq63d75cq96&w=sq6h2dkq86cak8432&n=sajhkjt9854d32cj5&e=sk932ha7dajt94ct7&d=e&v=n&b=5&a=1dp2cp2np3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

[aguahombre]

The style agreements are not given, so I don't know whether East's 2NT rebid was appropriate. What I do know is that if East cannot show 5+diamonds over 2C, then West must show his/her four-card support for diamonds on the next round.

 

That is sufficient for this forum, without burdening/boring anyone with specific preferences for an auction which might or might not end in slam, but will stay out of 3NT.

[BunnyGo]

I assume you were playing a standard 2/1?

 

I personally don't like the bids 2NT, 3C, or 3NT. So I guess that makes it 75-25 East (2-1 for # of bids I don't like and a bonus for the first bid in the auction that I don't like).

 

I think Easts second bid should be 2D or 2S (depending on whether 2S shows extra strength) to better show shape. After 3C it's a must that East show shape better than just 3NT.

 

After 2NT, I think West will do better to bid diamonds and show 4 cards than clubs again to show a 6th club. It's still possible that East is 3=3=5=2 after the 2NT bid, and diamonds could be a great strain to play in.

[jillybean]

I was east, I can't bid 2♠/2♣ as it would show extra's, my options were 2♦ or 2N.

I chose 2N as I thought it better to show that I had a hand suitable for NT rather than show the 5th ♦.

Over 3♣ I could bid 3♦ but 3N looked like a reasonable contract opposite what I thought would be

long, solid ♣'s.

[jillybean]

I personally don't like the bids 2NT, 3C, or 3NT. So I guess that makes it 75-25 East (2-1 for # of bids I don't like and a bonus for the first bid in the auction that I don't like).

 

 

You wouldn't open this hand?

[BunnyGo]

You wouldn't open this hand?

 

No I meant that since East made the first "bad bid" East derailed the auction first. The bid of 1D was fine.

[Cyberyeti]

I presume standard 2/1 doesn't allow you to bid 3♣ on the W hand first time, or an inverted 2♦ ? Much prefer either of those to 2♣.

 

I'd rebid 2♦ if I had to choose between 2♦ and 2N.

[pooltuna]

west for failing to show support with a 3♦ over 2NT

[Hanoi5]

I don't like 2NT, under the conditions I prefer 2♦.

 

I don't like 3♣ I prefer 3♦.

 

I don't like Pass over 3NT, I prefer to support diamonds.

 

75% to West, 25% to East.

[Cascade]

I don't like 2NT. I like 3♣ even less.

 

It is almost always wrong to conduct an uncontested auction and not tell partner that you have support for their first bid suit.

[the hog]

I don't mind 2NT at all, if it is supposed to show this strength. The failure to bid 3D over 2NT is very odd.

[helene_t]

I chose 2N as I thought it better to show that I had a hand suitable for NT rather than show the 5th ♦.

I think this is fine. Obviously something to discuss with partner. You have a semi-balanced hand so it is ok to describe it as either balanced or semi-balanced, and with stoppers in both unbid suits I would prefer to call it balanced, also.

Over 3♣ I could bid 3♦ but 3N looked like a reasonable contract opposite what I thought would be

long, solid ♣'s.

Yes but partner already knows that you have a balanced hand with stoppers in the majors, doesn't he? And even so, he chooses to continue looking for the right strain, rather than settling for 3NT.

 

In general, it is opener's duty to describe her hand as accurately as possible. Responder tends to be captain of the auction. Sometimes the roles are reversed, for example when responder makes a limit bid or a jump shift. But I think in this auction, captainship is (mainly) by responder.

 

That said, I think responder should have bid 3♦ instead of 3♣.

[helene_t]

double post

[wank]

unlike others, i do object to 2NT - you're wasting space to misdescribe your shape. much better to show the 5th diamond and let partner reverse into a major if he has one, or get the no-trumps in himself. west's 3 clubs is obviously bizarre. after that, rebidding 3NT is silly when your heart stop is only Ax. you can still get to 3NT (easily) if you, belatedly, start to describe your hand with 3D.

[chasetb]

I don't like 2NT. I like 3♣ even less.

 

It is almost always wrong to conduct an uncontested auction and not tell partner that you have support for their first bid suit.

Cascade hits the nail on the head. I object to 2NT as well. If anyone is playing 3NT, I would want West to based on looking at only the East hand. I would bid 2♦. However, West gets all the blame in my book because (s)he completely misdescribed the hand. I would expect 3♣ to show a great club suit, and not completely willing to give up on slam. I would also expect Responder to bid a 4-card suit if (s)he has one, as 2NT doesn't deny a 4-card Major. 2NT doesn't sink the ship, 3♣ does.

[Bbradley62]

I'd prefer 2♦ instead of 2N, but that may be a style thing. I agree with Helene that 3♣ is keeping possibilities open, as it might be right to play in either minor, so the failure (Edit: of opener) to bid 3♦ earns the lion's share of the blame for ending in the wrong place. Edited July 5, 2011 by Bbradley62

[peachy]

I accidentally upvoted instead of clicking "Reply" to one of jillybean's comments here. No biggie of course but I usually wait for something I wholeheartedly agree.

Anyway, it is a good thing to agree on follow-ups after it starts 1D-2C in a 2/1 system where 2C is a natural GF call. One that I like is that opener's first responsibility is to confirm whether he/she has 5 or more diamonds; If "no" on that, then show 4-card majors up the line, and this does not promise extras/reverse; If "no" on majors, then bid 2NT with both majors stopped, unless also have 4-card support for clubs in which case usually support clubs first before NT. Agree on what is the most important and under which conditions but the key IMO is to rebid 2D if opener has more than four of them.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&s=st8754hq63d75cq96&w=sq6h2dkq86cak8432&n=sajhkjt9854d32cj5&e=sk932ha7dajt94ct7&d=e&v=n&b=5&a=1dp2cp2np3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

I recommend using the method by Max Hardy ( author of 2/1 GF ) who had studied the 1D - 2C! ( GF ) sequence.

It is simple and logical and removes much of the guesswork or re-inventing.

After Responder's 2C!, Opener's first obligation is to rebid 2D with 5+ card suit. [ Edit: After 2D, the entire 2-level is still available to find a 4-4 Major fit. With less than 5 cards Diam , Opener rebids 2M with a 4 card Major or 2NT w/o one ... or 3C w/4+ support ] .

 

East West

1D - 2C!

2D - 3Hjump ( splinter, agreeing Diam, and denies 4 cards Spades )

4D! ( Minorwood ) - 5C ( 4th step = 2 + dQ )

6D

 

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

I just noticed something.

The last time I mentioned SPLINTER in the B/I, I got FOUR "demerits" ( down votes ).

I don't know if that is a record... I wonder if will be broken here .

[Bbradley62]

I just noticed something.

The last time I mentioned SPLINTER in the B/I, I got FOUR "demerits" ( down votes ).

I don't know if that is a record... I wonder if will be broken here .

Very unlikely to get downvotes, since they have been disabled...

[Bbradley62]

The last time I mentioned SPLINTER in the B/I, I got FOUR "demerits" ( down votes ). I don't know if that is a record...

Not a record, as the first post in "'Standard' Systems for Major Tournaments" got 10 downvotes. And that's not even checking the postings of a certain young woman who is no longer with us...

[aguahombre]

Young for sure.

 

Typical wisdom and deportment for a teenager, definitely.

 

But, "no longer with us" is not clear. I see her upvotes on the posts of others from time to time.

[han]

I agree with Bunny that opener made 2 bad bids and responder 1. However, the 3C was the worst bid to my mind. I would give opener 40% of the blame, and responder 60%.

[jillybean]

I accidentally upvoted instead of clicking "Reply" to one of jillybean's comments here. No biggie of course but I usually wait for something I wholeheartedly agree.

Anyway, it is a good thing to agree on follow-ups after it starts 1D-2C in a 2/1 system where 2C is a natural GF call. One that I like is that opener's first responsibility is to confirm whether he/she has 5 or more diamonds; If "no" on that, then show 4-card majors up the line, and this does not promise extras/reverse; If "no" on majors, then bid 2NT with both majors stopped, unless also have 4-card support for clubs in which case usually support clubs first before NT. Agree on what is the most important and under which conditions but the key IMO is to rebid 2D if opener has more than four of them.

 

 

I recommend using the method by Max Hardy ( author of 2/1 GF ) who had studied the 1D - 2C! ( GF ) sequence.

It is simple and logical and removes much of the guesswork or re-inventing.

After Responder's 2C!, Opener's first obligation is to rebid 2D with 5+ card suit. [ Edit: After 2D, the entire 2-level is still available to find a 4-4 Major fit. With less than 5 cards Diam , Opener rebids 2M with a 4 card Major or 2NT w/o one ... or 3C w/4+ support ] .

 

East West

1D - 2C!

2D - 3Hjump ( splinter, agreeing Diam, and denies 4 cards Spades )

4D! ( Minorwood ) - 5C ( 4th step = 2 + dQ )

6D

 

 

I much prefer the Hargreaves approach where 2M shows extra's (King more than a minimum) , 2N shows both majors stopped and does not

deny a 4cM, 2♦ is the catchall, often with a minimum and often 4 or 5♦.

 

So all in all, I think I'd bid 2N again but choose 3♦/3♣.

[aguahombre]

I much prefer the Haegreaves approach where 2M shows extra's (King more than a minimum) , 2N shows both majors stopped and does not

deny a 4cM, 2♦ is the catchall, often with a minimum and often 4 or 5♦.

 

So all in all, I think I'd bid 2N again but choose 3♦/3♣.

One basic idea in 2/1 G.F. bidding is using space efficiently at the lower levels to establish strain. Showing an extra King in an unbalanced hand can come later. Showing an extra King in a balanced hand is impractical because 1NT would have been opened.

 

The time-honored approach described by twoforbridge and attributed to Hardy is effective. There are variations attributable to Walsh, Smolen, and other West Coast theorists of that era which might or might not be slightly better (such as the 2NT rebid showing exactly 4=4=3=2).

 

Hargreaves is a pretty smart guy, but I think his approach might be better suited to weak NT users and/or those who don't consider 2C/1D an absolute G.F.

[Free]

Both deserve some blame, but West deserves more blame than East imo. He had a very clear 3♦ rebid, 3♣ is really awful. Opener's bids were also strange imo, the hand isn't as suited for NT as you'd like. There's no reason to play NT in the East hand (some example holdings: ♠Qx, ♥QTx+,...), so I'd prefer 2♦ rebid to start with. Bidding 3NT in the OP's auction is understandable, not to give away too much information with a partner that basically denied a 4 card ♦ support.