how do you bid this?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk654h3dat8cak974&n=sqj7haq42dk952cjt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp1np2cp2sp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

or..

 

1♦:2♣

2♦:2♠

3N

 

or..

 

1♦:2♣

2n:3n

[Cyberyeti]

1N-2♣-2♥-3N :)

 

but playing a strong no trump, probably 1♦-2♣-2N (if this is 12-14 bal)-3♠-3N

[wyman]

but playing a strong no trump, probably 1♦-2♣-2N (if this is 12-14 bal)-3♠-3N

+1

 

With a game force, you should bid your 5 card minor before your 4 card major. The point being you'll have time to bid the major later.

[Zelandakh]

1N-2♣-2♥-3N :)

 

but playing a strong no trump, probably 1♦-2♣-2N (if this is 12-14 bal)-3♠-3N

I thought the same as you here, Yeti, except that my weak NT auction would probably be 1NT - 2S; 2N - 3H; 3NT, where 2S is a range ask and 3H shows 4+ spades and 5+ clubs. Not too sure if posting this auction in B/I is appropriate though.

[aguahombre]

For us, this is a simple old-fashioned 2/1 sequence.

 

1D-2C (G.F.)

2H-2S (natural bids--2H denying 5 diamonds)

2N-3N (At the point of 2NT responder knows everything she needs to know).

 

1D-2C

2N? would have been shape specific (4=4=3=2) with 11-14 or 18-19. 3N direct/2C would also have been shape specific, 3=3=5=2 with 18-19.

 

Jumps to 3NT by opener after 2-level continuations extra strength, not fast arrival.

 

Repeating, "for us". Am not preaching dogma, just stating what our follow-ups are.

 

Edit: If the question is about the 1S response, that is just plain wrong in any non-canape style. 2C, then spades establishes the game force AND eventually the relative lengths of the two suits. 1S does neither of those things. This part IS dogma ;)

Edited November 8, 2011 by aguahombre

[mike777]

1d=2c

2nt=3s

3nt

 

1) 2c=lets bid our longest suit first and gf.

2)2nt= strongly prefer 2nt rebid. It limits our hand and tells our shape. 2h here should be 54.

3) 3s= pard can still have 4s on this auction

[hrothgar]

This one depends completely on partnership agreements

 

I had one partnership that would bid this

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♠ - 2N

3♣ - 3N

 

and another

 

1♦ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

2N - 3♦

3N

[kenrexford]

Using Golady:

 

1♦-2♣(artificial GF)

2♦(four hearts)-2♠(sdpades and clubs)

2NT(non-minimum)-3♦(diamonds also in case you care)

3NT(nope)

 

Using Unbalanced Diamond:

 

1♣-1♠

1NT-2♦(GF)

2♠(3-piece)-3♣(slam interest with clubs)

3NT(not interested enough)-pass

[mikeh]

Let's see: this is the B/I forum and a question is asked (obviously) in a strong notrump context.

 

So we have answers based on a weak notrump structure and answers based on a completely artificial method with which virtually no-one, let alone B/I players, is familiar.

 

What about providing a meaningful answer to a simple question?

 

It is standard to respond 2♣ here, because we have a gf hand and we want to be able to describe our shape. If we, instead, respond 1♠ and then show gf values, opener should always assume that our spades are as long as or longer than our clubs. This makes no difference to the outcome on hands such as this, but there will be hands on which it is important for opener to be able to trust an inference such as this.

 

The next question is: what is opener's rebid?

 

The sequence 1♦ 2♣ is a theoretical morass for standard bidding, and different partnerships will develop their own approaches.

 

Thus it is possible to play that bidding 2♥ promises 4=5 reds or better, with extra values...this happens to be my preference, but it is not, afaik, 'standard'....neither is it, again afaik, idiosyncratic.

 

It is also possible to play that with 4=5 one rebids 2♦, to allow room for responder to pattern out via 2M on the appropriate hand. Again, I don't think that this is 'standard' but neither is it idiosyncratic.

 

Fortunately for the discussion on this hand, opener as an easy 2N rebid, because opener has a weak notrump hand and, critically, values in the majors.

 

Again, some might feel that bidding 2N denies a major, but such a treatment is not, at least in my experience, standard either.

 

No matter what one chooses, it is possible to identify problems with followups. Thus the auction 1♦ 2♣ 2N 3♠ means suit agreement in spades isn't reached until the 4 level. This can be ameliorated by having opener bid 4♣ or 4♦ or 4♥ over 3♠ as a cuebid in support of spades when holding a good hand in context, but that isn't problem-free either.

 

And one needn't change the opener's hand much to create more of a problem: with xxx AKxx AJxx Jx, rebidding 2N may wrong-side notrump or may get responder bidding 3N with xx or equivalent in spades, perhaps missing an excellent moysian heart game.

 

As I said earlier, most experienced partnerships develop their own methods for this auction. Mine, which are definitely not standard, call for a rebid of 2♦ as a 'default' bid, promising nothing about extra diamonds, but denying the ability to make a different, descriptive call. It seems to work reasonably well, but suffers from the obvious problem of how to show long diamonds. Perhaps aguahombre's approach fares better.

[jillybean]

As I said earlier, most experienced partnerships develop their own methods for this auction. Mine, which are definitely not standard, call for a rebid of 2♦ as a 'default' bid, promising nothing about extra diamonds, but denying the ability to make a different, descriptive call. It seems to work reasonably well, but suffers from the obvious problem of how to show long diamonds. Perhaps aguahombre's approach fares better.

Mike, does your 2N and 2M rebids for opener all show extra's?

 

fwiw, this hand was bid with a new partner. I opened 1D and ended up playing in 5♦. :blink:

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk654h3dat8cak974&n=sqj7haq42dk952cjt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp1np2cp2sp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

Playing 2/1, Hardy Style ( as I often have quoted and been "poo-pooed" over it ):

 

1D - 2C! ( 2/1 GF )

2H ( showing 4h/4d; a 2D rebid would show 5+d and not deny 4h ) - 2S ( 4s, no 4h )

2NT - 3NT

[mikeh]

Mike, does your 2N and 2M rebids for opener all show extra's?

 

fwiw, this hand was bid with a new partner. I opened 1D and ended up playing in 5♦. :blink:

No: the scheme is as follows:

 

2M shows 4-5 or better and a good 14+ hcp (or compensating values as in good suits and 4-6 or better)

 

2N shows stoppers in the majors and a weak notrump hand (or 18-19, intending to raise 3N to 4N). The stopper requirement is not absolute: xxxx would suffice B-)

 

3♣ shows 4+ clubs, and is silent about values

 

3♦ is a very good suit and slight extras

 

3M is a splinter in support of clubs (thus 3♣ implies no shortness, altho the splinter will be a stiff, not a void)

 

2♦ is a default call: merely denies the ablity to make any other call. Thus could be a 4 card suit and doesn't deny a major.

 

My feeling is that 2/1 fares especially badly on hands where both partners have some extras but not enough to unilaterally drive beyond 3N. So any scheme that allows opener to show a 4 card major, over 2♣, on minimums and 14-16 counts seems to me to be problematic. That is why I like the 'reverse' to show basically at least a King above an awful opening hand. This allows responder a little more leeway with his 15-16 count....he needn't worry about reaching 4N with a combined 27 count and no big trick source.

 

The cost is accuracy whenever opener has a single suited diamond hand and there isn't room to adequately explore (mainly) choice of games (and occasionally slams). My experience so far leads me to think that this cost is worth paying, but I'm always on the lookout for a better approach....I truly do feel that this is a very weak area in bidding theory in a strong NT realm. Weak notrumpers have different issues.

[aguahombre]

1D-2C (G.F.)

2H-2S (natural bids--2H denying 5 diamonds)

2N-3N (At the point of 2NT responder knows everything she needs to know).

 

 

1D - 2C! ( 2/1 GF )

2H ( showing 4h/4d; a 2D rebid would show 5+d and not deny 4h ) - 2S ( 4s, no 4h )

2NT - 3NT

DejaVu, all over again

[Fluffy]

1♦-2♣

2NT

 

shows 14 or more (18-19) to me, and I rebid 2♦ probably similar to mikeh.

 

With opener's hand I'd rebid 2NT over 2♠, not 3NT as you suggested.

[mike777]

wow and i thought this was an easy hand and here we have a zillion auctions on a nothing hand.

 

two balanced nothing hands...and we have many auctions.: many of them going really deep.