Has Anyone Seen This Bid Before?

[32519]

I am currently playing in a new F2F partnership where we are still sorting out all our bidding agreements. My partner made a bid tonight which I had never seen before. I am posting it here to find out what others think of the bid and its possible wider application.

 

The system we are playing is the Short Club (1♠, 1♥, 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit). I opened 1♠ and partner responded with 2NT. Now I know very well that she doesn’t know the Jacoby 2NT convention. I also knew that she was showing real values. I bid out my shape, 3♦ was my second bid which partner lifted to 5♦. Dummy comes down and partner held 1444 (singleton ♠) and an opening hand as well. We were the only table that made the contract when everyone else was playing in 3NT which goes down 1. The ♠ suit was crummy; KQ and 3 babies. Partner’s singleton was also a baby. You get only 1 ♠ trick in 3NT.

 

See post 7 below.

In a Short Club system where 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit, this bid actually fits in quite well. The 2NT bid over the suit opened promises a 4441 hand, a singleton in the suit opened and an opening hand as well. The probability of being dealt a 4441 hand and 12+ HCP is low at only 1.04%.

 

My question:

Does the sequence 1♠-2NT (promising 1444 and an opening hand) warrant further exploration?

 

So what else could we use the 2NT bid for in a Short Club System?

1. Jacoby 2NT is the obvious one. But that can be accommodated in a different way as stated by aguahombre.

2. 11-12 HCP balanced and invitational.

3. 13-15 HCP natural and balanced, game forcing.

4. Mini-splinter or strong 16-19 splinter in any suit (as used by Zelandakh).

 

This post has been edited.

[mgoetze]

Answer: No.

[hrothgar]

I am currently playing in a new F2F partnership where we are still sorting out all our bidding agreements. My partner made a bid tonight which I had never seen before. I am posting it here to find out what others think of the bid and its possible wider application.

 

The system we are playing is the Short Club (1♠, 1♥, 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit). I opened 1♠ and partner responded with 2NT. Now I know very well that she doesn’t know the Jacoby 2NT convention. I also knew that she was showing real values. I bid out my shape, 3♦ was my second bid which partner lifted to 5♦. Dummy comes down and partner held 1444 (singleton ♠) and an opening hand as well. We were the only table that made the contract when everyone else was playing in 3NT which goes down 1. The ♠ suit was crummy; KQ and 3 babies. Partner’s singleton was also a baby. You get only 1 ♠ trick in 3NT.

 

My question:

Does the sequence 1♠-2NT (promising 1444 and an opening hand) warrant further exploration?

 

Let me guess this straight...

 

You and your partner blundered into a 5♦ contract that happened to make when 3NT went down

Based on this fluke, you think you've discovered a superior new treatment for the auction 1M - 2N...

[ArtK78]

I would not put it so bluntly, but...

 

You were lucky.

 

It seems like 3NT was the normal contract which, unluckily, went down while your 5♦ contract (a near anathema at matchpoints) made, so you got a good score.

 

Congrats on the top, but it all boils down you your being lucky on this one.

[aguahombre]

Your choice not to use J2N is gaining in popularity. Top pairs who want both a natural forcing 2NT response and a Jacoby fit bid are using 2S/1H and 3C/1S for the Jacoby call.

 

Whether a natural 2NT over 1S is allowed with 1-4-4-4 is up to you and your partner. After 25 years, my better half and I still don't agree on that point.

 

I don't know the given actual hands and cannot be as critical of the auction as others; but, it does seem (in the blind) from your post that if opener had AXXXX instead of KQXXX you were on the verge of a diamond slam, not just a better game. So, you might consider looking at both hands again and seeing whether that leap to 5D was such a good idea or whether a slower approach would have gotten you to the good spot brilliantly as opposed to luckily.

[Phil]

2N as a natural GF isn't exactly a revolutionary idea. I have no problem making the call on a 1444.

[32519]

Your choice not to use J2N is gaining in popularity. Top pairs who want both a natural forcing 2NT response and a Jacoby fit bid are using 2S/1H and 3C/1S for the Jacoby call.

 

Whether a natural 2NT over 1S is allowed with 1-4-4-4 is up to you and your partner. After 25 years, my better half and I still don't agree on that point.

 

I don't know the given actual hands and cannot be as critical of the auction as others; but, it does seem (in the blind) from your post that if opener had AXXXX instead of KQXXX you were on the verge of a diamond slam, not just a better game. So, you might consider looking at both hands again and seeing whether that leap to 5D was such a good idea or whether a slower approach would have gotten you to the good spot brilliantly as opposed to luckily.

 

I’ve spent a bit more time mulling over the bid and your post here. I am starting to think it fits in quite well playing Short Club, where 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit. Open one of those, the 2NT bid from partner showing a 4441 hand and a singleton in the suit opened works well. Opener is in a good position now to judge where the auction is heading. With a 5332 holding and good (better) values in the suit opened that can stand a singleton from partner, 3NT is the place to be. The 5♦ contract worked well because I had a 5431 holding. As you rightly say here, the ♠A would have seen a ♦ slam (although I don’t believe we would have bid it).

 

I will be following your advice here and retrieve the actual hand. I will then do some thinking on how to explore for the possible slam.

 

Jacoby 2NT can still be incorporated into our bidding agreements. I just need to explain to partner how it works.

 

Constructive posting is always appreciated. Thanks for this!

[gwnn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXGSBgr8sbg

[Zelandakh]

It comes down to this. If I have a bid that shows something very specific, perhaps my 1♠ opening shows exactly 7222 shape and 10-12hcp, then whenever it comes up we will do very well. On the other hand, whenever it does not come up, one or more of the other bids suffers since it has to cover the extra hands. Your proposed 2NT response is like this. Showing precisely 1444 and 13-15 hcp is great but how often does the hand come up?

 

Now think of alternative (usually more common) uses for the bid. These may have smaller gains but perhaps the overall effect is better? This is how you make decisions in bidding systems. Generally a positive in one place tralnslates to a negative somewhere else. Good design involves minimising the negatives and maximising the positives. However, different people have differing ideas about the relative weights of some of these things.

 

FWiiW I prefer to play 1♠ - 2NT as a mini-splinter or strong (~16-19) splinter with the shortage in any side suit. Playing it as natural and game-forcing seems like another a good approach, especially in a 2/1 GF setting. I strongly suspect, albeit without any statistics or evidence to back it up, that your proposed alternative is too specific to be good. The only way to be sure is to test it over a large number of hands.

[mgoetze]

If I have a bid that shows something very specific, perhaps my 1♠ opening shows exactly 7222 shape and 10-12hcp, then whenever it comes up we will do very well.

Someone should count the number of times 32519 has been told this.

[aguahombre]

Did someone misread? I was not advocating a 2NT response which only shows 1-4-4-4. It is merely one of the "balanced" G.F. possibilities in response to 1S including 2-(3-4-4) as the others.

[Zelandakh]

Did someone misread?

I think you did agua! That is the OP's proposal. It is being compared with a natural 2NT response, et al.

[aguahombre]

I assume the OP is someone.

[32519]

There are plenty of ways to reach a 3NT contract with the cards actually held. To name a few:

1. Incorporating a 2/1 bidding style into your system agreements

2. A change of suit is always forcing

3. Fourth suit forcing

4. Inverted minor suit raises

5. 2NT to show 13-15 HCP as game forcing can double up as showing 4441 with a singleton in the suit opened

6. Etc. etc

 

The 4441 hand opposite a 5431 hand worked well.

 

The OP has been edited.

[ahydra]

I'd be nervous of bidding a natural 1S-2NT on a 1444. Partner with a minimum 5S4H will not show his hearts (unless he's forced to by agreement).

 

One thing I don't understand about a natural 2NT is "what is wrong with 2C"?

 

Also, why would people use 1S-3C as Jacoby? Doesn't that take away the 3C response? 1H-2S gives you an extra 2NT response to use for something (if playing 3x NAT and 4x SPL, 2NT could be a spade splinter perhaps), so that's a good idea. In the meantime I await the days when natural 1x-2NT and strong jump shifts are a thing of the past. They really are quite useless!

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

There are plenty of ways to reach a 3NT contract with the cards actually held. To name a few:

2. A change of suit is always forcing

3. Fourth suit forcing

4. Inverted minor suit raises

I do not think #4 is going to help very much over a 1♠ opening. #3 is equally pointless. And outside of relay systems I do not know anyone who does not play a new suit response as forcing. Without using any of your suggestions one could have the completely simple auction: 1♠ - 2♣; 2♦ - 3NT. Incidentally, what do you currently use a 3NT response for in your methods? If you think a bid for specifically 1444 and 13-15hcp is particularly useful in your system, this would seem to be a reasonable candidate.

 

Also, why would people use 1S-3C as Jacoby? Doesn't that take away the 3C response?

I use 1♠ - 3♣ as my GF raise because I have what I think is a more useful purpose for the 2NT response. There is not enough space for that over 3♣ but there is enough space for my "alternative to Jacoby" response structure.

 

 

In the meantime I await the days when natural 1x-2NT and strong jump shifts are a thing of the past. They really are quite useless!

Quite useless? One of the leading players using a natural 2NT response is Fred. He played it in the Bermuda Bowl so perhaps it has something going for it...

[campboy]

The cause of this good result was not the convention, but partner's judgement. You showed 5-4 in spades and diamonds, and he chose to play in 5♦ rather than 3NT. If the auction started 1♠-2♣-2♦, you would still have shown 5-4 in spades and diamonds and he could still make the same choice.

[Statto]

Did someone misread? I was not advocating a 2NT response which only shows 1-4-4-4. It is merely one of the "balanced" G.F. possibilities in response to 1S including 2-(3-4-4) as the others.

2NT reply to 1M as balanced and GF (as it is in reply to 1m in SAYC), 2 or possibly only 1 card in support of said major (or perhaps 3 in a 4333) seems a reasonable approach to me, particularly at MPs. No, I haven't misread.

 

(PS. I wouldn't play it due to better uses for 2NT such as good raise or better, but that's beside the point.)

[gwnn]

Did someone misread? I was not advocating a 2NT response which only shows 1-4-4-4. It is merely one of the "balanced" G.F. possibilities in response to 1S including 2-(3-4-4) as the others.

When people reply to a thread without quoting another post or making an obvious effort to clarify (e.g. 'I find some replies that suggest (...) frankly absurd'), it is safe to assume that people are replying to the opening post, rather than your own post.

[Vampyr]

we are still sorting out all our bidding agreements

 

I don't think you needed to mention this fact -- everyone on these forums is well aware of it!

[mikl_plkcc]

2NT as game forcing is a very old idea. In the original natural system about 70 years ago, 2NT showed 13-15 and 3NT showed 16-18. However, I would like to use 2NT as 10-12 now.

[32519]

I am currently playing in a new F2F partnership where we are still sorting out all our bidding agreements. My partner made a bid tonight which I had never seen before. I am posting it here to find out what others think of the bid and its possible wider application.

 

The system we are playing is the Short Club (1♠, 1♥, 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit). I opened 1♠ and partner responded with 2NT. Now I know very well that she doesn’t know the Jacoby 2NT convention. I also knew that she was showing real values. I bid out my shape, 3♦ was my second bid which partner lifted to 5♦. Dummy comes down and partner held 1444 (singleton ♠) and an opening hand as well. We were the only table that made the contract when everyone else was playing in 3NT which goes down 1. The ♠ suit was crummy; KQ and 3 babies. Partner’s singleton was also a baby. You get only 1 ♠ trick in 3NT.

 

See post 7 below.

In a Short Club system where 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit, this bid actually fits in quite well. The 2NT bid over the suit opened promises a 4441 hand, a singleton in the suit opened and an opening hand as well. The probability of being dealt a 4441 hand and 12+ HCP is low at only 1.04%.

 

After mulling over the bid I am starting to think it fits in quite well playing Short Club, where 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit. Open one of those, the 2NT bid from partner showing a 4441 hand and a singleton in the suit opened works well. Opener is in a good position now to judge where the auction is heading. With a 5332 holding and good (better) values in the suit opened that can stand a singleton from partner, 3NT is the place to be. The 5♦ contract worked well because I had a 5431 holding.

 

Since posting this topic originally, the 4441 hand with responder over partner’s opening bid has come up a few more times. After mulling over the bid initially, I agreed to partner’s wish to at least “experiment with it before giving up on it completely.”

 

We play “Short Club” but have agreed to “experiment” with the bid over all 1-level suit openings. So 1♣/♦/♥/♠ followed by 2NT promises the 4441 hand pattern, singleton in the suit opened. Placing the final contract (or allowing room for a slam try) becomes simple.

1. 1 (any)-2NT-3NT = 5332 hand pattern

2. 1 (any)-2NT-3M = extras, slam interest

..a. Cue bid = cooperating with the slam try. As the singleton suit is already known, cue-bidding it now promises the Ace or King

..b. 4M = discouraging slam try, minimum

3. 1 (any)-2NT-4M = no extras. Responder with extras now takes control of the bidding.

4. 1 (any)-2NT-4m = extras, slam interest, Minorwood for the suit bid (usually 5431 hand pattern)

5. 1 (any)-2NT-5m = no extras, signoff, 5431 hand pattern

 

Over 1M, Jacoby responses can still be included using Fred Gitelman’s suggestion here.

 

Thus far we have had no misfortunes with the bid. Until we do it will probably remain as part of our system agreements.

[broze]

I use 1♠ - 3♣ as my GF raise because I have what I think is a more useful purpose for the 2NT response. There is not enough space for that over 3♣ but there is enough space for my "alternative to Jacoby" response structure.

 

Interesting. I also use 3♣ as the GF raise in ♠, so that it's basically the same as my 1♥-2NT GF raise sequence but shifted up a bid with various shortness relays etc. thrown in. It makes everything very neat. B-)

[ColdCrayon]

Your choice not to use J2N is gaining in popularity. Top pairs who want both a natural forcing 2NT response and a Jacoby fit bid are using 2S/1H and 3C/1S for the Jacoby call.

 

 

That's interesting, because in my bidding system 2S has no meaning over 1H, and 3D over 1S doesn't either. I could push the 3C bid over one and use 2NT for....

 

what? I think it's already reasonably easy to show a balanced gf hand without the jump to 2NT; mostly what I hear is people finding Jacoby inadequate, and using the 1M 2NT as invitational instead. Can anyone explain to me why you want to do this?

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

That's interesting, because in my bidding system 2S has no meaning over 1H, and 3D over 1S doesn't either. I could push the 3C bid over one and use 2NT for....

 

what? I think it's already reasonably easy to show a balanced gf hand without the jump to 2NT; mostly what I hear is people finding Jacoby inadequate, and using the 1M 2NT as invitational instead. Can anyone explain to me why you want to do this?

The reason for doing this is that it makes 2/1 responses show a real suit, which in turn makes it much easier to make good slam decisions. Fred is one of the leading proponents of this theory. It fits well within a 2/1 GF structure, not so well within an SAYC/SEF/Forum D/Acol base.

 

If you currently have the sequence 1♥ - 2♠ undefined then try this:-

 

1♥ - 2♠ = mini-splinter (limit raise with side shortage) or maxi-splinter (~16-19 support points with side shortage)

then 2NT from Opener is a relay and

3♣ = mini-splinter with club shortage

3♦ = mini-splinter with diamond shortage

3♥ = mini-splinter with heart shortage

3♠ = maxi-splinter with side void (3NT asks where)

3NT = maxi-splinter with spade singleton

4♣ = maxi-splinter with club singleton

4♦ = maxi-splinter with diamond singleton

 

It is a useful addition to almost any system that does not need this call for another purpose. FWiiW, this is also what I use a 2NT response for after a 1♠ opening.