2/1 gameforcing auction

[han]

This is not a real hand, there's no form of scoring or vulnerability.

 

AQJxx

Kxxx

Kx

xx

 

1S - 2D

2H - 2NT

??

 

2D is 100% GF, 2S by partner would have promised 3-card support and 3C by partner would have been natural. Your call?

[jillybean]

Is 3♣ showing doubt about clubs?

If that is not available, 3♦

[han]

Is 3♣ showing doubt about clubs?

 

Good question, that's exactly the reason I posted this hand.

[cherdano]

I will try to answer the question "What is the best agreement?", not "What would I do without discussion?".

 

Let's start with the obvious: Since 2♠ by partner would have promised 3 spades, his 2NT doesn't promise a club stopper.

 

With no extra length in the majors, there are roughly 4 hand types we want to show:

A: club shortness with diamond support

B: diamond shortness, typically 5=4=1=3, mostly in order to warn a partner with higher goals in mind

C: 5422 with club stopper

D: 5422 without club stopper

 

But we have only three bids available (3N, 3D, 3C). Unless we want to make some artificial followup agreements, we have to give up on something.

I am used to playing 3♣ as natural, handtype B, which means we have to either bid 3NT with both C and D, or we have to bid 3♦ with both A and D. Clearly handtype A is extremely important to show (more important than B anyway), so IMO the latter agreement is out. Bidding 3N with both C and D is possible, but I am not sure I like it - I like responder being able to make a cheap bid (2NT) even without a textbook hand for it.

 

It seems more useful to use 3♣ as fourth-suit forcing, typically showing D, and to bid 3NT with both B and C. For example, with the given hand, it feels really nice to be able to bid 3♦ to "bid where we live". But over 3♣, we are happy if partner bids 3NT; and otherwise we still have room to show a good spade suit with 3♠ over 3red, and can remove 3NT to 4♦ if the bidding went 3♣-3♦-3♠-3NT.

(After 3♣, any suit bid shows extra strength in that suit, looking for the best strain.)

[billw55]

Hmm. Responder seems to have neither 3 spades, nor 4 hearts, nor 6 diamonds, nor 4 clubs. His most likely shape is 2353, with or without a hard club stopper. If he has one, we want to play 3NT. If not, I want him to pick one of the 7-card majors.

 

Having figured this out, what to bid? 3NT obviously ends the auction regardless of partner's club holding, and 3 of either major shows an extra card we don't have. That leaves 3 of a minor. I think 3♦ would still show support, with 5431 or 5440 shape. This is not a huge distortion on diamonds alone (Kx feels like a good holding here) but the implied club shortness might overexcite partner about slam. So I choose 3♣ by process of elimination. I think partner can work out that this is not a real suit - what would be the point on this auction? - and will do what I want him to do, either 3NT or a major.

 

A hand worth discussing! Ordinary hand, ordinary auction, yet a fair amount of thinking involved. My favorite kind.

[helene_t]

I think 3♣ is natural here, although it is probably not optimal to use the cheapest bid for such an exotic purpose. It feels wrong to have to bid a nebolous 3♦ with this hand because the cheaper 3♣ bid has a more specific meaning. Even so, that is what I would assume playing "standard" methods.

 

But if this hadn't been posted as a problem I would just have bid 3NT without thinking about it.

[han]

I will try to answer the question "What is the best agreement?", not "What would I do without discussion?".

 

Let's start with the obvious: Since 2♠ by partner would have promised 3 spades, his 2NT doesn't promise a club stopper.

 

With no extra length in the majors, there are roughly 4 hand types we want to show:

A: club shortness with diamond support

B: diamond shortness, typically 5=4=1=3, mostly in order to warn a partner with higher goals in mind

C: 5422 with club stopper

D: 5422 without club stopper

 

But we have only three bids available (3N, 3D, 3C). Unless we want to make some artificial followup agreements, we have to give up on something.

I am used to playing 3♣ as natural, handtype B, which means we have to either bid 3NT with both C and D, or we have to bid 3♦ with both A and D. Clearly handtype A is extremely important to show (more important than B anyway), so IMO the latter agreement is out. Bidding 3N with both C and D is possible, but I am not sure I like it - I like responder being able to make a cheap bid (2NT) even without a textbook hand for it.

 

It seems more useful to use 3♣ as fourth-suit forcing, typically showing D, and to bid 3NT with both B and C. For example, with the given hand, it feels really nice to be able to bid 3♦ to "bid where we live". But over 3♣, we are happy if partner bids 3NT; and otherwise we still have room to show a good spade suit with 3♠ over 3red, and can remove 3NT to 4♦ if the bidding went 3♣-3♦-3♠-3NT.

(After 3♣, any suit bid shows extra strength in that suit, looking for the best strain.)

 

I like the way you think.

 

What will you bid with a 5-4-0-4 shape?

[han]

Hmm. Responder seems to have neither 3 spades, nor 4 hearts, nor 6 diamonds, nor 4 clubs.

 

I would rebid 2NT with many hands containing 6 diamonds or 5-4 in the minors. To me, 3C shows at least 10 cards in the minors, and 3D really invites partner to raise on a doubleton. So with a 1-3-5-4, 2-2-5-4 or 2-2-6-3 shape I would often rebid 2NT, perhaps depending on my honors. I don't know to what extend this is standard among different bridge populations. It is relevant to the discussion though, because if responder could still have 4 clubs then we might still belong in clubs when opener is 5-4-0-4.

 

I think cherdano has made a good start by rebidding 3NT with 5-4-1-3 shapes as well as 4-5-2-2 shapes with a club stopper. The 3D bid on a 5-4-3-1 shape seems really important, I don't want to bid that with a doubleton. Then 3C is left for both 5-4-0-4 shapes as well as 5-4-2-2 without a stopper. We have the room to sort things out, but that would involve more artificiality.

 

A better solution is perhaps to reverse the 2S and 2NT rebids by responder: 2NT promises a spade fit while 2S denies a spade fit and is more of a catch-all. After 2S opener can bid 2NT with a club stopper (ranging from 5-4-2-2 to 5-4-0-4) while 3C can be used as "fourth-suit", but now truly denying a club stopper. After 2NT (promising a club stopper) responder can bid 3C with 5-4 in the minors.

 

In effect you are giving up 1 step on the hands where you have a spade fit but gain a step on the hands where you don't know the best strain yet. It also seems to rightside notrump more often.

 

This works after a 1H opening as well if you reverse the 2H and 2S rebids by opener (I think this idea comes from Italy, but I could be mistaken). And after opener's natural 2D rebid you can play:

 

2H = unbalanced, clubs and the other major.

2S = "catch all", often balanced.

2NT = spade fit.

 

I am just thinking out loud here.

[dake50]

Partner didn't prefer either of my majors as my bids asked.

Now discussing whether he has a C-stop.

To refuse to prefer (contrary to partner's wishes in general)

must be pristine. No problem. He has a C-STOP.

3NT is right.

[wank]

 

 

Let's start with the obvious: Since 2♠ by partner would have promised 3 spades, his 2NT doesn't promise a club stopper.

 

 

to say that's not obvious to me would be an understatement.

[billw55]

I would rebid 2NT with many hands containing 6 diamonds or 5-4 in the minors. To me, 3C shows at least 10 cards in the minors, and 3D really invites partner to raise on a doubleton. So with a 1-3-5-4, 2-2-5-4 or 2-2-6-3 shape I would often rebid 2NT, perhaps depending on my honors. I don't know to what extend this is standard among different bridge populations. It is relevant to the discussion though, because if responder could still have 4 clubs then we might still belong in clubs when opener is 5-4-0-4.

Agree about shapes, that is why I used vague words like "seems" and "most likely". I think 3♣ is still most flexible if partner holds those other shapes you mention: he can still bid 3NT, 3M, or 3♦.

 

Regarding the chance that clubs could still be a feasible trump suit after this auction: won't we almost always want to be in 3NT in that case?

[Phil]

to say that's not obvious to me would be an understatement.

 

Many good posters (Gnasher I think) would disagree.

[han]

Regarding the chance that clubs could still be a feasible trump suit after this auction: won't we almost always want to be in 3NT in that case?

 

Are you saying that the chance that opener is 5-4-0-4 and responder is 5-4 in the minors is fairly small, and even in that case we often want to play 3NT anyway so perhaps we should not worry about it?

 

That makes some sense.

 

And if either hand is strong enough to move past 3NT then a club slam can still be found.

 

By the way, should a jump to 4C show a 6-4-3-0 shape and a jump to 4D show 5-4-4-0? One second, Rexford on the phone.

[han]

to say that's not obvious to me would be an understatement.

 

I said in the opening post that 2S would show 3 spades and 3C would be natural. Partner would have no choice to bid 2NT holding something like Qx KJx AQJxx xxx.

 

Of course you may not like that style, that's another matter.

[Fluffy]

3♣ and 3♦ show 3+ cards, I use 2NT to help partner pattern out even with unbalanced hands. I am bidding 3NT. 3♠ is close.

[han]

3♣ and 3♦ show 3+ cards, I use 2NT to help partner pattern out even with unbalanced hands.

 

Why do you think that this is best? Why is it important to bid 3C with Kxxx AQxxx x KJx?

 

By the way, I like your suggestion that 3S is a possibility with this hand, with 5-6 we would go to the 4-level anyway so perhaps one can bid 3S with this kind of hand. However, you could not do that after 1H - 2D - 2S - 2NT, now you do need to be able to show both 5-5 and 6-4 in the majors.

[Fluffy]

I will try to answer the question "What is the best agreement?", not "What would I do without discussion?".

 

Let's start with the obvious: Since 2♠ by partner would have promised 3 spades, his 2NT doesn't promise a club stopper.

 

Unlike most 2/1 biddings, this one has 4SF in 3♣ IE very cheap, I think partner would need a very good reason not to use 3♣ with most hands without stopper. That doesn't mean 2NT must 100% have the stopper, but it is very unlikelly at least.

[Phil]

Some excellent thoughts so far, especially from Cherdano.

 

Can we (please!) assume that 2♦ promises 5?

 

I think cherdano has made a good start by rebidding 3NT with 5-4-1-3 shapes as well as 4-5-2-2 shapes with a club stopper.

 

This.

 

The 3D bid on a 5-4-3-1 shape seems really important' date=' I don't want to bid that with a doubleton. [/quote']

 

This....I'm not sure about in a standard setting. I would prefer to be able to bid 3♦ as a concentration of values and to invite other strains. Unless you add in Cherdano's 3♣ over 2N or Han's 2♠ over 2♥, I would not expect partner to be able to make the right decision with Kx, Ax, QJTxxx, Axx if we have to raise 2N to 3N with the OP.

 

A better solution is perhaps to reverse the 2S and 2NT rebids by responder: 2NT promises a spade fit while 2S denies a spade fit and is more of a catch-all. After 2S opener can bid 2NT with a club stopper (ranging from 5-4-2-2 to 5-4-0-4) while 3C can be used as "fourth-suit"' date=' but now truly denying a club stopper. After 2NT (promising a club stopper) responder can bid 3C with 5-4 in the minors.

 

In effect you are giving up 1 step on the hands where you have a spade fit but gain a step on the hands where you don't know the best strain yet. It also seems to rightside notrump more often.[/quote']

 

Good stuff Maynard. I would also add 2N (by Opener over 2♠) can be many hands including a positional 'stall' with a holding like Qx (common hand), a hand that has doubt about strain, or a hand with substantial extras. 3N over 2♠ by opener could be the purish hand for NT with a real club stopper - KQT, and a hand that has no interest in anything other than 3N.

 

Switching 2♠ and 2N only gives up the ability for opener to be able to pattern out with 5422 over 2♠, and this isn't any meaningful loss.

[JLOGIC]

Whats wrong with bidding 3D with this?

[JLOGIC]

Why do you think that this is best? Why is it important to bid 3C with Kxxx AQxxx x KJx?

 

 

It depends if you play 1S 2D 2H 3C as FSF or natural. It is definitely important to bid 3C with 5404 and if you are playing standard I think it is useful to be able to bid 3C on 5413 that has some significant extras (15ish) but cannot drive past 3N but obviously doesn't want to bid 3N. I would say that bidding 3C on a minimum 5413 is pretty dumb.

[mikeh]

Not much to add to some interesting points, especially the idea of reversing responder's 2♠ and 2N over 2♥. I'm not sure if that is optimal, because I'd want to think of the costs....thus we lose the ability for opener to rebid 2N, as some form of artificial call, over a natural trump-setting 2♠ if we used 2♠ to show 3+ trump (which I don't do unless partner likes it that way....Hx is enough for me on some ugly hand types).

 

In any event, we are rarely going to have that inversion unless we are playing with a very regular partner, and i think the OP was couched in terms of a somewhat generic expert 2/1 method.

 

One point that I want to stress is that I truly believe that responder should NOT bid 3♣ over 2♥ on the vast majority of 5=4/6=4 minor hands even if one wanted to define that call as natural. Personally, I think it is best used as a 'stall'...a classic would be xx KJx AKJxx Jxx....but it could also include a minor suit hand that was willing to commit beyond 3N if partner were to bid 3N over it.

 

Consider opener's 5=4=0=4, and while that is a low frequency shape, it does happen and is a difficult shape to bid. Indeed, it is impossible unless you play this as natural and permit it within the 3♣ rebid over 2N. The only question, to me, is under what circumstances, if any, do we bid 3♣ on some 5413....and why

 

While the differences may be subtle, it seems to me that the auction will usually time out better if responder bids 2N with all minimum to medium range 5=4/6=4 minor hands.

 

Those hands will rarely be interested in a minor suit contract unless opener shows 4clubs or a strong liking for diamonds.

 

Bid 3♣, and opener's 3♦ is a mere preference. Bid 2N and opener's 3♦ is a strong statement.....whether it should be 3=1 or could be, as here, Hx xx is a matter of style more than anything....I'd tend to bid 3♦ on the given hand, since my partner could well have 6 diamonds for 2N.

 

I agree with Justin that opener rebidding 3♣ over 2N on a 5413 minimum is wrong....why not just bid 3N with that?

[gnasher]

I'm going to abstain on the main question, because this:

3C by partner would have been natural

is just too alien to me. (But at least I did read it.)

 

On the question of the right contract when opener is 5404 and responder has four clubs, I think it will quite often be right to play in 5♣, especially when responder has a singleton spade. This is the sort of layout:

[hv=pc=n&w=saj743hk654dckj92&e=s2ha32dkj432caq54]266|100[/hv]

The hands where it's right to play in the suit fit are fairly easy to identify - they're the ones where you have empty suits and lots of aces.

[jogs]

This is not a real hand, there's no form of scoring or vulnerability.

 

AQJxx

Kxxx

Kx

xx

 

1S - 2D

2H - 2NT

??

 

2D is 100% GF, 2S by partner would have promised 3-card support and 3C by partner would have been natural. Your call?

 

What's 2NT?

 

1S - 2D

2H - 3NT

??

 

What would 3NT be?

[Fluffy]

Whats wrong with bidding 3D with this?

Pinpoints a club singleton and partner will have a tough time figuring this out.

[MrAce]

Han, i am so glad you brought this one up bro, i was about to make a whole new topic about this if you didnt.

 

Me and Tez were practicing in pdship bidding table (and you may have to play with him too if needs to be, but unlikely) he thought this (we had exactly the same auction) 3♦ here shows 3 card [dia] and club shortness. He then bid 4♣ telling me he has no wasted values in my shortness but not good enough to take control etc etc...This didnt sound right to me.

 

I agree with you and Arend that 3♣ should be 4th suit. I just dont like to do it with Hx ♦ and xx ♣ though where H is A or K (or even Q perhaps).

 

That said, i would bid 3♦ with the hand you gave. I don't think 3♦ now should show 3 of them or club shortness yet.