Does this auction exist?

[Antrax]

Playing 2/1 and having a checkback gadget available, do these have a standard/logical meaning?

a) 1♥-1♠, 1NT-3♥

b) 1♥-1♠, 2m-3♥

[mike777]

1) playing xyz then 3h is a slam try, a strong slam try, you start with 2c with invite and 2d with just a game force hand in h. granted a rare auction. Other versions of checkback may prefer 3h as some 5-5 type hand.

2) 3 card limit raise. you go through 4sf with a gf hand. a pretty common auction.

[keylime]

I'd treat 3♥ in hand one as invitational in hand 1; this assumes you have some way to ask via NMF (have you discussed that with pard what 1H-1S-1NT-2C means?) for forcing hands and that you don't have 2/1 values. With 2/1 GF values, just make the 2/1 to set the GF and pattern out.

 

In hand 2, I'd treat it as the 3 cd LR myself.

[the_clown]

Hand 1 is surely a slam try, probably no shortness otherwise you could autosplinter.

 

Hand 2 is invitational

[Antrax]

About (2) above, so what's the difference between 1♥-1♠, 2m-3♥ and 1♥-1NT, 2m-3♥? Does the former exist if 1NT is 100% forcing for one round?

[helene_t]

Hand 1 is probably just a limit bid, at least if you play CBS or NMF. If you play XYZ I suppose it could be a slam try since the limit raise goes through 2♣.

 

Hand 2 is surely a limit bid, unless you play something exotic like 4th suit invitational

 

Antrax: the difference is that if you bid spades you have spades and if you don't bid spades you don't have them :)

[Antrax]

The reason it doesn't seem trivial to me is that if partner opened hearts and I have three card support, why not raise immediately? So maybe my system constrains me to go through 1NT for a 3-card limit raise, okay, but why would I show a second major suit if I know I'm going to support hearts?

[MrAce]

The reason it doesn't seem trivial to me is that if partner opened hearts and I have three card support, why not raise immediately? So maybe my system constrains me to go through 1NT for a 3-card limit raise, okay, but why would I show a second major suit if I know I'm going to support hearts?

 

Huh ?

 

You are bidding spades incase you have a 4-4 ♠ fit and discard your losers on side 5-3 fit ? (unless you are playing some sort of flannery and pd can not have side 4 card spades with less than certain strength. )

[Flameous]

I don't bid 4 card spade suit with heart support, these always show 5(+)-3 for me.

 

I doubt the first one has some universal meaning. Usually even though I'm slammish, I'd rather bid 2♦ GF and support after since it leaves room for partner to bid 3 card spades which enables double agreement.

[fromageGB]

I don't play xyz, and in it's absence take both OP sequences as game invitation with 3 card support. With a "checkback gadget" available, it depends on the gadget.

 

In the first, I think it very important to go for a 4-4 major fit rather than a 5-3, so will always look for it. When denied by 1NT, assuming this is a fairly balance 12-14, the 3♥ is logical, and, I would have thought, standard. Maybe if 1♥ 1♠ is always 5 card for you, I hope you have a bid somewhere to show 4 card. If not, you can use KI to distinguish 4 and 5, and then 1♥ 1NT(5+spades) 2♦(max 14hcp) 3♥ is again invitational 3 card support. Agree with MrAce.

 

In the second, providing 2m is not a Gazilli/Riton type bid, then again logical and standard. Even if it is, 3♥ is again logical, as it conveys the hand pretty exactly, but I don't know if it is standard.

[MrAce]

There are times that i skip 4 card spade when i have ♥ fit

 

- When i have a weak and 1 bid hand. Then i prefer showing my fit because if i start 1♠ later i will have to bid 2♥ only when pd rebids something and that will look like i am just giving preference. Pd never knows if there is a real fit.

 

- When i have a game force hand, then i dont have a fear of losing spade fit, i start with 2 minor ( But then again i dont play 2♠ rebid by opener promising extras). We saw a lot of topics in the past that showed starting 1♠ over 1♥ with a GF hand wastes too much space and by the time we set trumps as hearts, we are way too behind already information wise and we are too high already.

 

 

All this is because the auctions you posted are used as invitational bids. If you use them as GF bids (assume no xyz) then you solve some of the problems above, but then you lose your 4-4 spade fits. You have to decide which one is your priority. As far as i know popular aproach is to play the auctions you posted as invitational (i repeat again, if no xyz) and ignore bidding the 4 card spade when the hand is too weak and/or when the hand is stronger than invite.

[Antrax]

Thanks everyone. We don't play XYZ, mostly because I couldn't for the life of me figure out what's the problem it tries to solve :)

[kenrexford]

One partner of mine and I saw the same auctions and same problem and decided to go consistent with other sequences. Thus, this strangely was defined as Responder being 5-5 in the majors and GF. Yes - a 10-card fit with a side spade suit.

 

We then relaxed this somewhat to make it promise a fit"jump GF hand, meaning a picture splinter or picture bid with great heart support (not necessarily five, but good honor), five great spades, and no side controls except usually one stiff. Hence 5431 obviously OK.

[Stephen Tu]

All this is because the auctions you posted are used as invitational bids.

 

The first auction, with the 1nt rebid by opener, cannot be invitational in standard methods, logically:

- if you had single raise values, one raises from 1h to 2h directly; spades aren't mentioned.

- pulling 1nt to 2h shows a real fit, since one wouldn't pull 1nt to 2h on a doubleton; you'd just pass 1nt. This must then be invitational

 

So 3h is logically forcing. Now if you want to differentiate it from some other forcing sequence going through checkback, that's perfectly fine also.

[Antrax]

Really? I thought after 1NT, 2♥ is just escaping on a weak unbalanced hand, figuring the 5-2 will play better.

[fromageGB]

So 3h is logically forcing.

Logic, Jim, but not as we know it.

[lowerline]

Playing 2/1 and having a checkback gadget available, do these have a standard/logical meaning?

a) 1♥-1♠, 1NT-3♥

b) 1♥-1♠, 2m-3♥

 

a) inv; 2♥ is a weak hand with 6 spades and 3 hearts

b) inv; 2♥ is preference

[Stephen Tu]

Logic, Jim, but not as we know it.

 

So where, in your opinion, does the logic I presented break down? Taking potshots at my post without disputing the point(s?) where you think it errs isn't very useful.

 

The sequence is described as I have under "Responder's rebids" in the ACBL Bridge Encyclopedia. It's also been this way in most SA texts that I can remember that explicitly cover this exact sequence. For other countries, perhaps one or more of the assumptions are different and different conclusions can be reached.

[SteveMoe]

Sorry for sounding confused, but playing 2/1 without more than standard NMF, I believe both auctions are invitations.

1♥-1N-2♣-3♥ is the equivalent of 1♥-1♠-2♣-3♥ (unless you play Edgar's KS requirement that the 1S is 8/9+). What alters this picture is the nature of the checkback system in play. Even Gazilli intrudes here - but is that really the question?

[Stephen Tu]

Sorry for sounding confused, but playing 2/1 without more than standard NMF, I believe both auctions are invitations.

 

The auctions are fundamentally different. Over 1h-1s-2c-? one *needs* to be able to bid 2h on a doubleton, with 2-2 in opener's suits you'd much prefer to be in a 5-2 than a 4-2, and with 2-3 in opener's suits you often want to be able to take a false preference in case opener is quite strong (limited only by failure to jump shift) and there is a game.

 

Over a 1nt rebid on the other hand, you don't *need* to be able to bid 2h on a doubleton, because opener is limited, and there's no strong reason to prefer hearts on a 5-2 over 1nt. At least this is how most standard texts I have read have presented it. Now one could argue for 2h showing 6s-3h weak, or try to make a case that responder is say 5-2-5-1 but can't bid diamonds naturally to play if playing some artificial diamond call, and that 2h will maybe play better than 1nt on average. But that's not how the standard texts I've seen interpret the auction. And on these hands, where opener is limited, responder is weak, and the opps have say a 9 cd club fit and half the deck, no one stuck in a takeout double or 2c bid?

 

Generally, if one has only an invitational hand, if your scheme can let you invite on the 2 level and avoid the 3 level, this is an advantage, because when opener doesn't accept, there's no downside to being low. Sometimes you get nasty breaks and all your hooks fail, you are glad you stayed low.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 depends on the version of checkback you play.

we played a NMF version, that meant, 3H direct was inv.,

going via NMF shoowed a GF hand.

#2 showes a GF raise, for wht ever reason, you did not want to

go via Jacoby 2NT, maybe you require 4 card support for Jacoby

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Yu18772]

On standard bidding both auctions are invitational (limit), because you chose to bypass an available gf bid.

 

Said that, for a while I also payed a style where if we changed a suit and then bid 3 of openers major in a jump it would be 3 card support and slamish. That meant we would burry the spade suit on invitational hands. The best thing about the second agreement that its easy to remember and its unambiguous, but if you got your NMF/checkback/2way nmf well discussed/practiced it should not be a problem, and there is no reason to burry the spades on invitational hands.

 

Another point is that in the second auction you might want to differentiate when 2m is ♣ and 4th suit is 2♦, as opposed to when 2m is ♦ and 4th suit is 3♣.

On that auction you should discuss how to get back to ♥ if partner bids 3♠ showing 3 card spade suit......it can get pretty awkward.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

[fromageGB]

The first auction, with the 1nt rebid by opener, cannot be invitational in standard methods, logically:

- if you had single raise values, one raises from 1h to 2h directly; spades aren't mentioned.

- pulling 1nt to 2h shows a real fit, since one wouldn't pull 1nt to 2h on a doubleton; you'd just pass 1nt. This must then be invitational

 

So 3h is logically forcing. Now if you want to differentiate it from some other forcing sequence going through checkback, that's perfectly fine also.

 

So where, in your opinion, does the logic I presented break down? Taking potshots at my post without disputing the point(s?) where you think it errs isn't very useful.

OK, sorry, let me expand on the logic.

 

Probably everybody round here playing 5 card majors would play 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ as "to play". It is a preference bid. Maybe at IMPS it makes little difference, but at matchpoints there is a big difference between 90 and 110, etc.

 

If I have a random 6 or 7 count, and a 43xx shape or a 42xx shape, I bid 1♠ in the expectation that 2♠ on a 4-4 fit will score marginally better than a 5-3 or 5-2 heart fit. When partner denies the spade fit with 1NT, then I think the 5-3 or 5-2 heart fit will play better than 1NT on half or less than half the pack. So I bid 2♥ as preference. It is not invitational.

 

Your logic is built on the premise of bypassing the better 4-4 spade fit. This is certainly playable, more so at teams and has benefits and disadvantages. But it is conditional logic. It is equally logical to look for a spade fit, and then 2♥ is logically to play. And then 3♥ in invitational - depending on your "checkback gadget" agreements.

[Stephen Tu]

Probably everybody round here playing 5 card majors would play 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ as "to play". It is a preference bid. Maybe at IMPS it makes little difference, but at matchpoints there is a big difference between 90 and 110, etc.

 

If I have a random 6 or 7 count, and a 43xx shape or a 42xx shape, I bid 1♠ in the expectation that 2♠ on a 4-4 fit will score marginally better than a 5-3 or 5-2 heart fit. When partner denies the spade fit with 1NT, then I think the 5-3 or 5-2 heart fit will play better than 1NT on half or less than half the pack. So I bid 2♥ as preference. It is not invitational.

 

Your logic is built on the premise of bypassing the better 4-4 spade fit. This is certainly playable, more so at teams and has benefits and disadvantages.

 

The thing is, it's very standard to NOT look for a 4-4 spade fit when responder has < invitational values. It's bog standard to raise directly with 4-3/5-3 in the majors and 6-9 pts, this is something I've seen recommended by practically every book on 5 cd majors, every decent player I've ever heard from on the topic. 4-4 fits being superior to 5-3 fits tends to apply more at slam and game level, not at partial level, because it is often dependent on being able to set up and run the 5-3 fit for discards in the other side suits after trumps are drawn. At the partial level, the opps have often already taken their tricks in those side suits, and there is nothing left to discard, the advantage goes away. Also, if the auction goes 1h-1s-2m-2h, there is quite a large difference between 2 cd support and 3 cd support. There are many hands where opener can be interested in game opposite 3, but would not want to venture higher than 2H opposite only 2. Plus in competition, if 4th hand sticks their neck in, you are generally better off having shown real support.

 

Another issue, holding 4-3 in majors, is that a lot of experts recommend raising 1s to 2s rather freely on 3 trumps on hands with 35(14) type shape. This simplifies the auction when responder does have 5 spades, and if 4, the 4-3 often plays well. Rebidding in the minor is unwieldy since it has to cover such a wide range. So if partner is raising on 3 fairly often, and given that you have 4-3 with a weak hand and have to pass 2 spades, wouldn't you rather play the 5-3 fit in 2h than the 4-3 in 2s?

 

Perhaps bidding 1s with 4-3 in your area (GB?) is a hangover effect from people mostly used to 4-cd majors switching to 5 cd majors and bidding 1s from habit? I can tell you that in America where it's 99% 5 cd major very few 1s on 6-7 points and 4-3/5-3; they raise hearts.

 

Now, if you want to argue that 5-2 heart fit plays better than 1nt on average, and that this 1h-1s-1nt-2h should be devoted to this, perhaps this is correct, and maybe some simulation is needed in this area. But I haven't really seen books recommend routinely pulling to 2h on a doubleton here; 1nt often the opps will misdefend, dropping a trick on lead or something like that. Perhaps that should be taken to a different thread.

 

I didn't pull my argument out of thin air. It's mentioned explicitly in the bridge encylopedia. It's also in Hardy's 2/1 yellow book. It's played this way in Kaplan-Sheinwold updated. Pretty sure I've seen it elsewhere also.

 

For those insisting that 1h-1s-1nt-2h is non-inv, then either you are bidding 1s on weak hands with 4/5 spades and 3h, or saying this promises 6 spades, or saying that this is routine with doubleton heart, all of which I believe are non-std assumptions.

[SteveMoe]

The auctions are fundamentally different. Over 1h-1s-2c-? one *needs* to be able to bid 2h on a doubleton, with 2-2 in opener's suits you'd much prefer to be in a 5-2 than a 4-2, and with 2-3 in opener's suits you often want to be able to take a false preference in case opener is quite strong (limited only by failure to jump shift) and there is a game.

 

Over a 1nt rebid on the other hand, you don't *need* to be able to bid 2h on a doubleton, because opener is limited, and there's no strong reason to prefer hearts on a 5-2 over 1nt. At least this is how most standard texts I have read have presented it. Now one could argue for 2h showing 6s-3h weak, or try to make a case that responder is say 5-2-5-1 but can't bid diamonds naturally to play if playing some artificial diamond call, and that 2h will maybe play better than 1nt on average. But that's not how the standard texts I've seen interpret the auction. And on these hands, where opener is limited, responder is weak, and the opps have say a 9 cd club fit and half the deck, no one stuck in a takeout double or 2c bid?

 

Generally, if one has only an invitational hand, if your scheme can let you invite on the 2 level and avoid the 3 level, this is an advantage, because when opener doesn't accept, there's no downside to being low. Sometimes you get nasty breaks and all your hooks fail, you are glad you stayed low.

 

I certainly agree your logic, but I use 1N with 3&4-card raises that are NOT constructive (read - very weak) so I need to be able to retreat to 2♥ not only as a false preference on 2 cards but also with a weak raise to 2. So by analogy, If I hold ♠s I bid 1♠ not 1NT.