Is there a way to get to 4H without an agricultural jump?

[SimonFa]

2/1, W V W , IMPS, dealer North, you are South:

 

♠ AQJ64

♥ Q63

♦ A73

♣ 52

 

1H (P) ?

 

At most tables the bidding went something like:

 

1S (P) 1NT (P) 4H AP which makes +2 on a favourable Heart finesse, but that's not the point.

 

Is there a way for South to set up a GF after 1NT or would it have been better to bid 2D instead of 1S?

 

As always, thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[awm]

This will certainly depend on agreements. There are a number of points that can be made here.

 

(1) On this hand, you have no real aspirations for anything beyond game when partner rebids 1NT (which shows a balanced hand of about 12-14 hcp). So you might as well just bid 4♥; a slower auction is more likely to help the opponents on defense than to find a better contract for your side.

 

(2) If you have no special agreements, you could bid 3♦ (jump in new suit is natural and GF) followed by bidding hearts. This might mislead partner as to shape (sure sounds like a singleton club) but of course this is the problem with having absolutely no agreements. Perhaps that would be a good path if holding a stronger hand.

 

(3) Most people play some form of new minor forcing. If this is your agreement, then one of "jump to 3♥ after partner's 1NT rebid" or "bid new minor forcing followed by 3♥" ought to be forcing to game (the other is invitational). The more standard treatment is that new minor force followed by 3♥ is the game force path, but it's not universal (Richard Pavlicek in particular endorses the other approach).

 

Again, I would tend to blast 4♥ here regardless of other agreements, because both hands are limited and slam cannot be in the picture. There is no prize for having a long descriptive auction; in fact much the contrary, since such auctions will help opponents to find a good opening lead and count out declarer's hand in the play. If you know what the final contract should be, it pays to bid it as quickly as possible!

[nigel_k]

Agriculture is underrated.

 

You should definitely bid 4♥ over 1NT. Slam can never be better than 50% assuming partner would upgrade with Kx AKxxx xxx Axx, but even if there was a remote chance of reaching a decent slam, it wouldn't be worth giving them a blueprint of declarer's hand while searching for it.

[the hog]

I would also bid 1S followed by 4H.

If you wanted to be scientific, though why you would do this I don't know, you could bid, 2D over 1NT as a transfer to H and then bid 2S over the forced 2H bid to set up the game force. I would do this with a stronger hand, but not this one. This also assumes you are playing transfer checkback, of course..

[phil_20686]

You shold play either two (three) way checkback over 1N, or some typof transfer rebid (they need more work and don't seem much better imo)

 

Try:

 

2c= all inviational hands, forces 2d, then bid naturally.

 

2d GF checkback

3x = natural GF 55

2N=> three clubs either weak to play in clubs, or a GF 5431 hand, with 5M4m, now you have 3d/3h/3s/3n to separate the four different 5431 hands that are possible.

 

If you would bid a 4 card major in front of a longer minor even in a Gf hand, then you need to alter these agreements. I would then use via 2N for the GF hands with a longer minor.

 

PS: obv on the given hand its probably best to bid 4H, but you don't need to have to change the hand much to have a decent chance of slam and want to investigate.

[Zelandakh]

There are lots of options for Responder to set up a GF. One of the most common is 2-way Checkback as described by Phil. Another is to keep the 2♣ puppet for invitational hands but to use transfers (from 2♦) with GF hands. Then there is simple nmf (New Minor Forcing). In that method a rebid of 2♣ followed by 3♥ sets up a game force.

 

A different method altogether involves playing the same method over a 1♥ opening as over 1♠. So a 1♠ response denies GF values and a 1NT response instead is GF with 4+ spades. That makes life very easy when you do in fact have hands similar to Responder's! The downside is that you cannot play the 1NT rebid as natural and therefore cannot often stop in 1NT (in some versions never).

[Phil]

Playing Flannery, I am comfortable responding 2♣ over 1♥ with this hand type.

 

Call me Phil Rexford.

[Stephen Tu]

So this topic overlaps:

http://www.bridgebas...s-auction-exist

 

[1h-1s-1nt-?]

Does no one play the inference as described in the ACBL bridge encyclopedia (2h = inv, 3h = forcing) and other books that cover this sequence specifically anymore?

What does 2h show for you?

(1) too weak for direct 2h (constructive/semi-constructive), have spades so bid it instead of 1nt (4-6/4-7 hcp)

(2) doubleton heart, feel that 2h plays better than 1nt (hand shapes?)

(3) doubleton heart, 5+ spades

(4) three hearts, 6+ spades

(5) three hearts, 4+ spades (always bid spades even if in 6-9 pt hcp range)

(6) inv with 3 hearts

[kenrexford]

This is an often-discssed sequence, an opinions are wl establshed. hat said, I'll offer mine again.

 

I am f the strong opinion that life and auctions are simpler when you estabish GF as soon as possible when you have a known major fit. On this hand, a 2/1 GF call establishes a GF rather quickly, so that is my option.

 

The question, then, is which GF call to make? Obvously, there are only two normal options (assuming no GF JS). 2♣ or 2♦. 2♦ has the obvious benefit of implying something there, which is nice because I have the Ace of diamonds and, as to the alternative (2♣), my clubs really suck. The downside to 2♦, however, is that it is milly (and quite effectively) preemptive, as there will now be no more chance to establish hearts as trumps at the two-level. 2♣ has one downside -- the clubs suck. But, it gains whenever partner can rebid 2♦, as then we can set trumps lower.

[Quantumcat]

The jump to 4♥ is not agricultural, it is simply part of your system - assuming you don't have a way to show 3-card game-force support apart from changing suit then bidding game.

 

If you are asking for system suggestions, I love the multi 2♣ response to 1-major - shows a 3-card limit raise, or game-force and balanced, or game-force and clubs. Opener bids 2♦ if he would accept the invitational limit raise, 2♥ if not. After 2♦ if you have a limit raise you bid 4♥ immediately, if you have a better hand and 3-card support you bid 2♥ (leaving the way clear for possible slam exploration), and hands with clubs can rebid a new suit (natural) or clubs again, game-force balanced rebids 2NT.

[the hog]

This is an often-discssed sequence, an opinions are wl establshed. hat said, I'll offer mine again.

 

I am f the strong opinion that life and auctions are simpler when you estabish GF as soon as possible when you have a known major fit. On this hand, a 2/1 GF call establishes a GF rather quickly, so that is my option.

 

The question, then, is which GF call to make? Obvously, there are only two normal options (assuming no GF JS). 2♣ or 2♦. 2♦ has the obvious benefit of implying something there, which is nice because I have the Ace of diamonds and, as to the alternative (2♣), my clubs really suck. The downside to 2♦, however, is that it is milly (and quite effectively) preemptive, as there will now be no more chance to establish hearts as trumps at the two-level. 2♣ has one downside -- the clubs suck. But, it gains whenever partner can rebid 2♦, as then we can set trumps lower.

 

These posts are getting more bizarre by the minute. Unless you are playing relays i don't think anyone who bids 2D on this as a gf can be taken seriously.

[aguahombre]

[1h-1s-1nt-?]

Does no one play the inference as described in the ACBL bridge encyclopedia (2h = inv, 3h = forcing) and other books that cover this sequence specifically anymore?

(

Maybe someone does, but even with a simple 2C NMF that treatment set has been outgrown.

 

1H-1S-1N

2H is exactly 5-2, pass or correct for us. The 1NT rebid is always some combo of 5-3-3-2 minimum, so 2S=ok with 6 and a minimum, 3H is fine with 3 hearts and a real spade suit inviting game, and 4H is fine with the OP hand.

[Quantumcat]

Maybe someone does, but even with a simple 2C NMF that treatment set has been outgrown.

 

1H-1S-1N

2H is exactly 5-2, pass or correct for us. The 1NT rebid is always some combo of 5-3-3-2 minimum, so 2S=ok with 6 and a minimum, 3H is fine with 3 hearts and a real spade suit inviting game, and 4H is fine with the OP hand.

 

In 2/1, usually a direct raise is 8-10 HCP and 1NT (or 1♠ natural to 1♥) can include 5-7 3-card raise, so 2♥ there would be the weak 3-card raise. Or you can have the ranges round the other way, then it is an 8-10 raise. Even if it does show a weak hand with two hearts and five spades, not sure you'd ever want to do that. You won't ever have an 8-card fit (unless you never raise with 3, and even then not that likely - may as well bid 2♠ if you are banking on opener having hidden 3-card support).

[aguahombre]

So, that just shows your agreements and your expectations are different from ours. Can live with those observations and conclusions as long as they don't become ours.

 

Raising a 1S response to 1H with 3-5-(32) does not work for us. Playing the 5-2 major fit in opener's suit seems to work just fine, and playing the 5-2 fit in responder's suit if he has a 5-1-(43) hand also works as long as opener doesn't hand-hog a 1NT rebid with a stiff spade and a 4cm.

 

We have found, unlike what you have found, that in 2/1, size and shape rebids by opener are valuable. Those with a Flannery inference, however, will find everything totally different than what I have said.

[kenrexford]

These posts are getting more bizarre by the minute. Unless you are playing relays i don't think anyone who bids 2D on this as a gf can be taken seriously.

I did not end up bidding 2D. I merely noted the pros and cons of each call.

[the hog]

I did not end up bidding 2D. I merely noted the pros and cons of each call.

 

Glad to hear it ke. Even 2C is from planet Bizarro.

[fromageGB]

If you are asking for system suggestions, I love the multi 2♣ response to 1-major - shows a 3-card limit raise, or game-force and balanced, or game-force and clubs.

I agree in general, but do you have a way of showing a 5 card spade suit if starting 2♣? I don't, and I prefer a spade contract if opener has 4 of them.

[kenrexford]

I agree in general, but do you have a way of showing a 5 card spade suit if starting 2♣? I don't, and I prefer a spade contract if opener has 4 of them.

 

Here's how that works out. Suppose you start with 2♣ in this exact situation:

 

1♥ - P - 2♣ - P - ?

 

Partner, let's say, is looking at four spades and only five hearts. Well, that seems like a nice thing to mention, so:

 

1♥ - P - 2♣ - P -

2♠ - P - ?

 

Now, as I think through my options, 3♠ seems about right.

[fromageGB]

Nice if your opener rebids allow it. Unfortunately for me, 2♣ could be a game invitation with 3 card heart support, so opener cannot bid higher than 2♥ on a minimum sort of hand. For example, if he bids 2♠ a simple soul like me would sign off with 3♥ with an invitational hand, or bid 3♥ with a game support to enable cue bidding. Unluckily those two bids are the same, so I can't do it. No doubt you can, with more complexity.

[Phil]

Glad to hear it ke. Even 2C is from planet Bizarro.

 

I have dual citizenship.

[Phil]

By the way, I am completely comfortable with 2♣. 2♦ makes my skin crawl the way 2♣ used to. At some point, we actually have to show a suit (2♦ shows 5).

[semeai]

By the way, I am completely comfortable with 2♣. 2♦ makes my skin crawl the way 2♣ used to. At some point, we actually have to show a suit (2♦ shows 5).

 

 

Diamonds were sinking fast, but now they're making a comeback!

[ArtK78]

Pardon me for asking (and this may have been asked before), but what is meant by "agricultural" in this thread's title?

[kenrexford]

Nice if your opener rebids allow it. Unfortunately for me, 2♣ could be a game invitation with 3 card heart support, so opener cannot bid higher than 2♥ on a minimum sort of hand. For example, if he bids 2♠ a simple soul like me would sign off with 3♥ with an invitational hand, or bid 3♥ with a game support to enable cue bidding. Unluckily those two bids are the same, so I can't do it. No doubt you can, with more complexity.

 

 

Well, it's not really that complex. The trick is that Opener bids suits that he has, and the Responder picks which suit he likes. Rather simple.

 

Now, admittedly this requires a couple of nuances that are not universal, like 2♣ being a true GF and not rebidding 2♥ simply because you have a minimu,m instead completing pattern. This is, of course, part of the reason why I opt for those two treatments.

 

Assuming, however, a treatment where 2♣ is GF or invitational with 3-piece support, and where 2♥ can be bid with four spades if Opener has a minimum sort of hand, and where the normal treatment would be for Responder to rebid 3♥ with one of the two meanings of either invitational or GF, I assume that something distinguishes Responder's options regardless of Opener's spade length. Suppose that call to be 2♠, for instance. I don't know what you do, so I am guessing.

 

If, say, 2♠ shows GF with hearts (and thus 3♥ natural but passable), it seems that you could rather easily restructure this. Make, say, 3♥ into a picture bid (3♥, 0-3♠, invitational only) and expand the artificial call (2♠ in my guess) to include hands with invitational values and 4-5 spades. Then, have Opener allowed to bid 3♥ with the minimum and no spade interest, 4♠ with a minimum and four spades (if you are invitational with a 5-3 fit you are now GF if you have a 4-4 or 5-4 spade fit), and all other calls slam approaching. Something like that.

 

All of this is guesswork, as I would need to know how you unwind this situation anyway to see how to stack in the spade issue effectively.

[kenrexford]

By the way, I am completely comfortable with 2♣. 2♦ makes my skin crawl the way 2♣ used to. At some point, we actually have to show a suit (2♦ shows 5).

 

If you assume that 2♦ might not be real in the isolated circumstance of Responder wanting to just GF, support the major, but not bid 2♣ for some reason (like good diamonds but lousy clubs), then the situation will be such later where the existence of an actual five diamonds has already been calculated by Responder to be non-critical for some reason. I say "some reason" because that is a complicated tactical question. Only if the tactical call is approrpiate would you opt for the fake 2♦.

 

I mean, this is not that strange of a concept. A lot of people would open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣ after a 1♠ response with some 1-4-5-3 hands and live with it. People maunfacture jump shifts and reverses. These calls "show" length in suits, but we all know these are suspect, and yet the world does not come crashing down.

 

In other words, diamonds schmiamonds.