2/1 Bidding Problem

[rhm]

the debate is 2s vs 2nt?

No. 2NT is only better than 2S. Depending on agreements what the 2♦ shows or denies, I prefer either 2H or 3C to 2NT

 

I will try 2nt but 2s has it points.

Which ones? I still try to uncover them.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

No. 2NT is only better than 2S. Depending on agreements what the 2♦ shows ro denies, I prefer either 2H or 3C to 2NT

 

 

Which ones? I still try to uncover them.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

 

if said you think 2h or 3c better than 2s or 2nt ok.....but you dont.

 

Please no alerts.

[Zelandakh]

1D - 2C!

2D - 2S

2NT - 3C

3D - 3H

4C! ( Minorwood ) - 4D ( 0/3 )

4H ( ♣ Q-ask ) - 4NT ( yes + ♥K : NT shows asking suit feature )

6C

Is 3♦ natural Don? The way I read this auction, 4♣ is the suit agreement and therefore should not be the ask under your rules. What am I missing?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Is 3♦ natural Don? The way I read this auction, 4♣ is the suit agreement and therefore should not be the ask under your rules. What am I missing?

You are right ... "brainfade" ... 4C would be first suit agreement ( not Minorwood ).

To use 4C as Minorwood, suit agreement would have had to been made at the 3-level .

 

I don't have a good auction ( I didn't want to agree clubs with only 3 cards ... I prefer 4 ) .

[aguahombre]

You are right ... "brainfade" ... 4C would be first suit agreement ( not Minorwood ).

To use 4C as Minorwood, suit agreement would have had to been made at the 3-level .

 

I don't have a good auction ( I didn't want to agree clubs with only 3 cards ... I prefer 4 ) .

You didn't agree clubs with only 3 cards on the first rebid, because you had a 6-bagger to rebid. But how bad can it be to show the support next time?

 

1D-2C

2D-2S

3C-3H....now enjoy your Minorwood or exchange control bids or whatever..up to 6C.

 

Admittedly, that would only apply if we use a natural approach to the early search for strain; so, if you prefer more complex methods you might indeed have more of a problem establishing trumps in time to easily go for slam.

[Zelandakh]

As a 2/1 auction, perhaps we can start

 

1♦ - 2♣;

2♦ - 2♥;

2NT - 3♣;

3♦ - 3♠;

4♣, and now have South ask?

 

... - 4♦;

4♥ - 6♣

 

You would feel silly if North were 2263 though. No doubt, someone who actually plays 2/1 can come up with a much better auction.

 

My auction is

 

1♦ = 10-17, 4+ diamonds, unbal

... - 1♥ = INV+ relay

1♠ = min, not 4 spades unless 4441/4450

... - 1NT = GF relay

2♦ = 6+ diamonds, one-suited

... - 2♥ = relay

2♠ = 3 hearts

... - 2NT = relay

3♦ = 3 clubs

... - 3♥ = relay

3♠ = 1363

... - 4♣ = relay

4♦ = 0-2 controls

... - 4♥ = relay

4NT = diamond control, no heart control

... - 6♣

 

Knowing that North has a spade singleton makes this somewhat safer.

[Zelandakh]

I cross-posted with agua. Don uses 2♣ as natural or balanced if I remember correctly so they have not really been bid here until Responder says 3♣. Playing fred's way, where 2♣ is always a real suit would make this much easier.

[aguahombre]

I am not familiar with Don's method enough to be sure. But it would seem that after a 1D opening, 2C is different than the "natural-or balanced" thing which some use in response to 1M.

 

However, even if I am wrong about that, certainly after:

 

1D-2C

2D-2S...responder has established club length (longer than his spades) and it is safe for opener to show the 8-card fit.

[gnasher]

People seem to be making rather heavy weather of this. I don't see any need for anyone to do anything weird like rebidding a 5-card suit, treating a singleton as a stopper, or guessing whether spades are controlled.

 

1♦-2♣

2♦-2♥

3♣-4♣ (all natural so far)

4♦-4♥ (cue, cue)

4♠-4NT (cue, Keycard)

5♦-6♣

[aguahombre]

1♦-2♣

2♦-2♥

3♣-4♣ (all natural so far)

Some pairs/jurisdictions define "natural" differently.

[the hog]

People seem to be making rather heavy weather of this. I don't see any need for anyone to do anything weird like rebidding a 5-card suit, treating a singleton as a stopper, or guessing whether spades are controlled.

 

1♦-2♣

2♦-2♥

3♣-4♣ (all natural so far)

4♦-4♥ (cue, cue)

4♠-4NT (cue, Keycard)

5♦-6♣

 

So 2H on a 3 carder is natural when you happen to have 4S? Kirk to Spock!

[rhm]

So 2H on a 3 carder is natural when you happen to have 4S? Kirk to Spock!

Bidding naturally does not mean you have to prefer xxxx over AKT with a strong hand.

In fact I am sure most traditional natural bidders would be turning in their graves.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

I agree with gnasher.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

For what it is worth, I define the 2C! as 4+ cards .... establishing an early GF.

So, a rebid of 2S ( 4 cards ) by Responder would not necessarily show a longer ♣ suit .

 

EDIT ( addition ): The problem with my methods seems to be exemplified here.

When suit agreement is at the 4-level-- 4C here -- ( it is not Minorwood ) , then kickback-RKC ( 4D here ) is in effect but would have to immediately be bid by partner ( Responder here ) but he may not be ready ( having a open side-suit for example as here -- Spades ) .

Edited February 4, 2013 by TWO4BRIDGE