many things to show ....

[Free]

In what system does 2C show a 5-card suit?

2♣ typically shows 5+♣, but the 3=3=3=4 exactly is the only exception. With any other holding you can either start with 1M or 2♦ inverted. So although it's not 100%, there's a tendency to have 5+♣. Moreover, when you combine this with 2NT being 13-15 or 19+ balanced and 3NT 16-18 balanced (like Fred suggested in his article "Improving 2/1 GF"), you can actually play 1♦-2♣ promising 5+ cards.

[lexlogan]

KJxx

-

AJxx

KJxxx

 

IMPs, w/w.

 

Partner opens 1♦. Your plan? 1♦ is 4+ and we play WJS, otherwise similar to the GIB system We play NMF. Inverted minors denies a 4cM, in principle.

 

I bid 1♠. After p's 1NT rebid I bid 2♣ to establish a force (p replied 2♠ which probably denies four hearts). Now 3♦, p 3NT.

 

If p really denied four hearts then the silent opps have a 10-card hearts fit. So I thought partner was likely to have something like AQJ in hearts. I passed. 3NT required finding the ♣Q while 5♦ was much safer.

 

Maybe bad judgment on my part. I suppose I shouldn't necessarily trust opps to bid at w/w just because they have ten good hearts (only missing the ace). But judgment issues aside, the hand made me think about the system. Partner's 3NT bid shows stoppers in clubs and hearts, but she has no way of knowing that what she actually needs is double stoppers in hearts. I would bid the same way with KQx/xx in the rounded suits. I suppose she could have bid 3♥ with good hearts stoppers but nothing in clubs. Still, it feels wrong that I now have to decide whether to pass 3NT or not, without having shown partner the discrepancy between my holdings in the rounded suits.

 

What is a good solution to this? Is it necessary to allow inverted minors with a 4-card major? And will it really solve this problem?

Respond 2C, the natural response for a game-going hand. Define this as forcing to (and with sufficent values for) 2NT, which means opener does not need 2H or 2S to show extra values. Allow opener to rebid naturally, up-the-line: 2D = 5 diamonds, 2H = 4 hearts, generally without 5 diamonds; 2S = 4 spades; 2NT & 3C natural. If you allow 3C to be a minimum, it helps if 3H and 3S by opener are game-forcing fragments: AQx xx KJxx Axx would not want to stop at 3C, so either 3C must be forcing or opener can rebid 3S with such a hand to show extras, a fit, and something in spades.

 

The notion that 2H and 2S are "reverses" is a holdover from the days of four-card majors when a minimum 4-5 hand would open the four-card major and rebid 2D. Bridge logic dictates that 2H and 2S must be forcing (you can't assume those are playable spots) but in the modern style 2C is strong enough that responder can rebid 2NT or 3C or 3D.

[nige1]

IMPs, w/w. ♠ K J x x ♥- ♦ A J x x ♣ K J x x x. Partner opens 1♦. Your plan? 1♦ is 4+ and we play WJS, otherwise similar to the GIB system We play NMF. Inverted minors denies a 4cM, in principle.I bid 1♠. After p's 1NT rebid I bid 2♣ to establish a force (p replied 2♠ which probably denies four hearts). Now 3♦, p 3NT. If p really denied four hearts then the silent opps have a 10-card hearts fit. So I thought partner was likely to have something like AQJ in hearts. I passed. 3NT required finding the ♣Q while 5♦ was much safer. Maybe bad judgment on my part. I suppose I shouldn't necessarily trust opps to bid at w/w just because they have ten good hearts (only missing the ace). But judgment issues aside, the hand made me think about the system. Partner's 3NT bid shows stoppers in clubs and hearts, but she has no way of knowing that what she actually needs is double stoppers in hearts. I would bid the same way with KQx/xx in the rounded suits. I suppose she could have bid 3♥ with good hearts stoppers but nothing in clubs. Still, it feels wrong that I now have to decide whether to pass 3NT or not, without having shown partner the discrepancy between my holdings in the rounded suits. What is a good solution to this? Is it necessary to allow inverted minors with a 4-card major? And will it really solve this problem?

Inverted minor raises can easily accommodate four-card majors (by agreement). I like ...

 

After 1♣ - 2♣ - ??

• 2♦ = Art starts scan for stops.
• 2M = Nat F1 4 cards
• 2N = Nat min
• 3♣ = Nat min
• 3B = Splinter.
• 3N = Nat

After 1♦ - 2♦ - ??

• 2M = Nat F1 4 cards
• 2N = Nat min
• 3♣ = Art, starts scan for stops.
• 3♦ = Nat min
• 3M = Splinter.
• 3N = Nat

IMO that's fairly simple :) Hands like this can go wrong in so many ways :(

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-HTTFEk6UM

[lexlogan]

Someone mentioned 4144 shape. I would also respond 2C on that shape, or any 4xx4, with game-going values and strength in clubs. With game-invitational values (up to 12 hcp), always respond in the major suit first; you may not be able to show your complete shape. I don't like 2C as a complete game force, but it denies a reasonable alternative if it does not have 13 hcp.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The advantages of responding 2C include:

(1) You may have game or slam in clubs. Even with a diamond fit, clubs may be the better strain:

AQ xxx Qxxx AQxx, you can pitch diamonds on the spades; at 6D you may have two trump losers.

(2) It will be easier for partner to bid notrump; the club suit is often "lost" in stopper-showing sequences.

(3) You have a better chance to show your compete shape.

(4) You avoid any implication that you would like to play in spades opposite three-card support. Conversely, when you bid spades first and then force to game, partner will often infer a 5-card suit or strong 4-bagger and may prefer that strain to notrump, especially with, say, a singleton club.

(5) You immediately inform partner you have a decent hand, not a scraggly 6 count or less. This helps in both constructive and competitive bidding -- after a 2/1 bid, doubles are for penalty. All opener needs is four fair trumps to hammer interference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When 2C is not played as a game-force, responder nevertheless shows game-forcing values whenever he bids or raises a major suit. A major suit at the 3 level may be simply a notrump probe; although responder may skip over a major at the one level, neither player skips over a major at the two level, so by the time we're bidding at the three level we know whether or not we have a major suit fit.

[icer]

KJxx

-

AJxx

KJxxx

 

IMPs, w/w.

 

Partner opens 1♦. Your plan? 1♦ is 4+ and we play WJS, otherwise similar to the GIB system We play NMF. Inverted minors denies a 4cM, in principle.

 

I bid 1♠. After p's 1NT rebid I bid 2♣ to establish a force (p replied 2♠ which probably denies four hearts). Now 3♦, p 3NT.

 

If p really denied four hearts then the silent opps have a 10-card hearts fit. So I thought partner was likely to have something like AQJ in hearts. I passed. 3NT required finding the ♣Q while 5♦ was much safer.

 

Maybe bad judgment on my part. I suppose I shouldn't necessarily trust opps to bid at w/w just because they have ten good hearts (only missing the ace). But judgment issues aside, the hand made me think about the system. Partner's 3NT bid shows stoppers in clubs and hearts, but she has no way of knowing that what she actually needs is double stoppers in hearts. I would bid the same way with KQx/xx in the rounded suits. I suppose she could have bid 3♥ with good hearts stoppers but nothing in clubs. Still, it feels wrong that I now have to decide whether to pass 3NT or not, without having shown partner the discrepancy between my holdings in the rounded suits.

 

What is a good solution to this? Is it necessary to allow inverted minors with a 4-card major? And will it really solve this problem?

 

 

 

I think 1D-1S,1NT is a good start...

then use 2-waymf for most invite(and D signoff)/gf hands...

If you go thru 2C with bal.invite you can use direct 2NT = either C signoff or any shortness(with 4S)...

So your auction could be:

 

1D-1S

1NT-2NT = C signoff or any shortness(forces 3C)

3C-3D = H shortness (shortness from top)...

Now opener can bid 3NT with very good H stoppers

or bid something else if not.

[keylime]

I'd start with 2♣, and then rebid spades if able.

[mike777]

right never show diamonds please

 

 

partner will understand you at 4 or 5 level.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Auction

 

1D - 1S (1)

1NT - 2C (2)

2S (3) - 3D (4)

3NT (5) - ...(6)

 

(1) I think the start is ok, you already discovered a fit, you go searching for the

major suit fit, the way the auction developed was fine, partner was able to limit

his hand, showes his shape.

(2) NMF

(3) I dont think 2S denies 4 hearts, if partner has the choice between bidding his

3 card spade suit and his 4 card suit, he should go with the 3 card spade suit

2S should also show min, unless 2C was already GF, common NMF plays 2C as inv.+

(4) GF, SI possible

(5) Sure this showes a heart stopper, but given that 3D may include hands with SI,

3NT should also deny the ability to make a cue in hearts, i.e. QJxx holdings

(6) At this point you know partner has 4+diamonds,3 spades, 3+ hearts, 2+Clubs, min

values, QJx in hearts (at most KJxx), you know, you have only a single stopper in

hearts, unless you hit partner with KJxx,so the systemic agreement set was ok

- I am not sure I would have added those things up on the table myself, but it is

possible.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Siegmund]

I am surprised to see so much hate for the 1S bid.

 

I happen to play that 3H shows this hand exactly -- 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-4-5 or 4-0-5-4, whatever partner's next bid is sets trumps and then we can cuebid -- but absent that, 1S seems obvious.

 

Once it goes 1D-1S-1NT we know partner has a fourth diamond (he is not 4-4-3-2 if he doesn't raise spades immediately) so I am fine with a nice simple 1D-1S-1NT-3D, forcing and setting trumps.

Of course those who play that as invitational will have an extra step going through NMF first. But I don't see any problem with losing the club suit; if we have a fit in both minors we are going to choose the 4-4 fit in diamonds.

[Vampyr]

I am surprised to see so much hate for the 1S bid.

 

Me too; in fact I would consider not bidding suits up the line a very eccentric choice.

[Trinidad]

In what system does 2C show a 5-card suit?

In most it doesn't.

 

However, once you follow up with 2♠, then in most systems you will have shown 5(+) clubs and 4 spades. If I understand correctly, Ken Rexford is the main advocate for the exception where a semi-natural 2♣ is used to establish the game force and you could rebid 2♠ without having 5 clubs. But Ken will know that much better. For everybody else, 2♣ shows five when followed by 2♠.

 

Rik

[rhm]

I am surprised to see so much hate for the 1S bid.

No hate, I only think when I have a game force, I can show this immediately and show my suits in natural order that is superior to a 1♠ response.

I am well aware that you nowadays have gadgets to show a strong hand after a 1♠ response.

1♠ is not forcing to game and if I afterwards show a game going hand the implication is that spades is my longest suit.

This limits the number of hands I can have and leads to better decisions from my partner.

 

I also happen to think that a 2♣ response positions me better, should LHO interfere, say with a 3♥ bid.

 

There are concepts like MAFIA (majors always first) where responding 1♠ is mandatory.

But these are at least thought out concepts. For MAFIA 2♣ would deny a major and this of course can gain. There are pros and cons to this concept.

Bidding 1♠ just because the sun is shining today is not what I would consider well thought out.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikl_plkcc]

In my system, the first suit bid is always at least as long as the second suit bid. The only exceptions are raising minor suits or opening minor suits. I also play that inverted minor denies 4-card major.

 

Therefore, I would bid 2♣, planning to rebid 2♠ (responder's new suit is forcing). Then I am expected to hold 5 ♣s and 4 ♠s. If no spade fit is found, then I would resort back to 5♦.

 

A possible auction:

1♦

- 2♣

2♦ (confirms 5 ♦s)

- 2♠ (still forcing)

3♥ (4SF, asks for ♥ stopper for 3NT)

- 5♦

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Helene..... could you show Opener's hand ?

[jallerton]

It's very difficult to show everything playing standard methods. The correct approach on this hand is likely to depend on your methods on the second/third round of the auction.

 

I like to have a way of showing a 3-suiter once Opener has showed a balanced hand, but if that is not available then bidding both black suits will at least focus partner's attention on her holding in hearts (the unbid suit). The problem with bidding a black suit followed by 3♦ is that you have a 4-0 or 5-0 disparity between the 2 suits you have not bid, so partner can't sensibly judge when it's right to play in 3NT.

 

It's also helpful to know partner's tendencies. Suppose you decide to give up on 3NT and plan to show your shape via 1♦-2♣-2NT-3♠-3NT-4♦. If your partner tends to vary her tempo before bidding 3NT in this type of sequence, you know that you could become under ethical pressure.

 

On balance, it feels best to respond 2♣ than 1♠ on this hand as you're quite well placed if partner does not rebid 2NT, and relatively better placed if someone bids hearts.

[Finch]

I also prefer to respond 2C, because partner doesn't always rebid 2NT. After 1D-2C-2NT-3S-3NT at least partner has shown much more confidence in her heart suit. Or after 1D-2C-2NT-3D-3S partner has shown no confidence in her hearts.

 

If partner denies a 4-card major after 1D-2C-2NT it's obvious to respond 2C because now you can bid your shape out to within one card below 3NT (1D-2C-2D-2S-2NT-3D say)

[kenrexford]

In most it doesn't.

 

However, once you follow up with 2♠, then in most systems you will have shown 5(+) clubs and 4 spades. If I understand correctly, Ken Rexford is the main advocate for the exception where a semi-natural 2♣ is used to establish the game force and you could rebid 2♠ without having 5 clubs. But Ken will know that much better. For everybody else, 2♣ shows five when followed by 2♠.

 

Rik

 

 

This is in the context of an artificial 2♣ ("Golady") that is GF and simply denies a 5-card major. One could have 4-4 in the majors for the call. The follow up showing spades could be done, in that context, with 4-4-5-0 and no clubs at all, but that is only because the 2♣ call was a convention.

 

While I might bid 2♣ with 4-4-1-4 even if not playing Golady, I would be tactically fibbing.

[Winstonm]

If I grasp the problem correctly, I don't quite understand why 2C isn't automatic. I've never understood the point of not using natural shape-showing bidding when possible, and when I can reverse in spades I get to show shape and strength. When I eventually support diamonds, partner has a perfect picture of my hand.

 

I guess I am too old and too simpleminded for this elegant game. :unsure: