How can we stop at four?

[Hanoi5]

♠AQJx

♥ATxxx

♦

♣9xxx

 

♠Tx

♥K97x

♦AQJT9

♣Ax

 

1♥-2♦

2♠-3♥

4♥-4NT

5♥-Pass

 

Trumps 4-0, club lead and spade finesse wrong. Is 2♠ ok or should North just bid 2♥ and wait for South to bid♦ spades in case he has them? Do you bid 2♦ or prefer to show a balanced 4-card support with a balanced hand? Do you continue over 4♥ or 'respect' partner's signoff?

[Cyberyeti]

1♥-3♦ (enough to GF, HHxxx♦, Hxxx ♥ or better, H=AKQ or old fashioned rock crusher)

3♥(bad hand in context of good ♦ opposite)-4♣(club control, no spade control, no second diamond control, 2 suited type still interested)

4♥-P

 

6♥ is not actually that bad a contract on these 2 hands particularly if you don't get a club lead, I take it the ruffing ♦ finesse isn't working either.

[SteveMoe]

Is 2♠ ok or should North just bid 2♥ and wait for South to bid♦ spades in case he has them?

That depends...what are your default agreements? Does 2♠ promise extras? if so, then I would prefer 2♥ given the ♣weakness. Replace any ♣ with the K and 2♠ would be spot on. If not promising extras then 2♠ is appropriate.

 

Do you bid 2♦ or prefer to show a balanced 4-card support with a balanced hand?

Whether 2N or 2♦ is better depends on your agreements and what you want to know. If you want partner to judge their hand by Hearts and degree of fit with your second suit, then 2♦ is better than 2N. That presumes you can convince partner you indeed hold 4-card support. If partner will never expect 4-card support after a 2/1 force, then 2N might be better. Besides, we're not likely going to play this hand in ♦. One small advantage for 2N is partner an tell you immediately if they hold a ♠ singleton/void. That would make you very interested in slam.

 

Do you continue over 4♥ or 'respect' partner's signoff?

Depends on your control bidding agreements. There is a strong inference that partner has nothing to offer in the minors when s/he raises 3♥ to 4♥. You need help in both suits to make slam a sure thing. With extras and say, ♠AQJx ♥ATxxx ♦-- ♣Kxxx partner might find a 4♣ bid in the way to 4♥. Or, with ♠AQJx ♥ATxxx ♦Kx ♣xx, a 4!D bid on the way to 4♥.

 

Respecting this forum I'll simply mention that looking at serious/frivolous 3NT is another advanced way to know when you are in a slam auction and when you are not.

 

One auction might be:

1♥ - 2♦

2♥ - 3♥

4♥

Here 3♥ invites control bidding and 4♥ says no extras, clearly.

[aguahombre]

1H-2D

2S-3H

4H....We stop at four by passing at this point. If Opener were even slightly impressed by the fact that responder has a Diamond suit and heart support, he would find something other than 4H to bid. It doesn't matter whether you call it serious/non-serious or whatever. Those toys are not appropriate for this forum anyway. Responder has what he said he has, and if opener doesn't want to make a move, let it go.

[Codo]

1. 2 ♠ is a crime in most systems. Your hand is a weak 1 ♥ opening and the value decreased with partners 2 ♦ bid. Rebid 2 ♥.

2. It is a matter of style whether you show your balanced raise or your nice suit. I prefer the raise, but in polish club you often show your suit first with good results too.

3. I would never "respect" 4 ♥. Partner showed a hand about at least an ace stronger then he holds.

[aguahombre]

1. 2 ♠ is a crime in most systems. Your hand is a weak 1 ♥ opening and the value decreased with partners 2 ♦ bid. Rebid 2 ♥.

You are assuming a non 2/1 game force system, and I was assuming 2D was G.F. It is not specified in the OP.

 

If 2/1 is G.F. the crime would be showing only five cards when we could have shown 9 without increasing the level.

[Winstonm]

This is more system fix than anything. 2D is way better than another type support bid as it shows where the source of side tricks may come from provided there is a fit in diamonds. 2H rebid is not automatic and many (not me) play the 2H rebid as 6 card suit and the reverse (2S) as showing no extra. Problem with this latter treatment is that no bridge guru determined reverses show extras, they show extras because they eat up room and cause partner to take a preference at a higher level - it takes extra strength to make up for the lost space.

 

I suggest 1H-2D, 2H-3H (if forcing) or simply 4H if not forcing. Over 3H with the weak opener I would simply bid 4H, showing no slam interest but not denying a spade control as I play.

 

The decision is one of treatment. Some open 2D with the weakish 45 major hand to solve just this problem.

 

Good luck.

[Codo]

You are assuming a non 2/1 game force system, and I was assuming 2D was G.F. It is not specified in the OP.

 

If 2/1 is G.F. the crime would be showing only five cards when we could have shown 9 without increasing the level.

 

I won't bet on that. Despite the fact that you will find many players who will agree with you, I guess that the majority will rebid 2 ♥ in a 2/1 context too....

[Vampyr]

many (not me) play the 2H rebid as 6 card suit and the reverse (2S) as showing no extra. Problem with this latter treatment is that no bridge guru determined reverses show extras, they show extras because they eat up room and cause partner to take a preference at a higher level - it takes extra strength to make up for the lost space.

 

How is this a problem when you are already forced to game? I thought that the main advantage of 2/1 GF was that you could show your shape.

[aguahombre]

I won't bet on that. Despite the fact that you will find many players who will agree with you, I guess that the majority will rebid 2 ♥ in a 2/1 context too....

You could be right. A majority committing a crime is still a crime, however.

[GreenMan]

Seems as if the main takeaway from this thread is to have clear agreements on whether 2♠ shows extras after a 2/1 and to talk about contexts for showing controls. It matters less what you agree on than that you talk about it at all; knowing what partner has, and knowing partner can tell what you have, makes everything easier.

 

If you find yourself in this situation without clear agreements, augahombre's analysis is probably best. You showed your hand and partner wasn't impressed, so better not to force things.

[GreenMan]

Seems as if the main takeaway from this thread is to have clear agreements on whether 2♠ shows extras after a 2/1 and to talk about contexts for showing controls. It matters less what you agree on than that you talk about it at all; knowing what partner has, and knowing partner can tell what you have, makes everything easier.

 

If you find yourself in this situation without clear agreements, augahombre's analysis is probably best. You showed your hand and partner wasn't impressed, so better not to force things.

[ahydra]

1H-3D (GF fit jump)

4H (minimum hand)-pass

 

easy :)

 

A lot of it does come down to 2S which most people would understand as a reverse. Even playing reverses 15+ like I do after a 2/1, 2S is still a huge overbid on the North hand. Remember kids: a void in partner's suit is only a good thing when defending a trump contract :)

 

ahydra

[the hog]

Well there you go. I was just thinking of this problem last night. Those who reverse into 2S, and many play this style, without this bid showing extras will have problems. (It helps to play the weasel convention here). I would definitely rebid 2H. Now if you play 2/1, 3H and 4H are obvious.

[the hog]

You are assuming a non 2/1 game force system, and I was assuming 2D was G.F. It is not specified in the OP.

 

If 2/1 is G.F. the crime would be showing only five cards when we could have shown 9 without increasing the level.

 

Absolutely disagree with this. Even in 2/1, 2s is an awful bid imo. This bid should show extra values.However that is the way that i play; I know others play it differently.

[Codo]

You could be right. A majority committing a crime is still a crime, however.

 

Sure, but to call it a crime does not make it a crime.

If you have no spade fit, it will often be not too important to tell partner that you hold four of them.

And if you have a spade fit, compare these two bidding-sequences:

1: 1 ♥ 2 ♦ 2♥2♠3 ♠

2. 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 4♠

 

In both ways you have shown a minimum opener with 5+ hearts and 4 spades. But in the first you are MUCH lower....

So I think that even in 2/1, 2 ♠it is a crime, but I know that this is not everybodies cup of tea.

[mycroft]

Where I learned 2/1, reverses and 3 level rebids showed extras after a 2/1. This really helps these 4-level "have either of us actually shown anything?" slam decisions.

 

Where I live, shape rules. That does help in finding those third-suit and fit- or crossruff- slams. But we get to 4♥ and don't know if partner knows we have extras, or if partner has extras. It also allows 2♥ to be so often 6 that we can raise on two small; which is an advantage.

 

Having said that, assuming 2♠ can be a minimum, just looking for the right contract, 4♥ is a warning. We're either off the ♠A, or partner thinks his hand poor for slam. In either case, he's right with just (a very good) 14.

 

I can't see anything different happening after 1♥-2♦; 2♥-3♥; 4♥. If the south hand is going to Crackwood anyway, he's going to. If South thought 2♠ showed extras, I have no problems with 4NT; but if that's the case, then North and South need to work this out between them.

[aguahombre]

Sure, but to call it a crime does not make it a crime.

And my strong feelings on the issue don't mean I want to foist them on your partnership. Point taken. I used "crime" because the word was used by you, when advocating the other side in Post #5.

 

We draw a line, where 2S in this G.F. 2/1 auction does not show extras and relieves some of the default possibilities of the nebulous 2H rebid --yet we require extras for a high-reverse after 2/1.

 

1M-2D

3C....requires the extras you were talking about.

 

BTW: I think we are stretching the bounds of this forum.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I feel the worst crime is not playing an immediate GF 4 card raise response .

[Winstonm]

How is this a problem when you are already forced to game? I thought that the main advantage of 2/1 GF was that you could show your shape.

 

Some people believe it is an advantage to show shape first and catch up later on strength - I happen to be one who disagrees with that idea. Why divulge information that can help opponents when all we want to do is be in game?

 

I believe the reason a reverse shows extras extends to all cases. The simple auction 1D-1S-2H required extra strength because it forces partner to make a choice at the 3 level. The same holds true to 1H-2C-2S. I think it is more important playing 2/1 to show extra values with 2S than to use that bid to show all 4/5 patterns.

 

This has a downside. Rebidding the opening suit no longer shows 6. If your reverses show no extra, then rebid shows 6. There are many other twists and turns in deciding how to play this sequence. For example, if you reverse with a weak hand, are you then forced to rebid 2NT with all 5332 hands, regardless of stoppers?

 

Adopting a bidding style is like dropping a pebble into a quiet pond - the ripples go on and on and on.

[aguahombre]

I feel the worst crime is not playing an immediate GF 4 card raise response .

You might feel differently if you wanted a partnership auction and opener could value her KX of Diamonds with a dog like AXX AXXXXX KX XX.

[the hog]

I feel the worst crime is not playing an immediate GF 4 card raise response .

 

Do you? I would refuse to play with anyone who felt this should show a 4 card raise as opposed to bidding Ds.

[Zelandakh]

Do you? I would refuse to play with anyone who felt this should show a 4 card raise as opposed to bidding Ds.

Sometimes system constraints force this approach but there are ways of catching back up. For example

 

1♥ - 2NT = GF raise

3♣ = min with shortage

... - 4♦ = good diamonds

4♥ = not impressed

 

or

 

1♥ - 2NT = GF raise

3♣ = min with shortage

... - 3♦ = relay

3♥ = void

... - 3♠ = relay

4♦ = diamond void

... - 4♥ = bleurgh

 

Rather than saying "never" or "always" I would prefer to see it that showing the side suit is consulting partner and putting them in a position to judge, while making a forcing raise is asking partner because we think we can get the information necessary directly. Some hands are better suited to one approach or the other while on others it does not matter. There have been enough threads on this subject to show that both approaches have merits.

[Winstonm]

Sometimes system constraints force this approach but there are ways of catching back up. For example

 

1♥ - 2NT = GF raise

3♣ = min with shortage

... - 4♦ = good diamonds

4♥ = not impressed

 

or

 

1♥ - 2NT = GF raise

3♣ = min with shortage

... - 3♦ = relay

3♥ = void

... - 3♠ = relay

4♦ = diamond void

... - 4♥ = bleurgh

 

Rather than saying "never" or "always" I would prefer to see it that showing the side suit is consulting partner and putting them in a position to judge, while making a forcing raise is asking partner because we think we can get the information necessary directly. Some hands are better suited to one approach or the other while on others it does not matter. There have been enough threads on this subject to show that both approaches have merits.

 

 

I agree. There is no such thing as the perfect system or perfect approach - all have gives and takes. The important thing IMO is to find a style that matches how you visualize the world and is internally consistent. When I was switching back from Precision to 2/1, for example, I found Mike Lawrence's treatments to be quite a comfortable fit for the way I think about bridge so I used his basic structure - which happens to include a major 2-level rebid by opener as nebulous.

[the hog]

Sometimes system constraints force this approach but there are ways of catching back up. For example

 

1♥ - 2NT = GF raise

3♣ = min with shortage

... - 4♦ = good diamonds

4♥ = not impressed

 

or

 

1♥ - 2NT = GF raise

3♣ = min with shortage

... - 3♦ = relay

3♥ = void

... - 3♠ = relay

4♦ = diamond void

... - 4♥ = bleurgh

 

Rather than saying "never" or "always" I would prefer to see it that showing the side suit is consulting partner and putting them in a position to judge, while making a forcing raise is asking partner because we think we can get the information necessary directly. Some hands are better suited to one approach or the other while on others it does not matter. There have been enough threads on this subject to show that both approaches have merits.

 

Regardless, for me denying the existence of a good source of tricks is horrible. I strongly believe that j2nt or similar should be reserved for flat hands.