after forcing ant

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hqt62d65ckq9643&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp1np2dp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Top @ the club with a 60% game tonight, here's a hand partner and I did not agree on.

 

What is your bid?

What is your general approach after a forcing 1nt ?

I tend to bid the lowest suit I have tolerance for so with 5143 5233 I will bid clubs, the problem hand is 5242 and depending on suit quality I may still bid clubs.

[P_Marlowe]

2S.

 

As long as 2D does not deny a 6 card spade suit.

Deny may be to strong a word, but if you always respond 2D with 64,

than 2S, if you factor in suit quality to decide between between the

suits, there is something to be said for passing, I still would go

with 2S, but ...

 

In the end, if partner showes 9 cards, I only introduce a 6 card suit,

and I mean 6 cards, and I dont deviate from this req, may not always

be best, but does not drain my mental energy level.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Overlooked the fact, that I have 6 clubs, ..., to early in the morning

for me, still 2S, the 3 level is quite high.

[nigel_k]

3♣ looks right to me unless it is invitational. Then you have to pass I suppose.

 

I have only ever played semi-forcing NT but I would bid the longest minor always in this situation and maybe even 2♦ sometimes with 5233 shape if the clubs are not very good.

[mr1303]

I bid 3C. This hand is virtually worthless in spades or diamonds.

 

If 3C is invitational, I change my methods.

[PhilKing]

I'm struggling to see an alternative to 3♣ other than, er, 3♣.

[Zelandakh]

I'm struggling to see an alternative to 3♣ other than, er, 3♣.

The alternatives are Pass, 2♠ and 3♣. The conditions given in the OP make a 5 card diamond suit much more likely than normal and must surely make Pass a realistic alternative (so 8 or 9 on nige's scale).

[PhilKing]

The alternatives are Pass, 2♠ and 3♣. The conditions given in the OP make a 5 card diamond suit much more likely than normal and must surely make Pass a realistic alternative (so 8 or 9 on nige's scale).

 

The conditions in OP seem crazy to me. If opener bids 2♣ on a 5242, what on earth does responder do on a 1444 opposite that? The theory of bidding lowest playable suit is potty - it's OK to say that bidding 2♣ on a weakish 5143 will work OK, and that is probably true, but then what is opener supposed to do with the same shape and 16 or 17 points, where the normal plan is to bid 2♦ then 3♣. Can't pard have that? In which case we could be playing in 2♦ when cold for 6♣.

 

Anyway, even on the Nige scale Pass is a 3 and 2♠ the same. This hand is worth zilch in diamonds if they lead a trump (even if pard is 5251, you probably want to play in clubs) and about four tricks in clubs.

 

I can see no merit whatsoever in either choice.

[jillybean]

Perhaps I should not be playing a forcing 1 nt. It seems misguided to be forcing to the 3 level opposite a limited opening, with a misfit on as little as 6-7 points.

[DJNeill]

Not enough system info (what is 1S-1N-2red-3C?)

 

If that sequence is weak, that's what I'm bidding - I'm worth raising the level because I'm worth 2-3 tricks less in diamonds or spades I think, whereas partner's honors, wherever they are, will probably be useful to me.

 

If that sequence is invite, then we are just hedged into Passing 2D, even if it could be 3 cards.

[jillybean]

1S 1N 2red 3C is weak

[PhilKing]

1S 1N 2red 3C is weak

 

Which happily matches the hand we have been dealt.

[aguahombre]

It seems misguided to be forcing to the 3 level opposite a limited opening, with a misfit on as little as 6-7 points.

1S 1N 2red 3C is weak

You say in the first quote that you shouldn't have the agreement stated in your second quote.

 

Yet, you have a satisfactory solution to the problem in this thread because you do have those methods.

 

You are fortunate here. We would have a chance to be lucky or miserable. We could jump to 3C on the first round showing 6-9 and long clubs ---praying we don't blow ourselves out of a heart fit. Or we could bid a forcing NT and hate it when Opener rebids 2D because 3C=10-12.

[Zelandakh]

You are fortunate here. We would have a chance to be lucky or miserable. We could jump to 3C on the first round showing 6-9 and long clubs ---praying we don't blow ourselves out of a heart fit. Or we could bid a forcing NT and hate it when Opener rebids 2D because 3C=10-12.

My system also treats this kind of hand a little differently from Standard. The initial response is a natural and non-forcing 2♣. If partner continues 2♦ over that then we can rebid a natural 2♥. If Opener has 3 card support for either of our suits and a weak hand they will usually pass; if not then we are headed to 2♠ on a 6-1 fit or forced to join the rest of the pack in 3m.

 

Still, this is one method that occasionally gives some extra chances of getting out lower on hands like this without giving up on detailed game/slam investigations. The main downside is obviously complexity along with unfamiliarity and (probably) a lack of GCC legality.

[jillybean]

Having these methods and believing it is ill advised to use them by rote are not mutually exclusive imo.

This is the part of the 2/1 forcing nt that I like the least. I think the 1M 1n 2x 2M showing a weak raise

is good, 1M 1n 3M for a 3 card limit raise seems to work well but f1nt is not so good for minor misfits.

 

the full hand, edit: west dealt and passed

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hqt62d65ckq9543&w=st42hk8543d872cj6&n=sakq876hjdqjt43c7&e=sj53ha97dak9cat82&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1sp1np2dp]399|300[/hv]

[aguahombre]

I assume the 3D rebid was a misclick --he missed the 2S button.

[jillybean]

I assume the 3D rebid was a misclick --he missed the 2S button.

:o :lol: 2♦ of course but perhaps your comment stands.

[neilkaz]

1S 1N 2red 3C is weak

Good, then you have a very clear 3♣ bid with this decent 6 carder.

[Zelandakh]

the full hand, edit: west dealt and passed

1♠ - 2♣;

2♦ - 2♥;

2♠ - P

 

Bridge is an easy game. All bids completely natural, with 2♣ denying even enough to invite.

[ArtK78]

Playing a standard forcing NT, opener could have a 3 card diamond suit. So passing 2♦ is out of the question.

 

As many have said, a 3♣ bid here, barring any special partnership agreement, is to play. Given the remaining choices of playing a known 5-1 spade fit at the 2 level or playing a 6-unknown club fit at the 3 level, I would go with 3♣.

 

This is an interesting problem given the additional informaiton Jilly gave us about opener's rebid. I don't know why you would want to rebid 2♣ on 5-2-4-2 shape, even if the club "suit" is stronger, but I take it as a given since Jilly said that is her partnership's agreement. The failure of opener to rebid 2♣ is a warning that bidding 3♣ will not be a good idea.

 

In my regular partnership, we have agreed that a 2♦ rebid promises 4, so a 2♣ rebid can be made on a doubleton on this auction (and possibly a singleton on the auction 1♥-1NT-2♣). Thus, I would be faced with a similar (but not identical) problem on this auction.

 

I still think that 3♣ is the right call. Opener, of course, would then bid 3♦, giving me a big headache of a choice between the pointed suits at the 3 level.

[GreenMan]

I'd have rebid 2♠ as opener, FWIW.

 

I also appreciate the discussion, much food for thought here. I do have one comment: Most other pairs in the room will face the same problem as in the OP, so whatever we do we're likely to have some company. Playing 2♦ on a 4-2 fit is unlikely to be a bottom board. So we should strive to reach the best contract we can, but not feel too anxious if we don't get there.

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hqt62d65ckq9643&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp1np2dp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Top @ the club with a 60% game tonight, here's a hand partner and I did not agree on.

 

What is your bid?

What is your general approach after a forcing 1nt ?

I tend to bid the lowest suit I have tolerance for so with 5143 5233 I will bid clubs, the problem hand is 5242 and depending on suit quality I may still bid clubs.

 

I'd bid 3♣ now.

 

Of course if this shows a better hand than this in your methods then u have a tuff situation. As u know i play 1M-3m as invitational. This allows me to bid 2/1 response and rebidding my minor forcing, and with weak hands 1NT and then bidding my minor. 6 card suit is not the most desirable suit to make that bid, especially when i have xx in opener's first suit or xxx in second suit, but in hands like this i may do it with 6 cards, and i would do it on this hand.

 

 

 

[cherdano]

:o :lol: 2♦ of course but perhaps your comment stands.

I presume waterman would let his comment stand, but that doesn't mean it's right. 2♦ is utterly normal, and clearly better in my view.

[jillybean]

1♠ - 2♣;

2♦ - 2♥;

2♠ - P

 

Bridge is an easy game. All bids completely natural, with 2♣ denying even enough to invite.

Isn't 2♣ igame forcing for most of not all playing 2/1 ?

 

 

Playing a standard forcing NT, opener could have a 3 card diamond suit. So passing 2♦ is out of the question.

 

As many have said, a 3♣ bid here, barring any special partnership agreement, is to play. Given the remaining choices of playing a known 5-1 spade fit at the 2 level or playing a 6-unknown club fit at the 3 level, I would go with 3♣.

 

This is an interesting problem given the additional informaiton Jilly gave us about opener's rebid. I don't know why you would want to rebid 2♣ on 5-2-4-2 shape, even if the club "suit" is stronger, but I take it as a given since Jilly said that is her partnership's agreement. The failure of opener to rebid 2♣ is a warning that bidding 3♣ will not be a good idea.

 

In my regular partnership, we have agreed that a 2♦ rebid promises 4, so a 2♣ rebid can be made on a doubleton on this auction (and possibly a singleton on the auction 1♥-1NT-2♣). Thus, I would be faced with a similar (but not identical) problem on this auction.

 

I still think that 3♣ is the right call. Opener, of course, would then bid 3♦, giving me a big headache of a choice between the pointed suits at the 3 level.

Yes, for my partnership the failure of opener to bid 2♣ is key here. I didn't say I wanted to rebid 2♣ on 5-2-4-2, I said it was a problem hand and that I may bid 2♣ depending on suit quality. I may also rescind that statement after thinking about it a bit more.

 

As for my partners rebid, I have no problem with either 2♦ or 2♠

[aguahombre]

I presume waterman would let his comment stand, but that doesn't mean it's right. 2♦ is utterly normal, and clearly better in my view.

I totally agree.

 

1-Comment stands

2-That doesn't mean it is right

3-2D would probably be the normal rebid.

4-2D is clearly better in your view and that of many others.

[Zelandakh]

Isn't 2♣ igame forcing for most of not all playing 2/1 ?

This is one of the "hidden" advantages of turning the 2/1 structure around and playing 1NT as a forcing relay and 2♣♦♥ as natural and non-forcing responses. My view is that the bidding philosophy of 2/1 is fundamentally flawed in that weak hands should start bidding suits as quickly as possible to find a playable spot while good hands can afford to go more slowly. That does not mean I think 2/1 is a bad system - all of the traditional and natural response structures have this property and 2/1 divides the responding hands up more efficiently than most. But I do like to encouarge players, and eventually regulators, to think about whether the existing frameworks are actually optimal.

 

If you want to avoid "ugly" bids on non-GF hands then 2/1 is the wrong system to be playing. It works primarily because the game and slam hands are important enough to offset the losses elsewhere, since most of the time you can get to a playable spot. Fred has written that anyone playing a F1NT will on occasion reach silly contracts, even experts, so it should not be a surprise when club players have difficulties with such hands.