What would you have done?

[Phil]

I remember a post quite a while ago where Phil bid 2c on a hand and then instead of showing the bal hand with a 2nt bid, bid another 4 card suit. Now this needs remedial bidding lessons. Treating a 6-4 the same way as a 4-4 is not good bidding. I f you play a relay structure or similar to one posted in this thread fine. Otherwise good luck ink conveying your shape if you don't rebid 2nt.

 

IDK Ron it depends how the auction develops. If pard rebids 2♥ I feel pretty safe bidding 2♠. Partner won't hang me holding 3♣ LOL but then again a pointed suit ruff could be #12. That's about the only continuation where I'd bid spades so I'm not sure what the ruckus is all about.

 

Relays obv work fine here but I don't need the brain damage.

[awm]

If you accept that 1H-2C-2S need not show extras, responding 2C is really without risk. You will find out about any 4-4 fit immediately at partner's next call. Note that this is not necessarily the case after 1H-1S, because partner might bypass a four-card minor to rebid 2H (as here), or might choose to raise spades on a three-card holding in preference to either introducing a four-card minor or rebidding a six-card heart suit.

 

After 1H-2C-2H, in this style you can be pretty sure that partner doesn't have four spades (if he does, he will certainly also have six hearts and will pattern out with 3S over 2NT by responder anyway). So you don't need to bid 2S here (which would presumably show 4-5 or more in the blacks).

 

The advantage of this style is that if you do respond 1H-1S and then later establish a game force (often through an awkward call like 1H-1S-2H-3m or 1H-1S-2D-3C) partner can at least be sure that you have a fifth spade, which sometimes makes follow-ups easier.

 

There are definitely ways to improve 1H-1S auctions; for example in most of my partnerships I have cheap GF bids available and also ways to distinguish 3/4 card spade raises. We could for example bid 1H-1S-1N(diamonds)-3D(GF diamond raise) on this hand to reach the easy slam. Nonetheless even with this method I think it's often better to respond in clubs since that suit is very much stronger on this hand.

[the hog]

Adam: "If you accept that 1H-2C-2S need not show extras,"

Many, including myself do not accept that. Granted if you do accept it THAT particular problem is solved, but you create others further down the track.

 

Phil: This is where there is a difference in philosophy. My partners would expect long Cs for this bidding and may well support Cs on 3 cards. As I said, this is where I prefer a full realy structure.

However I guess you get the point, it is silly to make blanket statements as one poster did, without looking at the b. system as a whole and the partnership philosophy in uncontested auctions.

[MrAce]

Anyone that bids 1♠ needs some remedial education.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

 

 

[the hog]

1388371700[/url]' post='771144']

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

 

Another extremely intelligent post which does nothing to address any of the comments made in the thread.

[madongjun]

south 3D over 2H.

[Zelandakh]

So, my auction would start:

 

1♥ - 1♠

2♥ - 3♦ (intending to bid 4♣ over any 3 level call)

The problem with this approach is that 4♣ over a 3♥ bid from Opener sounds like a slam try in hearts rather than a natural call.

 

I am going to re-post my quick and dirty solution to the 1♠/2♣ debate that crops up very often here. The idea is just to play a 1♠ response as a forcing NT and then 1NT becomes GF with 4+ spades. With minor modifications you can now use exactly the same structure over a 1♥ opening as 1♠.

 

Of course the non-2/1 relay approach works too:

 

1♥ - 1♠ = INV+ relay

1NT = min without 4 spades

... - 2♣ = GF relay

3♦ = 2641

... - 3♥ = relay

4♣ = 4 controls

... - 6♦

 

Easy game!

[Cyberyeti]

Anyone that bids 1♠ needs some remedial education.

 

No they just need their partner to bid a 4 card minor in front of rebidding the 6 card major and there is then no issue.

 

Playing Acol it's absolutely routine to bid 1♠, if partner doesn't rebid a minor, he doesn't have one or has 7♥. If you are not playing 2/1 2♣ is horrible unless you want to play a 4-3 club fit some of the time when partner assumes you have 5.

 

As the problem specifies they're playing 2/1, I have no problem with 2♣, but to suggest 1♠ is terrible is just wrong.

[ArtK78]

The problem with this approach is that 4♣ over a 3♥ bid from Opener sounds like a slam try in hearts rather than a natural call.

 

Huh?

 

So, if I bid three suits and don't support responder, I have made a slam try in responder's suit? That is certainly news to me.

[Zelandakh]

So, if I bid three suits and don't support responder, I have made a slam try in responder's suit?

Well the auction starts:

 

1♥ - 1♠;

2♥ - 3♦;

3♥

 

and you hold a slammy hand with heart support where you wanted to find the right strain before launching, some 5251 or whatever you think appropriate. What are you going to bid next? Playing 4♣ to cover these hands is great when they come up and bad when you hold the 3-suiter. But the real gain for this method is that it works as a meta-rule - the 4th suit at the 4 level is a slam try for partner's last suit if no forcing raise was available.

 

Of course I come from the wrong side of The Pond for 2/1 and its intricacies are still very much a mystery. For me it is obvious to rebid 2♦ with Opener's hand despite the anaemic diamond suit. Now if we want to come to clubs we can "check back" via ... - 2NT - 3♣ with a direct 3♣ being artificial. I realise this is practically the reverse of how 2/1 is played in America but is ingrained in the way I learned natural bidding - plus it actually works and appears, from the limited hand set I have seen via BBF, to have fewer special cases than the American approach. In other words, if you bid your suits below 2NT it is easy to both look for help in the fourth suit and find a fit there. If you bid your suits above 2NT there is usually not enough space for both things without making a serious commitment and losing out on some other hand type.

 

In any case, hopefully you can at least understand the logic to which I was referring now.

[MickyB]

Playing Acol it's absolutely routine to bid 1♠

 

Agreed - but that is because you are much worse placed after 1H:2C [GF] than 1H:2C [F1]. I guess Acol players might be exempt from the remedial education; then again, playing Acol might in itself be sufficient justification for such measures!

[MickyB]

Adam: "If you accept that 1H-2C-2S need not show extras,"

Many, including myself do not accept that. Granted if you do accept it THAT particular problem is solved, but you create others further down the track.

 

Do you play 1S:2C, 2H as showing extras? If not, how do you solve the "problems" this creates? Is 1H:2C, 2S so different? This isn't the same as a reverse at the three-level, that clearly needs to be better defined.

 

Phil: This is where there is a difference in philosophy. My partners would expect long Cs for this bidding and may well support Cs on 3 cards. As I said, this is where I prefer a full realy structure.

However I guess you get the point, it is silly to make blanket statements as one poster did, without looking at the b. system as a whole and the partnership philosophy in uncontested auctions.

 

Playing 1H:2C as natural or balanced, may include four spades, is a really complex method with very artificial continuations. They are -

 

2D = four diamonds

2H = six hearts

2S = four spades

2N = balanced hand

3C = four clubs

 

With three-card "support" you make your natural rebid, hoping to bid 3C on the next round.

 

With five spades I respond 1♠ (exception for 5♠-6m).

 

I think most playing this style prefer to respond 2m on (53)(32), hoping to show their three-card support for opener at the two-level on the next round.

[awm]

My style is a natural style that does not require special agreements; partner opened and I respond by bidding my longest suit. The fact that I choose to bid 2C and not 1S with 4-4 in the blacks is no different from those who would open 1C and not 1S with 4-4 in the blacks.

 

The concept of suppressing a FIVE card spade suit in order to instead respond in a three (or two!) card club suit strikes me as neither natural, nor common, nor playable without additional discussion.

[MickyB]

My style is a natural style that does not require special agreements; partner opened and I respond by bidding my longest suit. The fact that I choose to bid 2C and not 1S with 4-4 in the blacks is no different from those who would open 1C and not 1S with 4-4 in the blacks.

 

The concept of suppressing a FIVE card spade suit in order to instead respond in a three (or two!) card club suit strikes me as neither natural, nor common, nor playable without additional discussion.

 

Yeah sorry I was probably confusing the implications of [responding 2m with 4S4m] with the implications of [responding 2C on all balanced hands GFs]