I need an Int/Adv solution

[Cyberyeti]

Yeah I noticed that - I'm pretty sure it was because I remember thinking how solid this hand was in anything but 3NT or 4S.

 

Heh it gives me a little satisfaction knowing that Seamon/Demuy didn't get this hand perfect either :) tho I'm not sure how you ever get to 6D or 6H after 1S - 1NT (that's how their auction started as well)...

 

This is an easy hand for my version of Acol, but we don't start 1♠-1N.

 

You probably have to take the 1♠-1N-3♦ approach if you bid "naturally" rather than have a gadget in 2/1 to get there.

[helene_t]

This is an easy hand for my version of Acol, but we don't start 1♠-1N.

 

You probably have to take the 1♠-1N-3♦ approach if you bid "naturally" rather than have a gadget in 2/1 to get there.

3♦ is a terrible overbid. 3♠ is already a bit of a stretch.

 

I think 1♠-1NT-2♠-3♥-4♥ is the most realistic natural auction I can think of. (Playing intermediate jump shifts this only shows five hearts). Otherwise you have to play Gazilli.

[Cyberyeti]

3♦ is a terrible overbid. 3♠ is already a bit of a stretch.

 

I think 1♠-1NT-2♠-3♥-4♥ is the most realistic natural auction I can think of. (Playing intermediate jump shifts this only shows five hearts). Otherwise you have to play Gazilli.

 

It's a minor overbid with the revised hand (much better than the original), all partner needs for 4♠ is say 10x, Kx, Jxxx, xxxxx

[gszes]

switch my black suits around and I have no troubles with a 2h GF bid. The hand given however

 

needs a downgrade due to the (probable) misfit and a 1n bid seems the most reasonable by far

 

(the 2h 1rf --artk78-- is interesting). The real problem here is the 3s rebid which is asking p to

 

go to game with ??? I use the 2 aces theory or greater. Using that I would avoid a 3s bid since

 

p having 2 aces (and no trump fit) would still almost always leave me a trick short.

 

A simple 2s rebid would work a bit better. Even after a 2s rebid we have problems on how/what

 

to do with the responder hand---2n seems silly with xx in clubs 3d and 3h will generally be weaker

 

and 6+ cards 3s with a small singleton seems aimed in the wrong direction also. I admit I would

 

give 3h a try mainly because it may be a way to back into a game we might otherwise miss.

 

It might be a 52 fit but that might still be vastly superior to 3n. It turns out 3h would get us to

 

the nice 4h contract but it is still somewhat a matter of luck vs knowledge. This may easily be

 

one of those hands where artk78 has the winner with 1s 2h being only a 1 round force.

 

 

 

[fromageGB]

I think this is a clear case of why any I/A needs to have an unspecified strong 2♣ opener rebid when it starts 1M 1NT. Whether 1NT is forcing or not. Not knowing of Bart, we just decided on a Gazzilli-like approach with 2♣ being 15+ almost any hand, unless genuine clubs. We play it as absolutely forcing, as I think it needs to be if it could be a 20 count.

 

Just work through what you think logical from first principles. We play that a 2♦ reply is any 8+ hand, and a weaker hand makes any other bid, but you could reverse this. You could make your minimum strengths for the 2♣ and a "positive" response such that the combination is game forcing (unless opener rebids 3♣ with genuine clubs), or a positive 2♦ could be merely forcing to say 2M if the combination could be weaker. If the latter, opener can rebid a "waiting 2NT GF" with a stronger GF hand (eg 17 opposite 8 when he only needed 15 for the 2♣ bid) to allow responder to start bidding his shape. With a GF hand that is suitable for playing only in his own suits he makes a natural 3-level rebid. Any way you cut it, you end in 4♥ on these hands.

 

I don't see how 2/1 is playable unless you have a strong artificial opener rebid. And if you are going to have one, 2♣ as the bid allows you to get out in low-level contracts when responder is dead minimum.

 

The other advantage is that jump rebids by opener (not bidding the artificial bid) can have tightly defined meanings which are therefore excluded from continuations after the artificial bid, which aids descriptive clarity.

[Vampyr]

Except that you have 9 off the top in 3N if the hearts behave or you get a spade miracle so 3N is not horrible on the new version, also the N hand is now worth 3♠.

 

I see 5 hearts, 2 spades and a club.

[the hog]

Point 1. The op said this was a 2/1 solution that was needed, so having 2H as a 1 round force is not helpful

Point 1. Bidding 2C on a singleton is totally off with the knuckalaveys (UNLESS you are playing Gazilli) and is particularly unhelpful in this forum..

 

Personally I would bid 2S on this hand and play it there in a 2/1 system. I don't think this is worth 3S unless you are playing a big C system.

 

Point 3. There are some fixes - Bart, Gazilli, Playing 2D as a transfer to 2H as per Auken von Arnim, (though of course they do it in the context of a 4 card M system). I don't see why it could not work in the context of a 5 card M system. However none of those fixes, with the possible exception of Bart, is suitable for this forum.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 I dont think the opening hand is strong enough for 3S, 2S is enough.

#2 Reaching game, and discovering the heart fit on the road, after 2S is not simple

 

In the end I would say, happens, next board, at least if you end up in 2S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

I see 5 hearts, 2 spades and a club.

When I wrote this, the hand had A♦ instead of KQ, it got revised again if you look back through the posts.

[Vampyr]

When I wrote this, the hand had A♦ instead of KQ, it got revised again if you look back through the posts.

 

I see. Yes, I knew that the hand had been revised, but I didn't know what it had been revised from.

[fromageGB]

... However none of those fixes, with the possible exception of Bart, is suitable for this forum.

From what I read of Bart, it doesn't apply to this hand because opener does not have a natural (3+) club suit.

But why is Gazzilli or a roll-your-own not suitable for intermediates, let alone advanced players! The whole concept of "I/A" means you are looking to improve and extend your game. You look to do better in areas where you have found your basic methods lacking.

 

This seems to me, a "non-native" coming belatedly to 2/1, to be a big glaring hole in the method. It needs to be fixed. A 17 count bidding 2♠ just like an 11 count is going to miss many games. I think a 12-16 rebid is foolish. An 11-17 is unplayable.

[Zelandakh]

Fred has written that you will get some silly results playing a F1NT response. You hope that the beenfits you get in other auctions make up for this. On the OP hand, it seems obvious to me to start 1♠ - 1NT; 2♠. After this most are going to just pass but if South were to make another move it would then be possible to reach 4♥, for example ... - 2NT; 3♦ - 3♥; 4♥.

 

The second Opener is an example of the traditional death hand. After 1♠ - 1NT; 3♠, it is just not possible to find a red suit fit any more and the result is 4♠. There are a few solutions to this with probably the simplest for I/A being transfer rebids, in which Opener would here rebid 2♥ to show long spades and then bid again at the 3 level to show extras and a fragment.

 

My own solution, which is probably not suitable for most Intermediates, is to switch the hands around so that good hands start with 1NT and weak hands bid naturally. In that case the same auction could be used for both: 1♠ - 1NT; 2♠(max, 1-suiter) - 2NT(relay); 3♣(3♥s) - 4♥. The South hand could also be treated as weak and give, in this method, a 2♥ response. In that case it is also easy to reach 4♥ on either hand and, counter-intuitively, even possible to get to 6♥ on the second (1♠ - 2♥; 4♣ - etc).

[kenrexford]

Mike, if 2C is the re bid with 5332 shape, I don't think that a tactical lie of having only stiff King is all that bad. The only difference between my approach, yours, and Gazilli is that I because of Bart as an option opt to make 2D real, which allows me an occasional one club card lie when the tactics seem needed, and that always seems to be a hard with six spades and three hearts. My overall point is that many bidding problems do not necessarily need a conventional solution. Many can be solved with slight tweaking of what is a minimum of natural and an occasional deviation for tactical reasons and that the tactical deviations and definitional tweaking can usually be discussed in advance.

[ArtK78]

For those of you who are advocating BART on this hand, I have another tweak that I play over a forcing 1NT response to 1♠.

 

I play that 2♦ shows 4+ diamonds, so 2♣ is a catchall bid. This gives responder more opportunities to employ BART.

 

I don't see the relevance on this hand, however, as opener is always going to rebid spades.