hrothgar Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 What I wrote is basic 2/1 where 1♦ - 2♣ is GF, a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response. Are you claiming that basic 2/1 GF uses a forcing NT response to a 1♦ opening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 If we do this we are not playing 2/1 anymore. Now the system would become a hybrid of 2/1 and Standard American or whatever. I would think that a published bridge author who portrays himself as a great designer of conventions could manage to choose the correct direct seat response to a 1 level opening bid. This is hardly rocket science. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Was dealt this gem today:[hv=pc=n&n=s62h93dqj65cakj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]133|200[/hv]Basic system is 2/14. 2NT shows 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit but otherwise balanced/semi-balanced, invitationalSeems like the gem in the OP isn't covered in any way by the Pocket Guide in my posession?Does your gem have 10-12 HCP?Does it have no 4-card major nor a 5-card diamond suit? Is it otherwise semi-balanced? Is it invitational? You may not like the 2NT response (neither do I) but why do you claim the hand is not covered? Rainer Herrmann 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I've never played it, but from what I've heard, 1NT covers all non-GF hands where you don't have a 1-level bid, and is forcing one round (or at least semi-forcing).That's true in response to a major-suit opening, not 1♦ where the NT response is only a little wider in range than in standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 How do you suggest we alter Paul Thurston's Pocket Guide to bid these sorts of hands?If you played a short club opening, your diamond raises would only need to be four-card suits. In fact if you only ever open a three-card diamond suit with 4432, I think with a hand like this you should just raise with only four anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Are you claiming that basic 2/1 GF uses a forcing NT response to a 1♦ opening?If you read all the way to the end of the paragraph you will have your answer to this. Sometimes selective quoting is helpful for saving space but here it changes the nature of what was written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Seems like the gem in the OP isn't covered in any way by the Pocket Guide in my posession?Does your gem have 10-12 HCP?Does it have no 4-card major nor a 5-card diamond suit? Is it otherwise semi-balanced? Is it invitational? You may not like the 2NT response (neither do I) but why do you claim the hand is not covered? Rainer HerrmannI would think that a published bridge author who portrays himself as a great designer of conventions could manage to choose the correct direct seat response to a 1 level opening bid. This is hardly rocket science.2NT is what I chose, lifted to 3NT by opener, going down 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not only this hand then. There is also no response for an invitational hand with long clubs and no 4 card major. I would suggest finding a more mainstream version of 2/1 to play.OK, give me the name of the author and book title of a more mainstream version of 2/1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 2NT is what I chose, lifted to 3NT by opener, going down 1.Bad luck. But maybe not entirely a system problem. I guess we have all gone down 1 in 3NT before now..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 OK, give me the name of the author and book title of a more mainstream version of 2/1.As I recall the two main (US) writers are Hardy and Lawrence. BBO Advanced is also a form of 2/1 and available free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Bad luck. But maybe not entirely a system problem. I guess we have all gone down 1 in 3NT before now..... Do you have the complete hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 2NT is what I chose, lifted to 3NT by opener, going down 1.Are you looking for a bidding system , which will get you only to contracts you will be able to make at the table?If yes, you are in for a big disappointment. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcilkley Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Bridge is not a precise game! Your hand is worth 2c anyday! If your stem has no perfect bid then this is surely the least bad lie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sadie3 Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I play 2/1 and do not see the problem you have with this hand. This hand is a 1D 2D (inverted raise to me.) The term, support with support comes to mind. Almost always I would bid 2NT with even a half stopper in the majors (3 to a Jack.) The only time my pards open 1D with less than 4 is with a 4432 hand and they will correct my bid to 2NT which I pass with this hand. In order to bid 1D 2C with 11 hcp, I specifically require a 6 card club suit which corrects the hand playing value to full strength. If pard corrects my 2C bid to 2NT I confidently raise him to 3NT with my nice 6 card source of tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Do you have the complete hand?[hv=pc=n&s=sak93hq652dak94c4&w=sjt75hj84d872c873&n=s62h93dqj65cakj95&e=sq84hakt7dt3cqt62&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sak93hq652dak94c4&w=sjt75hj84d872c873&n=s62h93dqj65cakj95&e=sq84hakt7dt3cqt62&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] This is another example where you might want to focus on your declarer play rather than your bidding. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 So you went down in a lucky but makable 3N when 5♦ is no bargain but can make and you have a combined 27 count so are going to be in game anyway. No big deal, what happened on the first couple of tricks ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf1 Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Was dealt this gem today:[hv=pc=n&n=s62h93dqj65cakj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]133|200[/hv]Basic system is 2/1What the heck was I supposed to answer on this? Nothing fits in perfectly playing 2/1 where - 1. 1NT shows 6-10 HCP, no 4-card major (I had 11 HCP)2. 2♣ shows 12+ HCP and is 100% GF (I had 11 HCP)3. 2♦ shows 6-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ (sometimes only 4 if that is the best bid available)4. 2NT shows 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit but otherwise balanced/semi-balanced, invitational5. 3♦ shows 10-12 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, game invitational The hand is heavily skewed towards the minors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SelfGovern Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 I would have thought that in 2/1, 1NT is the response here. I've never played it, but from what I've heard, 1NT covers all non-GF hands where you don't have a 1-level bid, and is forcing one round (or at least semi-forcing). To be honest, just upgrade to 2C. With that nice suit and diamond fit you should be OK. ahydra What you say about the 1NT response is true for 1NT in response to a major:it's forcing, and can contain invitational-strength hands (such as 3-card support and 11 points, or a hand with another suit but not-quite-strong-enough to make a game-forcing 2/1 bid in that suit. 1NT over the minors (at least in 2/1 systems I'm familiar with) is not forcing, and denies a 4-card major, and is less-than-invitational strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 This is another example where you might want to focus on your declarer play rather than your bidding.OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy - 1. Tell me how I should have played it2. Tell me how it can be beaten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 This is another example where you might want to focus on your declarer play rather than your bidding.hmmm ... I don't think I would have made it. Setting up a club trick seems more likely than both heart honours onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy - 1. Tell me how I should have played it2. Tell me how it can be beatenI think Hrothgar is somewhat unfair. I can see ways where you would legitimately go down in 3NT (e.g. heart lead for the jack; club return, finessing and losing; diamond exit; trying to set up a long club ... down 1). But he is very right that you shouldn't be ashamed of reaching 3NT. After all, seeing only the NS cards as well as double dummy, it is the right contract. It's somewhat unusual to wonder where you bid wrong when you got to the contract that you want to be in. Edit: Helene beat me Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy - 1. Tell me how I should have played it2. Tell me how it can be beatenI agree.It is the type of deal, which you can make, but where you often go down single dummy.I might have gone down.But exchange the East-West hands and most players would make the hand without breathing hard.Now show me the bidding system, which can find out in the bidding, which layout of the East-West cards actually exists.I do not have sleepless nights over this. I have much worse nightmares at this game to worry about. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 1. Tell me how I should have played itWhat did they lead? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy - 1. Tell me how I should have played it2. Tell me how it can be beaten Depends what was led. If high heart, absolutely you should make it by playing the leader for the other one. If 7♥ you have a tough decision at trick 1, if you get it wrong, you probably take the club finesse and go down, but Q♥ at trick 1 isn't the worst gamble in the world. If a spade you probably take the club finesse and go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.