Undiscussed

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt652hk7d8caj987&n=skj43hq4dkq52ct54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1sd]266|200|

I was kibbing an I/A game when this hand came up, so it seems suitable for the I/A forum. It is a particularly strong example of a common problem.

At this point there are quite a few possible bids for North

1. 2♣, Drury, played on over a double, anticipating either traditional response of 2♦ or the reverse response of 2♠ if the opening was light.

2. 2♦. reverse Drury with four card support.

3. 2NT, often called Jordan over a double, played as on opposite a third hand opening.

4. 3♦, Bergen, on after third seat openings and a double.

5. 3♣ Reverse Bergen, on after a third seat opening and a double.

6. 3♠, played as a limit raise.

Of course it's a frequent problem, and perhaps a somewhat unavoidable one, but I am thinking there should be at least a partial solution somewhere.

[/hv]

IMO

• 2N (Good raise) = 10. Most systems use this to show a good raise after RHO's double.
• 4♠ = 9. If partner is weak, you hope he appreciates the compliment to his play skills but if he's strong you might miss a slam.
• Pass = 8. if 1♠X is passed out, the contract shouldn't tax partner . Otherwise, delayed jump support for ♠ is unlikely to be weak.
• XX = 7. Unlikely to backfire badly. Your hand won't surprise old-fashioned partners.
• 2♠, 3♠ = 6 Unfortunately, partner is likely to treat these as weak. You might miss a game but the contract will be playable.
• 1N, 2♣, and so on = 4. Without clear prior agreement, these bids just add confusion. Partner might pass. If they go wrong in any way, partner will justifiably blame you.

[kenberg]

Following on the principle that "undiscussed bids are natural", I would venture bidding 3♠ if I find likely pard would take it as invitational, OR a truscott 2NT if he's advanced+ or I agreed to play 2/1. Next on the list is an underbid of 2♠. That would certainly be taken as natural :)

 

I would never, ever, bid 3♣ or 3♦ as bergen raise. Those bids are a death wish opposite a random pard.

 

I agree with this, especially the last. But does partner? Here I am with my pickup. I open 1♠ after two passes. Lho doubles, partner bids 3♦. Or 2♦. Or 2♣. Or 2NT. Or something. Pass on my right. Great. Partner will explain later why I should have know what he meant.

 

I'm trying to find a practical approach to lessen the confusion. Not playing pickup iis of course one way. But I'm weird, I enjoy the challenge of a pickup game.

 

Everyone agreeing on a default would be nice, but it won't happen in our lifetime. SAYC is about as simple a default you can get and still there are a fair number of crashes. So I am trying to think of a way, somewhere between the extremes of a full discussion that is not practical for a casual game and let's just wing it. Agreeing "your profile, pard" is a disaster in the making.

[Vampyr]

I agree with this, especially the last. But does partner? Here I am with my pickup. I open 1♠ after two passes. Lho doubles, partner bids 3♦. Or 2♦. Or 2♣. Or 2NT. Or something. Pass on my right. Great. Partner will explain later why I should have know what he meant.

 

I'm trying to find a practical approach to lessen the confusion. Not playing pickup iis of course one way. But I'm weird, I enjoy the challenge of a pickup game.

 

Everyone agreeing on a default would be nice, but it won't happen in our lifetime. SAYC is about as simple a default you can get and still there are a fair number of crashes. So I am trying to think of a way, somewhere between the extremes of a full discussion that is not practical for a casual game and let's just wing it. Agreeing "your profile, pard" is a disaster in the making.

 

I don't mind saying that I think my solution is the best B-)

[whereagles]

Everyone agreeing on a default would be nice

 

Well, I believe there is a default:

 

3♠ = weakish raise

2NT = Truscott raise, 4-card spade

Rdbl = 10+, usually misfit. But in this case can be 3-card spades, intending to bid 2♠ next (Truscott on a 3 cards is dangerous, as a 3rd seat opener may have only 4 spades)

2m = natural NF, misfit

3m = no default exists, so meta-rules apply: undiscussed = natural (preempt, wimpish suit because pard didn't open it first place)

 

If pard is so reckless as to bid an undiscussed 3m, there's really not much you can do except guess and hope for the best. Still, if you pre-agreed "2/1", chances are good that pard's bid is bergen :) After all, some people have the tendency to ignore the dbl.

[Mbodell]

Here is another:

1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass)

2♦-(Pass)-2♠

 

What's it? A weak 5/4? They were playing it as in invitational hand, of course with five spades. It wasn't 5/4, somewhat surprisingly (to me). The commentator made the interesting suggestion that over 2♠ a bid of 3♠ should be forcing, offering a choice of games. Since 3NT made and 4♠ did not, this could have been useful here. The idea, as explained, was that you either accept an invitation or you pass. There is no invitational response to an invitation. Perhaps this is right.

 

It is not uncommon to play this as a shapely invite offering 3 contracts: 4♠, 2♠, 2nt. I.e., if you fit spades and are max then we have game. If you don't fit spades then even with max we don't have game.

[kenberg]

It is not uncommon to play this as a shapely invite offering 3 contracts: 4♠, 2♠, 2nt. I.e., if you fit spades and are max then we have game. If you don't fit spades then even with max we don't have game.

 

 

In fact I like it. Around here (Mid-Atlantic U.S.) I think it is commonly played as weak. Responder has five spades, four hearts, and wants out. I prefer it to be five spades and invitational, and that is fairly common, just not around here, or so I think. I had always thought that when played as invitation there would also be four hearts in responder's hand, but this may not be needed.

 

I like to play that after 1NT-2♣ I can jump to 3M holding five cards in M and a non-minimum. The logic is that when partner bids 2♣ he will either have invitational values, and if so I accept whether he fits M or not, or else he has both majors and is trying to get out, in which case a nine tricl contract will probably fare ok with our presumed nine card fit. But this style by opener should still work since when he has five spades and two hearts if he is still in the invitational range.

 

When I get some time I think I will conjure up a list of "misunderstandings lurking to grab you" and see if I can post it somewhere. My point is that a lot of I/A players, and maybe others (certainly many others if we include many who rate themselves as expert) think that there is one way and one way only to play these simple sequences. Play will improve a lot if they give up this notion and discuss what needs to be discussed.

[blackshoe]

With my fairly regular partners, it's either undiscussed or 5=4 in the majors invitational. 2♥ would be weak with both majors. With 4=5 in the majors and an invitation, we go through a heart transfer and rebid 2♠. Thus responder's 2♠ rebid shows 5-4 in the majors and invitational values.

 

Where the 2♠ rebid after 2♣ is undiscussed, so is the rest of it.

[kenberg]

With my fairly regular partners, it's either undiscussed or 5=4 in the majors invitational. 2♥ would be weak with both majors. With 4=5 in the majors and an invitation, we go through a heart transfer and rebid 2♠. Thus responder's 2♠ rebid shows 5-4 in the majors and invitational values.

 

Where the 2♠ rebid after 2♣ is undiscussed, so is the rest of it.

 

It has always seemed obvious to me that 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ should be five hearts, four spades and invitational. I have encountered those who think that it shows 5-5. While I wish to be able to bid both my 5-4 hands and my 5-5 hands as an invitation, I get dealt 5-4 more often. I usually use 1NT-3♥ for the invitations. Maybe it's not great, but it is also not frequent.

 

But again, it is another place where we can easily have a mis-understanding.

[blackshoe]

But again, it is another place where we can easily have a mis-understanding.

Oh, indeed. :D

[aguahombre]

It has always seemed obvious to me that 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ should be five hearts, four spades and invitational.

A long time ago that seemed logical and obvious to us also. Then, we discovered Walsh relays and found that we could use:

 

1N-2C

2D-2M with 5-4 (five in the other major) and invitational...mini Smolen, if you must name things.

 

Starting with a Transfer, when holding four of the other major, gives up a toy unnecessarily when Stayman can handle those hands.

 

Those who play 4-suit transfers will not be using Walsh relays for single-suit minor slam tries. But, with WR, Opener has better information about the quality of that long suit at a lower level than the 4-suit xfer people do.

[gszes]

IMHO 2c reverse drury (3+ support and invitational) is a must over 3rd

seat openers because of the need to show support right away. I know Jordan

2n is popular but since 3rd seat is more likely to be "light" than

anywhere else it seems a shame to have to go to the 3 level. The 2N bid has

the benefit of being preemptive but I am not convinced the benefit outweighs

the risk of getting overboard and the loss of 2c is a small price to pay

since the odds of p really needing that 2c bid are dramatically reduced

since they could not bid 3c in first chair. Support with support is very

important but there is no sense in getting too high to do it. I would

save the 2n bid for the minors rather than Jordan.

[kenberg]

It never occured to me to use 2NT in that position to show the minors. Interesting. i doubt it would find frequent usage, but when it comes up ...

 

I certainly agree with the usefulness of Drury.