Question for 2/1 bidders.

[the hog]

Assume you play 2/1

 

You hold Kxx xx AQxxx Qxx

 

Partner opens 1S.

You are not good enough to bid 2D and force to game. (If you think you are, then change the SK to the Q.) You are far too good for 2S if that is "just a raise"and you are a tad too good if 2S shows a constructive raise in my opinion. (Also I hate the idea of constructive raises.) So, what do you bid?

 

I guess you could go via a fnt, however most seem to play that 1NT is semi forcing. Do you really want to bid a semi forcing nt on this hand and have pd pass? You could easily be -50 with +140 cold.

You could bid 3D as a fit jump, but for Bergenites this means giving up Bergen and for others it means giving up jump shifts of various strengths.

So what do you do, just suck it u as a 2/1 problem?

 

Phil King, I believe that the Hacketts bid 2C on this sort of hand with certain follow ups. Am I correct in making that assumption?

[awm]

You bid 1NT (whether forcing or semi). This does occasionally mean you play 1nt instead of 3S. But you probably won't miss a game (partner would bid over 1nt with a hand that accepts an invite) and there are advantages to playing 1nt instead of 3M on a pair of balanced hands! I'd expect 1nt failing to be an unusual result... Of course at MP this may be a minus position but still need not be disaster.

[Fluffy]

I don't play semiforcing, so I never had this problem, but if my partner ever wants me to raise to 3♠ with this directly I won't hav emuch problem either.

[helene_t]

If partner passes opps have 8-9 hearts and partner's stop is finessed on the opening lead. I think 1nt will be a bad contract. Nevertheless I bid this. Semiforcing means he sometimes passes with balanced hands but almost never with semibalanced ones. So most of the time he won't pass.

 

At IMPs I don't worry so much, worst case scenario is comething like 1NT= vs 3♠+1.

[Trinidad]

I don't play semi-forcing either. When I played in Sweden I met a lot of pairs who played "Bergen raises". For them, this meant that 3♦ was a four card limit raise and 3♣ showed a three card limit raise.

 

I think if you want to play 1NT as semi forcing you could mix a little, e.g.:

 

After 1♠:

1NT semi forcing (can be 3 card limit raise in a balanced hand)

2NT 3 card limit raise with a side suit (3♣ asks)

3♣ GF 4 card raise (Jacoby 2NT)

3♦ Bergen: mixed, 4 support

3♥ Bergen: invitation, 4 support

 

After 1♥:

1NT semi forcing (can be 3 card limit raise in a balanced hand)

2♠ 3 card limit raise with a side suit (2NT asks)

2NT GF 4 card raise (Jacoby 2NT)

3♣ Bergen: mixed, 4 support

3♦ Bergen: invitation, 4 support

 

Rik

[MickyB]

Hog - Jason+Justin played that in the context of four-card majors 14-16 NT. They've now switched to five-card majors, I doubt they still play it but I haven't checked.

 

2/1 GF except rebid is the way to go IMO, you can assign a jump-shift to an INV three-card raise.

[gwnn]

2NT as inv+ with 3+ cards is not bad. 2♣ as a 3-card limit raise or GF (♣/bal) is also a nice modification.

[rhm]

One of the myths of modern American bidding is that a limit raise has to have 4 trumps, even though you play 5 card majors, because the fourth trump is so important.

No question, an otherwise equivalent hand with four card trump support is stronger than the same hand with 3 card trump support.

So giving a limit raise with 3 card support simply means you should be a little bit stronger otherwise than with 4 card support.

I have done lots of simulations and it turns out the fourth trumps is worth roughly the same as 2 HCP in the combined hands.

And contrary to general perception it does not matter much whether opener is balanced, unbalanced or 5-5, you need about 2 HCP more in the combined hands for game.

This hand just meets my minimum criteria for a limit raise.

If I held Kxx xx AQxxx xxx I would give a simple raise.

If I held Kxxx xx AQxxx Qx I would force to game.

If I held Kxxx xx AQxxx xx I would give a limit raise too.

 

I play semi-forcing notrump and do not mind bidding 1NT instead if the hand looks suitable playing in notrumps.

I would never bid 1NT with three card support if my hand worth a limit raise were unbalanced.

On this hand it is close, but I think with a small doubleton in hearts I prefer a limit raise.

I can not remember ever to come a cropper because I have given an immediate limit raise with 3 card support.

In fact I can see advantages not telling opponents the length of my trump support.

In my experience the additional round of bidding to show a 3 card limit raise helps opponents more than our side.

For example against 3 card trump support trump leads are much more attractive than against 4 card trump support.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

One of the myths of modern American bidding is that a limit raise has to have 4 trumps, even though you play 5 card majors, because the fourth trump is so important.

No question, an otherwise equivalent hand with four card trump support is stronger than the same hand with 3 card trump support.

So giving a limit raise with 3 card support simply means you should be a little bit stronger otherwise than with 4 card support.

I have done lots of simulations and it turns out the fourth trumps is worth roughly the same as 2 HCP in the combined hands.

And contrary to general perception it does not matter much whether opener is balanced, unbalanced or 5-5.

Sometimes I want to know whether responder has 3 or 4 cards support. If he has four cards support, I won't bether about finding a slam in a different suit, so if I bid a new suit it is a cue-bid, trial bid or w/e, not a proposed strain. Same with 3NT. This is different if he has 3-card support.

 

If I have six trump myself, I don't need the queen of trumps if he has 4-card support. But if he has 3-card support and we turn out to be missing trmp queen as well as an ace, I sign off.

 

Finally, if he has 3-card support I don't count on being able to ruff three losers in his hand. Of course this cuts both ways - if he hasn't told me (nor opps) that he has only 3-card support, opps are less likely to find the trump lead. And if he has 3-card support plus compensating honour strength, I may be able to discard one of the losers that I hoped to be able to ruff. So this point is a case for not distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support.

[mike777]

1ntsf

 

I have a balanced hand, if pard passes we are high enough already.

 

In any event the bidding may not be over. The opp have at least 8h and roughly 18/19 hcp.

[PhilKing]

 

Phil King, I believe that the Hacketts bid 2C on this sort of hand with certain follow ups. Am I correct in making that assumption?

 

Yeah, this is true - I introduced them to this treatment in 1995. The version I gave them was that 2♦ over 2♣ was natural, a weak NT or a minimum with clubs, but they did it a bit differently.

 

Had the hand you quoted occurred in the 1994 Junior European, it would probably have been a raise to 2♠ - this sequence brought in a lot of penalties against ill-considered junior balancing, but is not so great in the open game.

[Mbodell]

With one partner I play 2♠ over 1♥ as 3 card limit raise to take it out of the semi-forcing NT. I like the semi-forcing NT and don't mind if I get passed occasionally. When you have the 3 card limit raise and get passed I feel that you are, at worst, in a 40/60 situation. And when your semi-forcing nt is passed and you don't have a 3-card limit raise I think you are in at least a 60/40 situation over the forcing-NT people, and I think that comes up more often.

[rhm]

Sometimes I want to know whether responder has 3 or 4 cards support. If he has four cards support, I won't bether about finding a slam in a different suit, so if I bid a new suit it is a cue-bid, trial bid or w/e, not a proposed strain. Same with 3NT. This is different if he has 3-card support.

 

If I have six trump myself, I don't need the queen of trumps if he has 4-card support. But if he has 3-card support and we turn out to be missing trmp queen as well as an ace, I sign off.

 

Finally, if he has 3-card support I don't count on being able to ruff three losers in his hand. Of course this cuts both ways - if he hasn't told me (nor opps) that he has only 3-card support, opps are less likely to find the trump lead. And if he has 3-card support plus compensating honour strength, I may be able to discard one of the losers that I hoped to be able to ruff. So this point is a case for not distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support.

You put the cart before the horse.

You argue with slam hands, which I consider the wrong priority for limit raises, which are game invitations.

Do you require 4 card support for single raises? Remember every second leap year you might have slam with 4 card support even after a single raise.

A ninth trump is of course valuable for game and slams.

But I do not distort my initial bidding because we might have a slam.

Top priority goes to game bidding.

There is plenty of room to sort things out after a limit raise if opener has higher ambitions.

And by the way there are plenty of hands where you do have a 5-4 major suit fit, yet slam will make only in another strain where you have a 4-4 fit.

Books and bidding challenges are full of examples.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

You argue with slam hands, which I consider the wrong priority for limit raises, which are game invitations.

Do you require 4 card support for single raises?

1♠-3♠ takes away a lot of bidding space so it must be quite specific. After 1♠-2♠ I still have room to ask for trump length, or for finding a fit in another suit.

 

If the limit raise is 2NT rather than 3♠, I have more sympathy for it being ambigous wrt trump length.

 

Bergen actually does deny 4-card support when he makes a single raise. That's nice except that it means that the hands with 4-card support and values for a single raise have to go into 3♣ which I would like to use for other purposes.

 

You may be right that exploring game is more important than exploring slam, even when responder has the values for a limit raise. But there is no need to make a limit raise with 3-card support. 3-card limit raises can go through the forcing 1NT.

[MrAce]

You bid 1NT (whether forcing or semi). This does occasionally mean you play 1nt instead of 3S. But you probably won't miss a game (partner would bid over 1nt with a hand that accepts an invite) and there are advantages to playing 1nt instead of 3M on a pair of balanced hands! I'd expect 1nt failing to be an unusual result... Of course at MP this may be a minus position but still need not be disaster.

 

Is this true Adam? I am not saying what you said is false, but I did not know this.

I mean pd bids over 1 NT with only the hands that would accept game invitation? I admit I still play NT as forcing(Nf by passed hand) but it looks to me an awful idea if opener has to pass 1 NT with hands like

 

AJxxx

KQxxx

xx

x

 

- I would accept a game try vs a 4 card fit in hearts and probably 3 card fit in hearts or spades depending on vulnerability and state and scoring but would deny game tries of any other kind.

- I am sure we will be much better in one of the majors than NT most of the time if we have a fit or resemblance of a fit, since NT plays awfully with 2 suiters vs opposite 2 suiter hands.

- After all, pd who started with the intention of inviting to game at the first place, can improve a lot after hearing our 2nd suit and was about to bid the game himself had we not passed 1 NT.

 

I am not against semi-forcing NT. Though I believe opener should bid over NT with hands that will accept game tries OR unbalanced enough to bid. Concern is not only about playing NT when we have a very good fit and lack of game values but if opponents decide to come in after 1 NT and find a fit. We may have a fit and it may even be a 9 card fit on the side and we will fall 1 step behind in competition and probably will be shut down for the rest of the auction if we pass 1 NT.

[helene_t]

Is this true Adam?

 

I mean pd bids over 1 NT with only the hands that would accept game invitation? I admit I still play NT as forcing but it looks to me an awful idea if opener has to pass 1 NT with hands like

 

AJxxx

KQxxx

xx

x

No-no, Adam said that a hand that would accept an invite bids again. The converse, that a hand that wouldn't accept an invite doesn't bid again, does not necesarily hold.

[Trinidad]

You put the cart before the horse.

You argue with slam hands, which I consider the wrong priority for limit raises, which are game invitations.

Yeah, but which game? You have very little room to find that out after 1♠-Pass-3♠-Pass; ??

 

When responder has a 3 card LR, there are often various alternative games, e.g.:

With a balanced hand, 3NT could play better.

With 4 card hearts, 4♥ might play better in a 4-4 fit.

 

This means that with a 3 card LR, you should keep your options open. These alternatives are easy to find when you bid your 3 card LRs through a (semi-)forcing 1NT, instead of jumping to 3♠, e.g. 1♠-1NT; 2♣-3♠; 3NT-Pass or 1♠-1NT; 2♥-4♥.

 

Another reason to distinguish 3 card LRs from 4 card LRs is what opener should do with a minimum, distributional hand. Opposite a 4 card LR, any minimum with a singleton should accept. That is not the case opposite a 3 card LR.

 

So, it pays to separate 3 card LRs from 4 card LRs and it pays to keep the bidding low on 3 card LRs to search for alternative contracts.

 

Rik

[whereagles]

I don't play semi-forcing either. When I played in Sweden I met a lot of pairs who played "Bergen raises". For them, this meant that 3♦ was a four card limit raise and 3♣ showed a three card limit raise.

 

Sometime ago I thought of an invitational structure similar to that one:

 

1M-3♣ = 3-card invite with ruffing values.

1M-3♦ = 4-card invite.

1M-1NT-2x-3M = 3-card invite, 4333 shape.

 

1NT would be semiforcing, but no problem if opener passes, as there are no ruffs with 4333 shape.

 

@Ron: forget berganites. It's a worthless convention anyways :) Just play something sensible and you'll be fine.

[gszes]

3s limit raise

 

I say this with reservations not because it is "wrong" in value

preemption or length but because there are indeed other methods that

handle this type of situation better. Science is most appropriately

used in this fine game of ours for slam exploration. The principle

of fast arrival is useful both for limiting hand potential and also

supplying some preemption. Game searching mechanisms are primarily

% based in nature vs science. RHM (while his standards for game forcing

are a tad weaker than mine) realizes the value of responder reevaluating

their hand based on the length of trump suit support (he uses 2 for a 9

card fit I use 1.5) and also makes limit raises with 3 card support that

need to be about 2 points stronger than one with a 4 card raise.

 

All of these calculations are approximations period no matter if you

have a multitude of methods to separate 3 card support from 4 card support.

Accepting a game invite with a singleton opposite 4 card support (Trinidad)

when it is actually partners holding in the singleton that carries the most

weight (which is information we will never know). Its mostly approximations.

 

In the end I have to admit preferring my jacoby 2n (3+ support) to be limit

raise or better with partner showing a second suit at the 3 level in preference

to short suit and having the ability to rebid 3M with a hand unwilling to accept

game invites. This allows for some "scientific" game exploration at the price of

rarely having a problem due to forcing pass issues. After 2N there is an extra

level of bidding available for purposes of determining slam potential and/or

game/strain issues.

 

Support with support is also especially important with auctions that become

competitive (a hugely larger % of the time if one uses 1n forcing or (ugh) semi

(sorry awm) forcing to slowly describe a 3 card limit raise). We end up with a

possibility (awm) of being completely shut out of an auction without our side

ever knowing about our major suit fit and that seems strategically wrong at best.

[inquiry]

I am also in the limit raise category here (when not playing fit jumps). I use jacoby 2NT plus pretty much as described by Glenn Ashton on his bridgematters pages, and allow three card support for the limit raise (which is rolled into the 2NT raise). This has worked well for me.

[Finch]

I bid 1NT semi-forcing. If partner passes it, it is very unlikely that we were making 3S. I've been playing this for 20 years now, and I don't think I've ever had a bad result for playing in 1NT instead of 3S. That's not to say that 1NT is the best contract, the best contract is usually 2S, but that isn't available if I evaluate my hand as a limit raise.

 

(I've had bad results for playing in 1NT, but they have been opposite a weak hand with a long minor.)

 

The method where 2C is nat FG or a 3-card limit raise is quite playable and solves this problem at the expense of making the FG hands harder to bid. We prefer not to use this because we like our relay methods over 2C, which need it to be game forcing. 3-card limit raise opposite a hand that will pass 1NT and the opponents won't bid is a very narrow target.

[mike777]

I was a bit surprised that so many very good players were eager to force to 3s given what many open 1s with.

[inquiry]

I was a bit surprised that so many very good players were eager to force to 3s given what many open 1s with.

 

I can't speak for the good players, but my view is that if we don't have a good play for 3♠, what can they make?

[the hog]

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. Some interesting ideas have been aired.

 

Nuno, maybe I am weird, but these thoughts come to me at night if I cannot sleep. I played a big C 4 card M in my last serious partnership before I left Oz. However I am playing a little on line now and so wanted to know how people deal with these issues.

[dboxley]

I have never played semi-forcing NT but my understanding is that opener can either treat it as forcing or pass if he/she "feels like it" (I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong). If that is the case then it seems to me that you have to have another bid for this type of hand, it would be ludicrous to play this in 1NT. Also, I would like for someone to show me statistics to the effect that most people play semi-forcing NT.