Bidding

[DrDouble]

If you partner opens 1 of a major do you need 4 or 5 of a minor to bid it at 2 Level. The opponents have only made pass bids in the auction.

 

:unsure: :wacko:

[Vampyr]

If you partner opens 1 of a major do you need 4 or 5 of a minor to bid it at 2 Level. The opponents have only made pass bids in the auction.

 

:unsure: :wacko:

 

You promise five, but sometimes you will have an unsuitable hand and may need to bid (clubs, preferably) with four. Three cards would be very rare, most likely in a 4333 hand where your intention is to next show a balanced hand.

[Stephen Tu]

You promise five, but sometimes you will have an unsuitable hand and may need to bid (clubs, preferably) with four.

 

The way most people play, the unsuitable hands are so frequent that I don't think "promise five" is accurate at all.

 

Some people promise 5 for 2d, but then 2c is only promising 2 (playing it clubs or balanced). To have usually 5, one needs a way to bid hands with only 4 cd minors, which generally means either having an absolutely forcing 1nt response (not semi-forcing, 1nt can include some GF hands), or a natural GF 2nt response (rather than using 2nt as some sort of major suit raise).

 

Also it matters if you are playing a forcing NT response, if playing SAYC or a 4 cd major system without a forcing NT response it's kind of impossible to promise 5.

[1eyedjack]

If you are a passed hand responder, it is more reasonable to expect 5 (if not 2C artificial Drury). By a non-passed hand responder there are a large number of hands that only require 4. Normally a 2N or 3N response is either artificial or highly specific, so there are numerous balanced hands (as well as others) that go through 2m initial response.

[helene_t]

In the most popular styles you need four except that 1♠-2♣ can be three. A very small minority play play that 1NT is 5-11 while 2NT is 12+ so 2m shows an unbalanced hand, but even then, 1♠-2♣ could still be 1444.

 

Another very small minority play that 2♣ can be two and 2♦ promises five.

[wank]

4

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

JLall prefers to have 5+ diamonds if I recall it correctly, but to achieve this

you need some art. agreements regarding 2C, not really N/B stuff.

 

For the beginning: A 2m response promises 4+, a 2H response promises 5+.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Vampyr]

The way most people play, the unsuitable hands are so frequent that I don't think "promise five" is accurate at all.

 

I don't know. This weekend I have so far played 109 boards and only once had a 4-card 2/1(it was a 3-card GF raise type hand).

[wanoff]

With Acol it's 3.

But probably 4, and a case for 1♦-2♣ and 1♥-2♦ to be 5.

[helene_t]

With Acol it's 3.

But probably 4, and a case for 1♦-2♣ and 1♥-2♦ to be 5.

Wouldn't Acol players bid 1♦-2♣ and 1♥-2♦ on 3334 and 3343? Sure, 2NT or 3NT is often an alternative, but if 2NT is forcing you will need to bid 2m with 10-11 HCPs, and if it is not forcing you will need to bid 2m with 16+ (13+ if 3NT would be conventional).

[Stephen Tu]

I don't know. This weekend I have so far played 109 boards and only once had a 4-card 2/1(it was a 3-card GF raise type hand).

 

Yeah but that's out of 109 total boards though, not 109 2/1 auctions, right? The question is how frequent 4-cd minor 2/1s are vs. 5-cd, if not playing special agreements to give you some way to avoid 2/1 on balanced hands. How many 5-cd 2/1s did you have?

[MrAce]

I don't know. This weekend I have so far played 109 boards and only once had a 4-card 2/1(it was a 3-card GF raise type hand).

 

I think there is a difference between how many cards one needs to respond 2m and how many cards you actually held in your last 109 boards. I think OP was seeking answer to the former.

[NickRW]

With Acol it's 3.But probably 4, and a case for 1♦-2♣ and 1♥-2♦ to be 5.

 

 

Wouldn't Acol players bid 1♦-2♣ and 1♥-2♦ on 3334 and 3343? Sure, 2NT or 3NT is often an alternative, but if 2NT is forcing you will need to bid 2m with 10-11 HCPs, and if it is not forcing you will need to bid 2m with 16+ (13+ if 3NT would be conventional).

 

IMO, absent agreements to the contrary and system specific details:

 

1♠-2♥ guarantees 5 (with the possible exception of some canapé style systems)

 

1♥-2♦ and 1♦-2♣ are nearly always 5, but there are exceptions as Helene notes

 

1♠-2♣ mostly 4, but can be 3 in a four card major system (what do want to do with 11hcp and 3=4=3=3 shape, especially if 2NT is a forcing major suit raise of some sort?)

 

Others sequences are quite often 5 but can be 4.

 

Obviously system specific agreements have a large effect on the above. (One system I currently play only guarantees Kx for a 2m over 1, but we won't go into details).

 

Nick

[Vampyr]

I think there is a difference between how many cards one needs to respond 2m and how many cards you actually held in your last 109 boards. I think OP was seeking answer to the former.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I quoted, and was responding to, the suggestion that problem hands are very frequent.

[Vampyr]

Yeah but that's out of 109 total boards though, not 109 2/1 auctions, right? The question is how frequent 4-cd minor 2/1s are vs. 5-cd, if not playing special agreements to give you some way to avoid 2/1 on balanced hands. How many 5-cd 2/1s did you have?

 

Maybe a dozen? I see what you mean. I do think now that "promises" is perhaps an overbid, but there can still be an expectation that the suit is five cards.

[Stephen Tu]

Maybe a dozen? I see what you mean. I do think now that "promises" is perhaps an overbid, but there can still be an expectation that the suit is five cards.

 

Curious about the frequencies, I ran sim. It looks like at least the way most people play around here, 4 cd suit is about 30-33% of hands depending on style considerations like for example what one does with 4=3=2=4 shape over 1H (1s vs. 2c).

[Vampyr]

Curious about the frequencies, I ran sim. It looks like at least the way most people play around here, 4 cd suit is about 30-33% of hands depending on style considerations like for example what one does with 4=3=2=4 shape over 1H (1s vs. 2c).

 

2♣ seems like an extremely eccentric choice.

[Stephen Tu]

2♣ seems like an extremely eccentric choice.

 

Is it? I've seen it argued quite a lot in these forums that 2♣ is often better than 1♠ with this sort of shape, allowing you to GF and set hearts or spades as trumps below game depending on partner's rebid. Otherwise on auctions like 1h-1s-2s (where 2s is frequently 3 cd support only) or 1h-1s-2d, with mainstream agreements it is often hard to create a GF with hearts below 3nt, partner doesn't find out about heart support until you bid 4H and if you are stronger than minimum GF that may not be ideal. Also if it goes something like 1h-1s-2d-3c-3s-4h is that support or a cue?

 

Basically 1h-1s is a difficult sequence with standard agreements so it's often good to avoid it if there is a decent alternative.

[Vampyr]

Is it? I've seen it argued quite a lot in these forums that 2♣ is often better than 1♠ with this sort of shape, allowing you to GF and set hearts or spades as trumps below game depending on partner's rebid. Otherwise on auctions like 1h-1s-2s (where 2s is frequently 3 cd support only) or 1h-1s-2d, with mainstream agreements it is often hard to create a GF with hearts below 3nt, partner doesn't find out about heart support until you bid 4H and if you are stronger than minimum GF that may not be ideal. Also if it goes something like 1h-1s-2d-3c-3s-4h is that support or a cue?

 

Basically 1h-1s is a difficult sequence with standard agreements so it's often good to avoid it if there is a decent alternative.

 

The OP apparently prefers SAYC, where 2/1 is not GF; I assume it is forcing to 2NT, but I am not sure. In any case, he cannot establish an immediate GF by bidding 2♣. Do you think this makes a difference?

[Stephen Tu]

OP never specified SAYC in his post, just in his profile which I didn't check. Yes definitely less upside for 2c in SA.