Suggestions needed for 2-way 1M-2C

[Chamaco]

Hi all,

I'd like to hear from you about the following.

---------------------------------------------------

I just ask one favour:

I am sure the agreements we have might not be the best, and I am sure most of you have better ones.

But if your post will focus on changing RADICALLY the structure, it will hardly help me with my current p :( (I cannot change the system every week).

Of course, suggestions for minor modifications and corrections are more than welcome- that's why I post here :) .

 

But, even in the case you dislike the structure, I would greatly appreciate if you also included, maybe at the end of your post, what would be your choice if you were forced with a gun on your head to play something like that ! ;)

 

Thanks !! ;)

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

THE CURRENT SYSTEM

 

In my partnership we play Precision, so 1M opener is max 15 hcp.

 

We have coupled this limited opening style with the 2/1 framework similar to Mike Lawrence style:

 

1) a 2/1 is absolute GF (actually may stop in 4m)

2) a 2/1 in a minor guarantees 5 cards of at least QTxxx quality (if the suit quality is lower, we treat it as a 4 bagger); if 2/1 is a major (2H over 1S), requirement may lower down;

3) 2NT is a forcing raise a la Jacoby, 3m are Bergen raises , jump raises are preemptive;

4) the balanced GF hand goes via 2C which is 2-way: either balanced (2+ cards in C) OR with 5+ clubs and good suit;

We play a fairly simplified scheme on this, perhaps too simplified, and I'd appreciate feedback onn the followups.

Keep in mind I have to play with a pard who often forgets even simple conventions, so some gadget that lasts one round of bidding is ok, but tools that start relays for 2-3 bidding rounds would be unplayable with such a pard

 

Over the 2C response, opener may use a 2D = a "waiting bid". It is used for most featureless hands , unsuitable for 3-level rebids (distributional reverses), or for weak single suiters. (other responses are "natural"- keeping in mind opener has 15 hcp max, so extras are in shape - except opener's major rebid, which corresponds to a raise of clubs if responder's clubs are real).

Other bids except 2D are natural (bids at 3 level are distroibutional reverses, usually with concentrated values, 5 losers), except opener's major rebid, which shows a hand that would raise responder's clubs if they were real.

 

Over 2D, responder should clarify his hand.

We have set this simple agreement:

- any NT rebids show the balanced hand. Jump to 3NT is 16-18, whereas 2NT is 12-15 OR 19+ balanced.

- any suit rebid shows real clubs and the side suit.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

THE QUESTION

 

Keeping in mind this, I have discovered a "hole" in this agreement after the sequence 1M:2C:2D:?

 

The point is: WHAT SHOULD RESPONDER REBID WHEN HE HAS A BALANCED HAND WITH 3 CARD SUPPORT IN THE MAJOR ?

Bidding NT does not deliver immediately the support, and this can be awkward in some cases; on the other hand supporting over 2D relay may give a distorted picture of the hand (unbalanced).

This choice affects the developments.

 

Example:

Let us assume that balanced responder with 3 card support rebids 2NT

 

1S:2C

2D:2NT

?

 

Now the critical point is: what would 3 clubs or 3 diamonds mean.

 

Option a.

So far, we have played it as showing a natural suit, but not good enough to bid it immediately at the 3 level, so usually the qualkity of the hand is bad: so it is not a slam try (also because opener has max 15), but rather tells pard: "Hey, I am subminimum opener with 2 suits, not unlikely I might have a good 9 up to bad 11 in 55, so watchout if you want to play 3NT".

A decent opener would simply signoff in 3NT instead.

 

Option b.

Using 3C by opener over responder's 2NT as a sort of checkback to find out about 3 card support.

This may work fine, but loses the option of "pulling the brakes" as in option a.

[P_Marlowe]

Use B.

 

Responder did show a GF with the 2C response followed

by the 2NT bid, so the partnership should be committed

to game.

 

Of course you need to decide, what constitutes a bal.

GF, which needs as input the min. req. for an mayor suit

opening, and these min. req. needs to be binding.

 

An alternative would be

 

1M - 2C

2D - ???

 

2S - bal. with 3 card support, GF

3S - unbal. 3 card support with 5 clubs.

 

You do not need to worry about 4 card support,

because these hand types would have been bid

direct.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe