There Aren't Enough Forcing Major Raises

[Winstonm]

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

 

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

[hrothgar]

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

 

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

 

 

Playing standard or 2/1 or some such

Playing Jacoby, 2NT seems obvious

Playing Raise+ = GF raise, 2S seems obvious

 

Playing Precision or some such

4H seems obvious

[Winstonm]

I think many would revolt bidding Jacoby without 4-card support.

[hrothgar]

I think many would revolt bidding Jacoby without 4-card support.

 

Sorry, my bad. I read it as KQxx in Hearts

 

Mark me down for 2♣

[The_Badger]

For the life of me I can't see how there is any problem with describing this hand and keeping the bidding open using 2/1, SAYC, Acol, Precision, Polish Club, Blue Club or any other respectable system, or am I missing something?

[Winstonm]

Sorry, my bad. I read it as KQxx in Hearts

 

Mark me down for 2♣

 

My fault - I had a little trouble with the editor and posted the suits after the held cards.

[Winstonm]

For the life of me I can't see how there is any problem with describing this hand and keeping the bidding open using 2/1, SAYC, Acol, Precision, Polish Club, Blue Club or any other respectable system, or am I missing something?

 

If you play 2/1, you have to make a bid in a 4-card suit to create a force. This is no different than SAYC. When you later show heart support, the bidding makes it sound like you are much more distributional than you are, not to mention that many consider the 2/1 suit should indicate a source of tricks.

 

Next, the poor spade holding precludes a NT bid.

 

Finally, as stated above, most people play that Jacoby requires 4-card support.

 

The problem with this hand is that it is a classic example of the old-fashioned forcing raise (1H-3H) that we no longer have available due to modern bidding choices.

Myself, I can think of a number of hands I would like to be able to bid a forcing 3M - because that allows a more precise description of other types of raises. Wouldn't it be better to bid 3H over 1H with Axx, KQx, xxxxx, Ax than 2D?

[nige1]

You hold: ♠ 10 9 ♥ K Q 9 ♦ K Q 8 2 ♣ A 9 8 4

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

We would bid 2♦ = TRF good 3 card raise.

After 1M we've recently agreed a simple mini-splinter structure. e.g. after 1♥:

• 1♠ = NAT
• 1N = NAT 6-11
• 2♣ = REL 12+. F1. Artificial. Then 2♦ = ART Sound opener.
• 2♦ = TRF 8+ 3 ♥s. Good raise to at least 2♥.
• 2♥ = NAT 0-8. Poor ♥ raise.
• 2♠ = SPL 4+ ♥s and any singleton). Raise to 3 or 5. Then 2N = ASK for singleton?
• 2N = ART. 4+ ♥s BAL or ♠ void. Raise to 3 or 5. Then 3♣ = ASK whiich?
• 3♣/♦ = SPL 4+ ♥s and this void. Raise to 3 or 5.
• 3♥ = PRE
• 3♠-4♥ = Same but game raise

[Vampyr]

Pudding raise!

[kenberg]

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

 

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

 

♠T9

♥KQ9

♦ KQ82

♣A984

I bid 2♣. Now about what means what when playing what.

Yes, I believe 1♥-2NT(Jac) shows 4.

However, if we are playing " the old-fashioned forcing raise", and I have played that, I play that as also showing 4. And pretty much for the same reasons. So you would have the same problem.

 

But let us assume 2/1. Most everyone agrees that 1♠-2♥ shows five hearts. But after 1M-2m, choices have to be made.

 

I have played that bidding 1M-2♦ shows five diamonds. This is playable but then 1M-2♣ has to be a catchall. There is no choice. You can have the above hand after a 1♥ opening, and you could have a 3=4=4=2 shape after a 1♠ opening. You cannot rationally require that 1M-2m be based on five cards regardless of what m is.

 

I have also played, in fact I usually play, that 1M-2♦ can be on 4. This makes life easier, but sometimes you will wish it showed five.

 

I am not going to say which is best, I don't have a strong opinion on that. Even if you agree that 1M-2♦ can be on 4 you can still have an issue if you are 3=4=3=3 and partner opens 1♠.. You can cut down on the frequency by agreeing that 1♠-3NT shows a minimum hand, as game forces go, with exactly 3=4=3=3 distribution. I have never played that, but I can see the point.

 

You will sometimes see the claim that 1M-2m shows five cards in m, without any further stipulation. This simply cannot be. Of course almost all players occasionally encounter a hand such that their system won't handle it and they have to fake it, but setting up a system that clearly cannot be adhered to does not make sense.

 

I realize that there may be be some complex systems that I am not familiar with. But I am assuming that in the natural bidding forum it's ok to look at 2/1 but exotic artificial sequences go elsewhere.

 

Added: When playing that 1M-2♦ promises five I alert and include that fact, and I also alert 1M-2♣ and explain that the bid is game forcing but is not always on a real club suit. If more detail is asked for I supply it

[Winstonm]

♠T9

♥KQ9

♦ KQ82

♣A984

I bid 2♣. Now about what means what when playing what.

Yes, I believe 1♥-2NT(Jac) shows 4.

However, if we are playing " the old-fashioned forcing raise", and I have played that, I play that as also showing 4. And pretty much for the same reasons. So you would have the same problem.

 

But let us assume 2/1. Most everyone agrees that 1♠-2♥ shows five hearts. But after 1M-2m, choices have to be made.

 

I have played that bidding 1M-2♦ shows five diamonds. This is playable but then 1M-2♣ has to be a catchall. There is no choice. You can have the above hand after a 1♥ opening, and you could have a 3=4=4=2 shape after a 1♠ opening. You cannot rationally require that 1M-2m be based on five cards regardless of what m is.

 

I have also played, in fact I usually play, that 1M-2♦ can be on 4. This makes life easier, but sometimes you will wish it showed five.

 

I am not going to say which is best, I don't have a strong opinion on that. Even if you agree that 1M-2♦ can be on 4 you can still have an issue if you are 3=4=3=3 and partner opens 1♠.. You can cut down on the frequency by agreeing that 1♠-3NT shows a minimum hand, as game forces go, with exactly 3=4=3=3 distribution. I have never played that, but I can see the point.

 

You will sometimes see the claim that 1M-2m shows five cards in m, without any further stipulation. This simply cannot be. Of course almost all players occasionally encounter a hand such that their system won't handle it and they have to fake it, but setting up a system that clearly cannot be adhered to does not make sense.

 

I realize that there may be be some complex systems that I am not familiar with. But I am assuming that in the natural bidding forum it's ok to look at 2/1 but exotic artificial sequences go elsewhere.

 

Added: When playing that 1M-2♦ promises five I alert and include that fact, and I also alert 1M-2♣ and explain that the bid is game forcing but is not always on a real club suit. If more detail is asked for I supply it

 

Just as a FYI, a few years back I developed a raise structure re-working Bergen raises that allowed 1M-3M to be a strong raise based on 3-card support. It was in Bridge World. I guess it didn't have much impact on the real bridge world, though. :P

[steve2005]

I say Kit Woolsey say something like this on this sort of hand. Your playing 5-card majors is it that terrible to play in an 8 card fit instead thing it was a 9.

There is something to be said for finding the trump suit immediately so you are on the same page.

Plus Precision 4H is easy

[helene_t]

2♣ followed by heart support should show something like this. If you want to emphasize the club suit you will have to jump at your second turn.

[Vampyr]

I say Kit Woolsey say something like this on this sort of hand. Your playing 5-card majors is it that terrible to play in an 8 card fit instead thing it was a 9.

 

Well, the main reason for having a GF raise structure with the accompanying information leakage is for slam exploration -- if slam was not a consideration you would just jump to 4M. I think that the extra trump in the short hand is a big plus when playing in a slam.

[miamijd]

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

 

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

 

Seems normal to bid 2c. If it bothers you to have to bid a 4 card suit, the way around that is to play Fred Gitelman's structure and respond with 2s (using 2nt as the forcing 4 card raise) or 2nt (using 2s as the forcing 4 card raise), in either case showing 12+ - 15- or 18+ with 2-3 h, 2-3 spades, and no 5 card minor. Not sure I want to declare NT with a low doub spade but there is still room to explore and get to the right game.

[mr1303]

What about 2D? If partner has a singleton club I don't want to discourage, whereas diamond shortage is unlikely to be good news.

 

Probably won't matter but it might get us to a good slam.

[kenberg]

Just as a FYI, a few years back I developed a raise structure re-working Bergen raises that allowed 1M-3M to be a strong raise based on 3-card support. It was in Bridge World. I guess it didn't have much impact on the real bridge world, though. :P

 

Well, I subscribe to Bridge World. Which reminds me of a line on some tv show I saw: A woman was complaining that she had joined a health club but it hadn't done her a bit of good. "Apparently you also have to go" she said. Apparently you also have to read Bridge World for it to help.

 

Following up on what the Vamp and others have said, suppose that partner opens 1M and you have a fit and game forcing values. There are still things to consider. After you show a fit, opener might be interested in slam. A niine card fit might spark that interest. If you have only three card support other game contracts might be appealing. On some hands we might want to pay 3nT. If the opning was spades and we have three card spade support, it is at least possible that the right contract is 4H in a 4-4 fit. And getting back to slam prospects, with three card support it is possible that, say, 6D on a 4-4 fit is preferable to 6S on the 5-3 fit.

 

i imagine that you and others can think of further possibilities. So it is good to try to consider possibilities.

 

For many of us, reality suggests we don't let it get too complicated. Miami mentions notes by Fred on 2/1. I remember reading them and finding them interesting. Finding a partner who agreed to also read them, discuss them and play them was another matter.

 

I offer congrats on the Bridge World article. What issue, btw? But mostly I try to keep the conventional structure from taking over my bridge life. It would take some heavy arguments to get me to play a system where I could not bid 2C on this hand and then 3H over 2S or 2NT, or 2C and then 2H over 2D. It's not a great hand but I think it is too good for 2C followed by 4H. Elaborate systems can help. They can also get int he way.

[Flem72]

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

 

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

 

With one partner I play combined Bergen and use 3D as a balanced 3-cd raise, 10-15 support. Also, this hand is one of the big pluses of the Neb 2C structure, which I want to play whenever partner will. Both work for your Axx, KQx, xxxxx, Ax as well.

[Winstonm]

Well, I subscribe to Bridge World. Which reminds me of a line on some tv show I saw: A woman was complaining that she had joined a health club but it hadn't done her a bit of good. "Apparently you also have to go" she said. Apparently you also have to read Bridge World for it to help.

 

Following up on what the Vamp and others have said, suppose that partner opens 1M and you have a fit and game forcing values. There are still things to consider. After you show a fit, opener might be interested in slam. A niine card fit might spark that interest. If you have only three card support other game contracts might be appealing. On some hands we might want to pay 3nT. If the opning was spades and we have three card spade support, it is at least possible that the right contract is 4H in a 4-4 fit. And getting back to slam prospects, with three card support it is possible that, say, 6D on a 4-4 fit is preferable to 6S on the 5-3 fit.

 

i imagine that you and others can think of further possibilities. So it is good to try to consider possibilities.

 

For many of us, reality suggests we don't let it get too complicated. Miami mentions notes by Fred on 2/1. I remember reading them and finding them interesting. Finding a partner who agreed to also read them, discuss them and play them was another matter.

 

I offer congrats on the Bridge World article. What issue, btw? But mostly I try to keep the conventional structure from taking over my bridge life. It would take some heavy arguments to get me to play a system where I could not bid 2C on this hand and then 3H over 2S or 2NT, or 2C and then 2H over 2D. It's not a great hand but I think it is too good for 2C followed by 4H. Elaborate systems can help. They can also get int he way.

 

I don't even remember the issue number - it was back in the mid to late 90s. The title was: Better Bergen Raises. The problem with this hand is really one of how to bid it

playing 2/1 - I don't count SAYC as that is a blunderbuss method anyway.

[kenberg]

I don't even remember the issue number - it was back in the mid to late 90s. The title was: Better Bergen Raises. The problem with this hand is really one of how to bid it

playing 2/1 - I don't count SAYC as that is a blunderbuss method anyway.

 

 

♠T9

♥KQ9

♦ KQ82

♣A984

 

Partner opens 1H. Probably at least 9 times out of 10 the correct contract is 4H. So I see the question as how to find the other possibilities without creatng som much confusion tht you land in sme silly contract.

 

1H-2C-2S. Already we need agreements. If opener is minimum I prefer a 2H rebid on 5. The 2S does not have to promise the moon, but it should be something extra. We can rule out 6C and 6D as possible contracts and 3NT would seem odd, so I bid 3H. If we belong in 6H we have a decent chance of finding it.

 

1H-2C-2D. Now 6D is in play. I still start with 2H, I plan to show diamonds later. This is a little risky as partner might think this shows a stiff spade but I think he shoould allow for 2=3=4=4.

 

1H-2C-2NT-3H. Since partner (my partner) is allowed to rebid 2H oveer 2C on five, I assume he has a spades stop for his 2NT. Still we probably belong in hearts. If partner, over 3H, chooses 3S I would regard this as something of a last train offer to play in 3NT. I might take him up on it but I think I still go with hearts, so I bid 4C in case that interests him.

 

1H-2C-2H-3H. I'm showing a decent hand and I more or less have one. On the auction so far I am not embarrassed to lay down the dummy.

 

1H-2C-3C-3H. Partner has hearts and clubs, I have clubs and hearts, the ball is n his court.

 

I don't see this as a problem hand.

 

I might hunt up Fred's articles on an improved 2/1 just for the fun of it. No doubt there is room for improvement on standard. But I think when problems arise in 2/1 we again have a 9 out of 10 probability that the difficulty is not that the system is bad but that the players have not discussed what means what. As mentioned, I like 1H-1m-2S to promise a little extra, using 1H-2m-2H with a minimum. It's different when it begins 1D-2C. Now there are two majors to sort out and I think we need to get started, even with a minimum. So 1D-2C-2M simply shows four cards in M without necessarily any extra values. These are my preferences. Are they the same as the preferences of the guy sitting across from me? Often I have no idea..

[Winstonm]

♠T9

♥KQ9

♦ KQ82

♣A984

 

Partner opens 1H. Probably at least 9 times out of 10 the correct contract is 4H. So I see the question as how to find the other possibilities without creatng som much confusion tht you land in sme silly contract.

 

1H-2C-2S. Already we need agreements. If opener is minimum I prefer a 2H rebid on 5. The 2S does not have to promise the moon, but it should be something extra. We can rule out 6C and 6D as possible contracts and 3NT would seem odd, so I bid 3H. If we belong in 6H we have a decent chance of finding it.

 

1H-2C-2D. Now 6D is in play. I still start with 2H, I plan to show diamonds later. This is a little risky as partner might think this shows a stiff spade but I think he shoould allow for 2=3=4=4.

 

1H-2C-2NT-3H. Since partner (my partner) is allowed to rebid 2H oveer 2C on five, I assume he has a spades stop for his 2NT. Still we probably belong in hearts. If partner, over 3H, chooses 3S I would regard this as something of a last train offer to play in 3NT. I might take him up on it but I think I still go with hearts, so I bid 4C in case that interests him.

 

1H-2C-2H-3H. I'm showing a decent hand and I more or less have one. On the auction so far I am not embarrassed to lay down the dummy.

 

1H-2C-3C-3H. Partner has hearts and clubs, I have clubs and hearts, the ball is n his court.

 

I don't see this as a problem hand.

 

I might hunt up Fred's articles on an improved 2/1 just for the fun of it. No doubt there is room for improvement on standard. But I think when problems arise in 2/1 we again have a 9 out of 10 probability that the difficulty is not that the system is bad but that the players have not discussed what means what. As mentioned, I like 1H-1m-2S to promise a little extra, using 1H-2m-2H with a minimum. It's different when it begins 1D-2C. Now there are two majors to sort out and I think we need to get started, even with a minimum. So 1D-2C-2M simply shows four cards in M without necessarily any extra values. These are my preferences. Are they the same as the preferences of the guy sitting across from me? Often I have no idea..

 

A little history might help. This all came up back in the day when I was playing with Bob Holmes as my partner, and although we were reasonably decent players we could not compete against the true experts so we decided if we couldn't outplay them our best chance was to outbid them. This led to 3 system inventions (all 3 published in Bridge World) that we didn't get to play for long but which still make sense to me.

 

First, to beat the pros we figured we needed to be able to find more skinny slams. This led to the idea of 2/1 in a minor as a source of tricks - a decent suit. That left the hole of the 2344 hand. That led to Better Berger.

Second, we decided that the most logical game contract after we open a weak 2-bid is game in the major opened, not 3NT, so I devised a losing trick count system for weak 2s. That was pretty sweet.

Third, we adopted a singleton-showing method over inverted minors, with 2N being shape showing only.

 

Then we didn't get to play much for a couple of years and that was that. So other than the weak 2 structure, I don't have a lot of actual play time with the other bids.

 

So that's the history FWIW. :)

[Winstonm]

With one partner I play combined Bergen and use 3D as a balanced 3-cd raise, 10-15 support. Also, this hand is one of the big pluses of the Neb 2C structure, which I want to play whenever partner will. Both work for your Axx, KQx, xxxxx, Ax as well.

 

I like the idea of relays to clarify holdings.

[maartenxq]

You hold: 109♠KQ9♥KQ82♦A984

 

No opposition bidding, partner opens 1H. What now?

Bah, You say 2 ♣. p says something you support ♥ and p (should) know what u have. 4 + ♣ 3 ♥ mild or strong slam interest, the more so if you play Jacoby notrump. If p cues u cooperate below 4 hearts and await further developments. No cue p? No slam.

There are however players who see a problem in every solution.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[Winstonm]

Bah, You say 2 ♣. p says something you support ♥ and p (should) know what u have. 4 + ♣ 3 ♥ mild or strong slam interest, the more so if you play Jacoby notrump.

There are however players who see a problem in every solution.

 

Maarten Baltussen

 

I'm sorry if you don't see the difference in trick taking potential between xx, KQx, Axx, KQxxx and xx, KQx, Axxx, KQxx. Your comment does indeed highlight the problem: 4 or more clubs. Which is it? Jxxx or AQJxx? How should opener evaluate his Kx of clubs?

[GrahamJson]

I'm surprised that nobody has suggested responding with a forcing 1NT, following up with a jump yo 4H. It seems to me that this should show a pudding raise with three trumps. Maybe not a perfect solution to the problem, but a simple one that doesn't require learning lots of relays.