There Aren't Enough Forcing Major Raises

[GrahamJson]

Oh, and if partner rebids 2H you can jump in a new suit. I think that this must be a cue bid agreeing hearts, with three card support and a balanced hand.

[kenberg]

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.

 

 

1H-1NT-2m-4H will presumably end the auction. As mentioned, I don't think this is a great hand but it's decent and, imo, too strong for 1H-1NT-2m-4H. I, and aparently many others, simply do not see what the problem is with bidding 2C and then supporting hearts.

[kenberg]

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. :)

 

The general philosophy here just doesn't suit me. In a long match against superior players, I expect to lose. Miracles happen, but probably I lose. But the fact is that many hands are close calls. Mybe the expert pair gets to the contract that has a 55% chance of being right and we get to the contract that has a 45% chance of being right.Maybe we get lucky. My preference is to play against experts pretty much the same as I play against anyone else. I will illustrate with a hand from the other day.

 

AK642

6

J9

AT843

 

 

Imps, non-vul, auction not contested

1S-1NT-2C-3S-?

 

5-5 come alive? And the values are concentrated n my suits. Still, it's a 12 count. I passed.

 

QJT

QT83

K65

KJ9

 

AK642

6

J9

AT843

 

Maybe I should have bid 4. Maybe partner should have upgraded a point for his QJT. Maybe we belong in 3S, just where we are. My point is that I passed, I would pass if my opponents were weak, I would pass if my opponents were expert. In this case it was one of these 25 cent robot tournaments so my pard and my opponents were upscale bots. I pass. Some bid 4, some didn't. Some took ten tricks, some didn't. I took 11. If I am playing against experts, I hope I made the right choice and they didn't. In a seven board Swiss I can hope for a shot. In a two day event, not that I have ever reached a two day showdown against experts, I can enjoy the challenge and congratulate them afterward.

 

 

Somewhere Larry Cohen noted that he and Bergen used to have carding that depended on their opponents. Against weak players they lead the T from KJTx, promising 0 pr 2. Against strong players they led the J from KJTx, promising the J. Presumably this was against different teams ni a long match, not a switch back and forth at a two boards a table pairs game. My estimate of my opponents may occasionally inspire me to contest to one level higher, but mostly I just play my game as best I can. It might or might not be the best approach, but it suits me.

[msjennifer]

We play Precision so our bid is an easy 4H.Playing a standard system we bid 2 C which as per the scheme described by kenberg does not pose any further problems as we do not consider the 2C bid to be showing a 5+ suit.

[GrahamJson]

1H-1NT-2m-4H will presumably end the auction. As mentioned, I don't think this is a great hand but it's decent and, imo, too strong for 1H-1NT-2m-4H. I, and aparently many others, simply do not see what the problem is with bidding 2C and then supporting hearts.

I don't see much wrong with 2C first either. However the advantage of starting with 1NT is that it shows well the general nature of the hand; flat and with good three card support. Starting with 2C, when 1NT is available, would suggest longer clubs.

[Winstonm]

I don't see much wrong with 2C first either. However the advantage of starting with 1NT is that it shows well the general nature of the hand; flat and with good three card support. Starting with 2C, when 1NT is available, would suggest longer clubs.

 

The issue is not that so-and-so is playable. But playable systems tend to be less accurate. Heck, Goren is playable but there is a lot of jumping around to show strength and create forces. Question to me: is there a better way, operating in the confines of a standard (basically a 2/1) structure?

 

A little history may help. Back before dirt, I read Howard Schenken's book where he described consistently losing to the Blue Team because (in his opinion) the Blue Team consistently outbid the Americans. His solution was The Schenken Club.

[GrahamJson]

The issue is not that so-and-so is playable. But playable systems tend to be less accurate. Heck, Goren is playable but there is a lot of jumping around to show strength and create forces. Question to me: is there a better way, operating in the confines of a standard (basically a 2/1) structure?

 

A little history may help. Back before dirt, I read Howard Schenken's book where he described consistently losing to the Blue Team because (in his opinion) the Blue Team consistently outbid the Americans. His solution was The Schenken Club.

Whether the given hand is too strong for 1H-1NT-2m-4H depends entirely on your requirements for the bids. Even if you had no prior discussion regarding the sequence I think that most would conclude that it must show a 4432 hand, with three hearts and 12-15 points (in fact most likely specifically 2344 shape, given that you would probably respond 1S holding four). This seems to me to be a pretty accurate description compared with sequences starting 2C, unless you had some fairly detailed discussion of these.

[LBengtsson]

2/1 isnt perfect. your hand flat, partner 11+ bidding 2 over 1 is gf no more. 5h/4s open flanery 2d 11/15 then 1h/2c/2s bid show 16+

[maartenxq]

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?

Unless you want to develop or adopt a scientific relay structure I guess you cannot bid more accurately then support p and express mild slam interest. If partner insists we will be in slam, which may be a dubious contract but even these slams are made on some days.

Maarten Baltussen

[Phil]

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

 

Good methods. So why wouldn't use the GFR on this hand type?

[nige1]

Good methods. So why wouldn't use the GFR on this hand type?

Thank you, Phil. Our 2♣ relay response shows 12+. It's not GF when opener's rebid shows a weak hand. It has to be used on lots of hands. So it's a bit overloaded. Hence we tend to restrict its use to hands without a fit. Especially as we have so many fit bids. But you're right that 2♣ might well be a better reply, with the OP hand.

[masse24]

Against strong players they led the J from KJTx, promising the J.

Leading the Jack to show the Jack eliminates any ambiguity! ;)

[wank]

i play 2nt as inv+ with 4+ or a bal GF with 3+.

 

over that 3C is any intermediate hand, i.e. something akin in playing strength to a strong NT (3D asks for shortage; 3H/S/NT show responder's corresponding shortage)

3D is no shortage, equivalent in playing strength to 18-19 or a hand that would reject a 4 card invite (then 3M is to play; 3oM is GF no shortage and waiting; 3NT/4C/4D are slam tries opposite a hand which would reject the invite with responder's corresponding shortage)

3H/S/3nt are hands above a strong NT in playing strength with the corresponding shortage

 

if responder ever shows a shortage that promises a 4th trump. if responder doesn't have a shortage then a 4th trumps isn't as important and our structure is more about opener describing anyway.

 

obviusly we lose some precision on the slam hands, but we gain a lot in disclosing virtually nothing on the way to 4M and we've not had to waste a bid on an invitational 4 card raise, which means we can play 1M-3m as natural invitational. as we've taken the balanced 3 card raises out of 2m, we're in a better position when we do bid 2m then support - now opener knows to value cards in that suit more highly.

[Winstonm]

i play 2nt as inv+ with 4+ or a bal GF with 3+.

 

over that 3C is any intermediate hand, i.e. something akin in playing strength to a strong NT (3D asks for shortage; 3H/S/NT show responder's corresponding shortage)

3D is no shortage, equivalent in playing strength to 18-19 or a hand that would reject a 4 card invite (then 3M is to play; 3oM is GF no shortage and waiting; 3NT/4C/4D are slam tries opposite a hand which would reject the invite with responder's corresponding shortage)

3H/S/3nt are hands above a strong NT in playing strength with the corresponding shortage

 

if responder ever shows a shortage that promises a 4th trump. if responder doesn't have a shortage then a 4th trumps isn't as important and our structure is more about opener describing anyway.

 

obviusly we lose some precision on the slam hands, but we gain a lot in disclosing virtually nothing on the way to 4M and we've not had to waste a bid on an invitational 4 card raise, which means we can play 1M-3m as natural invitational. as we've taken the balanced 3 card raises out of 2m, we're in a better position when we do bid 2m then support - now opener knows to value cards in that suit more highly.

 

I like this. It also makes it possible to assign some minimum holding for a 2/1 in a minor followed by support. To my thinking, artificial bids work best as an/or bids, making them work double-duty to make up for the loss of a natural bid.

[fromageGB]

2♣ for me also (in a 2/1 structure).

 

The problem with 2/1 being initially interpreted as natural is that it can lead to confusion when opener has a strong hand with clubs. Is it permitted in your regulations to have a relay 2♦ over 2♣? Then you could have : 3♣ = normal club GF; 3M = GF 3 card raise unlimited; 2M = 11/12 invitational 3 card support, this option being passable; 2otherM = GF 4 card suit; 2NT = other whatever.

 

If playing forcing NT, then that can include 13-15 hcp "other" hands, so the 2♣ "other" hands are defined as 16+.

 

The problem with the method of putting the given hand in the FNT is that it must have a restriction in the strength range, so what would you bid if stronger?

[Zelandakh]

I might hunt up Fred's articles on an improved 2/1 just for the fun of it.

One of the things I learned through BBF is that Fred does not like the 2♣ method on hands like this and prefers a 2NT response over 1M to be natural and forcing, with 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 3♣ becoming the GF raise. Those that object to the 2♣ followed by hearts route should consider looking up some of his old posts and perhaps adopting such a method. It is if nothing else certainly an advantage when these hand types are kept separate.

[rmnka447]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major.

 

If you want the ability to distinguish between a 3 or 4 card raise with the flat hand, you could possibly use 4 ♣ as a relay with 4 ♦ showing one holding and 4 M showing the other.

[Winstonm]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major.

 

If you want the ability to distinguish between a 3 or 4 card raise with the flat hand, you could possibly use 4 ♣ as a relay with 4 ♦ showing one holding and 4 M showing the other.

 

It's been done in the past with unremarkable success. Pre-splinters there were also Swiss raises and the Blue Team 4C-4D convention. Suffice it to say the issue of more ways to raise a major has been around a long time. :)

[Zelandakh]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major.

It was mentioned implicitly in #9.

[dcrc2]

My preference is to bid this hand starting 1♥:2♣,2x:2NT. You wait until the third round to show support. This distinguishes it from 1♥:2♣,2x:3♥ which promises a genuine club suit.

[mathboy]

After partner opens 1M,you bid 3NT to show 13-15Hcps,balanced hand and 3 cards support.

[Winstonm]

After partner opens 1M,you bid 3NT to show 13-15Hcps,balanced hand and 3 cards support.

 

Are you allowed to bid 3NT with 5332 shape if the 5-card suit is weak? And then what do you do with opening NT hands with only 2-card support?

[Vampyr]

Are you allowed to bid 3NT with 5332 shape if the 5-card suit is weak? And then what do you do with opening NT hands with only 2-card support?

 

Is THAT a common usage for a 3NT response? Seems to leave very little room for investigation (if you mean a strong NT). If you preferred meaning I'd "to play", I think that you would be better off making this bid with minimum hands. or better yet, using it to show very specific raises, e.g. any void.

[Winstonm]

Is THAT a common usage for a 3NT response? Seems to leave very little room for investigation (if you mean a strong NT). If you preferred meaning I'd "to play", I think that you would be better off making this bid with minimum hands. or better yet, using it to show very specific raises, e.g. any void.

 

Picture bids by their nature are quite specific. A weaker 3N bid is fine. The question really is whether or not 5332 shape qualifies, meaning, if it does, that a 2/1 with belated support can indicate a better secondary suit.

 

The original question still pertains: how do you distinguish KQx, Axx, xx, KJxxx from KQx, Axx, xxx, KJxx if you bid them both the same way? Do you think it is important to bid them differently?

[rhm]

 

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.

Bidding agreements should be designed to differentiate hands so that the right contract can be reached.

This is done by using different bidding sequences.

Obviously the number of different hand types you can differentiate depends on the number of different sequences you have available.

In 2/1 game forcing the lowest contract after 2/1 is 3NT.

A little bidding theory can help here

The number of different sequences almost doubles with each additional step available.

So after 1M-2♣ there are almost twice as many hand types you can show than when the bidding starts 1M-2♦.

So why do we have problems differentiating club hands from balanced hands after 1M-2♣ (Only 2 hand types)?

 

The answer is simple: Standard bidding violates what Rubens has called the "useful space principle (USP) ".

For example after 1M - 2♣ bids being cheap should show frequent common hands and bids which use a lot of bidding space should be specific.

This maximizes the amount of information which can be exchanged. Relay system do this, but you need not play a relay system to accomplish this.

 

Standard bidding does not do this

For example after 1M-2♣ the cheapest bid is 2♦. But in standard this shows 4+ diamonds in openers hand. This requirement is quite specific and makes the bid rare, claiming that at least 50% of openers remaining cards are diamonds.

Nice when opener can rebid 2♦, but making the situation bad when he does not have 4+ diamonds.

More likely opener has a 5M332 distribution, with which most rebid either 2M or 2NT, which is less specific but uses more bidding space.

Simply inverting these 2 bids, say the meaning of 2NT and 2♦, after 1M-2♣ game forcing makes your system more efficient and gives responder room to show what he got.

 

So agreeing that 1M-2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and 1M-2♣ being unspecific with regard to clubs is the way to go, but you have to invest a little bit in your continuations. Standard bidding is not very efficient here.

I have dwelt on this in a bit more detail in a recent Bridgeworld article where I have made suggestions how to improve standard bidding in a 2/1 context.

It is not so important whether you like my suggestions, what is important is to realize that standard continuations are not optimal.

 

Rainer Herrmann