2/1 shape before strength?

[Mr Rat]

Thanks to all for their responses; I have followed the thread with interest.

 

As someone living in a 4cM world I have played a fair number of systems in the past (2/1, strong club etc), but it was before I had a long lay-off from the game (twice). Here in the UK it is fairly unusual to come across anyone playing 5cM let alone 2/1 and those I do come across seem to be playing some very ill-considered methods, frequently coming across problem hands and ignoring the problem!

 

Having read the responses above, I am left with the feeling that 2/1 would probably work better from a 4cM base, since the need to bid short suits would be removed. I think it would need to be a 14-16 1NT opening though, so that the 1NT response can be semi-forcing and opener can pass with 12-13 balanced, invite or force to game with 17+.

[Mr Rat]

Suppose the bidding starts (uncontested) 1S-2D-2H-3H

 

Does 2H promise extras?

 

Why is it so terrible if you are in the same position after

 

1H - 2D - 2S - 3S like after 1S - 2D- 2H - 3H ?

 

People are confused about reverse bidding.

 

If after 1H -2D (game forcing) you bid 2S to show a 4 card spade suit. In a technical sense you may have reversed, but actually you have made the second cheapest available to you now to describe most of your hand.

What is wrong with that?

It is your partner who has already taken up bidding space to show a game forcing hand with diamonds.

Would you require extra values if the bidding started 1H (2D) DBL back to you to rebid 2S?

 

Reverses have to be strong after a one level response precisely because the one level does not promise much values.

This scenario is very different.

 

Rainer Herrmann

Yes you're quite right that the reverse is necessary when the response is at the 1-level since responder has to show preference for the first suit at the 3-level which requires their 6 plus 17 from opener to be theoretically sound. And that leads to the conclusion that, in a scenario where the partnership has shown enough for game, a reverse is not required to have the same strength for reasons of soundness. The same can be said of rebids in new suits at the 3-level (e.g. 1H-2D-3C).

 

However, my main concern with the shape-only aspect is that you're starting to run out of bidding space -the very stuff we were trying to preserve and use efficiently by adopting the 2/1 approach. By the time we find a fit it is rather late in the day to be saying things about strength. Stephen mentioned the serious/frivolous 3N approach, but it seems to my mind that even that could be too little too late in many situations. Perhaps not, I'd need to play it a while and see if we can bid those 15 opposite 15 slams or those where a shortage is key to making in making 12 tricks when we have no room left to splinter after we're done showing shape and fit-finding.

 

I'm also concerned to read on Larry Cohen's site that a sequence such as 1H-2D-3D could be a 3-card suit! If you can't find genuine minor suit fits, that seems to be a retrograde step in slam-assessing sequences.

[pescetom]

Yes you're quite right that the reverse is necessary when the response is at the 1-level since responder has to show preference for the first suit at the 3-level which requires their 6 plus 17 from opener to be theoretically sound. And that leads to the conclusion that, in a scenario where the partnership has shown enough for game, a reverse is not required to have the same strength for reasons of soundness. The same can be said of rebids in new suits at the 3-level (e.g. 1H-2D-3C).

I think we all agree about that.

 

However, my main concern with the shape-only aspect is that you're starting to run out of bidding space -the very stuff we were trying to preserve and use efficiently by adopting the 2/1 approach. By the time we find a fit it is rather late in the day to be saying things about strength. Stephen mentioned the serious/frivolous 3N approach, but it seems to my mind that even that could be too little too late in many situations. Perhaps not, I'd need to play it a while and see if we can bid those 15 opposite 15 slams or those where a shortage is key to making in making 12 tricks when we have no room left to splinter after we're done showing shape and fit-finding.

Yours is an absolutely normal concern, which rapidly disappears when you actually play this way. The bidding space you gain by committing immediately to game and by avoiding unnecessary jumps gives you all the time in the world to explore fit and deduce strength. I normally use a non-serious (frivolous) approach, but that's really just the icing on the cake. With some intermediates we don't even bother with that and still rarely have accidents - if responder has forced to game and opener has invited control-bids and the controls just keep coming then you will find that 15-15 slam (and avoid the 16-16 one which is off AK too) even without any further explicit strength signals. That shortage which is key to 12 tricks will show up below game let alone slam and without clumsy splinter jumps, the key is to combine 2/1 with disciplined control-bidding.

 

I'm also concerned to read on Larry Cohen's site that a sequence such as 1H-2D-3D could be a 3-card suit! If you can't find genuine minor suit fits, that seems to be a retrograde step in slam-assessing sequences.

Traditional 2/1 (and most experts still, I think) agrees that 1H-2D shows 5-card diamonds, so 3D can be 3-card and it is still a genuine fit. If you want to play 2D as 4-card (which some do advocate) then I would want 3D to be 4-card too. But in any case the length of the minor fit is not usually a crunch issue as responder is now quite likely to bid 3H (which fixes trumps and invites control-bid) or 3NT (only opener with extras will bid on).

[JLilly]

With regard to 1♦-2♣ in particular, there are tons of treatments floating out there to handle this problem auction, with little consensus.

Kokish

Kantar (scroll down about 60% of the way to "A Troublesome Sequence")

Some BBO people

Some more BBO people

nigel_k