Response with pre-empt type hands

[kereru67]

Partner opens 1♠. How do you respond with this?

 

♠Q8

♥7

♦AQJT7653

♣J6

 

Personally I'd bid 2♦ and repeat them... but maybe there's a better method.

[FelicityR]

From your BBO profile it looks like you play SAYC as opposed to 2/1. I'd bid 2♦ after partner opens 1♠. The question that needs to be asked is what happens next? Would I'll rather be in 5♦ or 4♠ if partner rebids 2♠. It's difficult to gauge as a trump ♠ lead in a 4♠ contract may make life difficult if the ♦s do not run.

 

Is 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 3♦ forcing here? I somehow doubt it.

 

Would 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 4♦ (forcing) lead to the wrong contract? Maybe a hopeless slam?

 

I'm inclined if partner rebids 2♠ to raise to 4♠.

[kereru67]

From your BBO profile it looks like you play SAYC as opposed to 2/1. I'd bid 2♦ after partner opens 1♠. The question that needs to be asked is what happens next? Would I'll rather be in 5♦ or 4♠ if partner rebids 2♠. It's difficult to gauge as a trump ♠ lead in a 4♠ contract may make life difficult if the ♦s do not run.

 

Is 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 3♦ forcing here? I somehow doubt it.

 

Would 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 4♦ (forcing) lead to the wrong contract? Maybe a hopeless slam?

 

I'm inclined if partner rebids 2♠ to raise to 4♠.

What if the rebid is 2♥?

[RuflRabbit]

Partner opens 1♠. How do you respond with this?

 

♠Q8

♥7

♦AQJT7653

♣J6

 

Personally I'd bid 2♦ and repeat them... but maybe there's a better method.

 

Playing SA, I think you have it right. Not enough spades to raise a spade rebid (promising only five) or to bid 2♠ after heart rebid, not enough stuff to raise notrump, and no need not to show where you live opposite an extras-showing 3♣ rebid.

[FelicityR]

What if the rebid is 2♥?

 

I had a feeling that you would say this ;)

 

It's really difficult to say how to bid this sensibly. I'd rather an expert give you an answer here. However, it does look like partner is 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors as opposed to 6-4. The hand is a bit of a misfit, except if partner turns up with specific cards. I've looked at this a couple of times and you can underbid or overbid this either way.

 

To me, three bids come into the equation: 3♣; 3♠ or 4♦. Do I supress a good 8 card ♦ suit to give ♠ preference to partner immediately. Or do I use the fourth suit (3♣) to see if partner has a ♣ stop or even ♦ support, keeping both options of 3NT and 5♦ even perhaps 6♦ in the equation.

 

I do think that after 2♥, 3♦ is again an underbid. I believe that using any system, be it Acol, SAYC, 2/1 you're going to be in some difficulty bidding here. Just one of those boards where luck might play a part, too.

[gwnn]

In 2/1 non-GF, I like

1♠-2♦

2♥-3♦

 

natural, non forcing.

 

It's not perfect, but at least we show that we have diamonds and we went out of our way to show them. Typically that will be a 7-card suit (with 6 we could have bid 2♠ or 2NT, both non forcing I guess). We have a bonus diamond, but in the grand scheme of things it rates to not make a big difference.

[kereru67]

Actual result was my partner (a beginner) jumped to 3♦ then gave preference to ♠, and 4♠ went down horribly. The people who got top board are the ones who jammed on the brakes and stopped in 3♦ or 4♦ after identifying the misfit. There is no game, 5♦ fails against correct defence.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9643hk632d9ca82&w=skj2hqt54d2ckt943&n=sq8h7daqjt7653cj6&e=st75haj98dk84cq75]399|300[/hv]

[kereru67]

By the way I'm not very familiar with 2/1 game forcing, they teach a bastardized version of Acol at my club. (They really need to stop teaching Gerber and the wishy washy 2♦ opening). In 2/1, is 3♦ normally a pre-empt style bid with a weak hand rather than a strong game force with slam suggestions?

[apollo1201]

In 2/1, is 3♦ normally a pre-empt style bid with a weak hand rather than a strong game force with slam suggestions?

Preempt is a bit exaggerated but is the invitational hand where in non 2/1 systems, you would bid 2m then 3m non forcing. So sth around 10-11 HCPs with a decent 6-cd suit.

 

xx

Kxx

AQJxxx

xx

 

 

With more strength you are in the game zone:

 

Qx

Kxx

AQJxxx

xx

 

With less, you can’t have game expectations unless partner has some extras, so you start with 1NT and see if sth nice happens. You can always correct back to 3m after in case partner bids the « wrong » suits and the hand is a terrible misfit, but nevertheless seems to play better in the minor.

 

x

Qx

KJTxxx

Qxxx

[gwnn]

In 2/1 (at least if not playing Bergen raises), it is common to play it as:

 

1♠-3♦ = invitational, ~ 9-11 good 6+ suit, no fit.

 

1♠-1NT

2♥/♠-3♦ = weak, no interest in partner's suit(s).

[pescetom]

In 2/1 (at least if not playing Bergen raises), it is common to play it as:

 

1♠-3♦ = invitational, ~ 9-11 good 6+ suit, no fit.

 

1♠-1NT

2♥/♠-3♦ = weak, no interest in partner's suit(s).

 

I think this is not only normal but more or less inevitable if 1♠-2♦ is an unconditional game force and 1♠-4♦ is a splinter.

[gwnn]

I think this is not only normal but more or less inevitable if 1♠-2♦ is an unconditional game force and 1♠-4♦ is a splinter.

Well, you could (and I think some do) play it the other way:

1♠-3♦ weak

1♠-1NT; ... - 3♦ invitational

 

But the "standard"/inevitable way seems better, as we're allowed for more "outs" such as passing partner's 2♠ if we have a stiff or partner's second suit if we have tolerance there.

[akwoo]

Well, you could (and I think some do) play it the other way:

1♠-3♦ weak

1♠-1NT; ... - 3♦ invitational

 

But the "standard"/inevitable way seems better, as we're allowed for more "outs" such as passing partner's 2♠ if we have a stiff or partner's second suit if we have tolerance there.

 

The disadvantage of giving yourselves more "outs" is that you also give the opponents more "outs". If you have a weak hand, fourth seat could quite possibly find a 2♣ or 2♥ bid over 1♠-1NT, whereas that is less likely if you have an invitational hand. Now they might find their 3♥ making (when your 3♦ was going down 1 or 2) or their 3♥ down 1 (when your 3♦ or 2♠ was making). The pros and cons might depend on how good you are compared to your usual opponents.

 

There is probably merit to playing it one way with a 2nd seat opener vs. a 1st seat opener, but who wants that memory load?

[gwnn]

That's definitely a disadvantage of sorts, but my priority with these hands is to find a playable spot - they tend to be misfits and I'm not really unhappy if my opps intervene.