1D - 2C

[andych]

In 2/1, what is nowadys the most common (best?) rebids after

1♦ 2♣

?

[luke warm]

diff strokes, but i think most bid a 4 cd M if they have one, then a 3 cd M with a stopper, etc... grab the nt if you need the lead to you and if you have that type hand... rebid diamonds with 6, support clubs with no other bid and 3+ cds

 

the way i play, a major rebid in this auction isn't necessarily a reverse because the 2c bid is game forcing

[mike777]

diff strokes, but i think most bid a 4 cd M if they have one,

:)

I only rebid 4 card major if 5-4, etc. This means I may be rebidding 2nt with a balanced 10 HCP, NV with a 4 card spade suit. 4342 maybe.

[awm]

Almost all 2/1 players I've seen play 1♦-2♣ as game forcing these days, with 1♦-3♣ as natural, one-suited, and intermediate. In the early days of 2/1, some played 1♦-2♣ as the one exception to game-forcing 2/1s, and I am sure a few still use those methods.

 

There seem to be several schools of thought on followups. Perhaps the simplest are:

 

2♦ = 5+ diamonds, if a balanced (2353 or the like) hand will be good diams

2♥/♠ = four card suit with extra values and a longer diamond suit

2NT = balanced hand, often minimum, doesn't deny a four-card major, no 4♣s

3♣ = agrees clubs, pretty wide range of values, normally balanced/semi-balanced hand

3♦ = solid diamonds, slam try in diamonds

3♥/♠ = splinter for clubs

 

I've seen some play that 2♦ shows 5+ and other bids deny as many as five diamonds, or that 2♥/♠ guarantee 5+ diams and four cards in the majors, but don't necessarily show extras. Hard to say what is really "best" here, but I don't really like the 2-major denies five diamonds treatment (seems better to rebid 2NT with a balanced hand and go from there). As to whether 2-major shows extras, seems it should be symmetric with whether 1♥-2x-2♠ shows extras, which is a matter of choice (both methods have value) where most people seem to prefer that it does show extras.

[Chamaco]

Almost all 2/1 players I've seen play 1♦-2♣ as game forcing these days, with 1♦-3♣ as natural, one-suited, and intermediate.

It seems to me some people use 1D-2C as either clubs OR a balanced hand of some specific range, to be agreed between inv, GF and slammish

[luke warm]

diff strokes, but i think most bid a 4 cd M if they have one,

:)

I only rebid 4 card major if 5-4, etc. This means I may be rebidding 2nt with a balanced 10 HCP, NV with a 4 card spade suit. 4342 maybe.

i would do my best not to open 4342 with 10 hcp unless playing mini nt

[glen1]

Avm’s post has a good summary (thanks!).

 

Some experts are playing 1♦-2♥ as a strong jump shift in ♥s or a game invite in notrump without a four card major. This allows opener to play the notrump contract if deemed necessary, and also lets 1♦-2NT be natural and game forcing. This then ensures that 1♦-2♣ is real ♣s.

 

In the Gitelman-Moss system, 1♦-2♣-2♦ promises 4 or longer ♦s and a minimum. No other details are known at this time, but I suspect they play 1♦-2NT as natural and game forcing, so 1♦-2♣ is real clubs.

 

If we rely on thirty years of Kokish work, there is no perfect 1♦-2♣ scheme.

 

For something unusual and imperfect, a transfer scheme:

 

1♦-2♣-

?

 

2♦: Transfer to ♥s or 6+♦s & no second suit.

2♥: Transfer to ♠s.

2♠: Transfer to ♣s, 4+♣s & 5+♦s.

2NT: Balanced, no four card major but stoppers in both majors, not 4♣s.

3♣: 4♣s & 4♦s, balanced or singleton in a major.

Rest: As usual.

 

Transfer to majors can be with a balanced hand that has a stopper in the major transferred to but no stopper in other major.

 

After 2♦, 2♥ asks for details, 2♠ showing 6+♦s, 2NT showing a balanced hand with 4♥s (may have 4♠s too) or a ♥ stopper with no ♠ stopper, 3X shaping out with ♥s with a new suit showing a singleton/void (so 4-4-4-1 exactly rebids 3♣s).

 

After 2♥, 2♠ asks for details, as over 2♦ but with ♠s instead of ♥s.

 

After 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ asks for details.

 

After 2NT, 3♣ asks for details, while 3♥/3♠ shows location of values with long ♣s.

 

After 3♣, 3♦ asks for details.

 

Beside the ask-for-details bids, the rest of the bidding is natural and game forcing.

[mike777]

diff strokes, but i think most bid a 4 cd M if they have one,

:)

I only rebid 4 card major if 5-4, etc. This means I may be rebidding 2nt with a balanced 10 HCP, NV with a 4 card spade suit. 4342 maybe.

i would do my best not to open 4342 with 10 hcp unless playing mini nt

Well there seems to be some theory behind it (having spades, nv, and et al.), and seems to work out ok in practice. Of course not standard but.....thought I would throw it out there to generate some comments. :lol:

[Fluffy]

I guess we differ from americans, std trteatment here is:

 

1♦-2♣ Forcing till 2NT, 10+

 

1♦-2♣

2M its a reverse

 

And then ther are 2 alternatives for balanced hands:

 

1♦-2♣

2♦ natural (may have 4-5)

2NT as minimum balanced

 

And the one I most like:

 

1♦-2♣

2♦ its 3+♦, if balanced 12-13.

2M reverse

2NT 14+ balanced, game forcing.

[mike777]

I guess we differ from americans, std trteatment here is:

 

1♦-2♣ Forcing till 2NT, 10+

 

1♦-2♣

2M its a reverse

1) Yes, limit approach, btw can anyone name 5 top 100 players who still play this style at world class level? Just wondering?

2) yes, but for umpteeth time reverse does not promise 100% extra strength except by partnership agreement.

[pclayton]

In our 12-14 NT context and 1♦ - 3♣ = limit raise in ♦'s:

 

1♦ - 2♣ is an almost game force.

 

Thus:

 

2 of a major - extra values, typically unbalanced.

2♦ - vague minimum - could be a 4 card suit (4441). Game force isn't established.

2N - 15-17

3N - 18-19

3 of a major - splinter.

[Poky]

I use the old Duboin-Bocchi scheme:

 

1♦-2♣:

a) GF without 5M

:) INV with 6♣

c) INV with 4+♦

d) BAL INV

 

Development:

 

1♦-2♣

2♦: 11-15, any 2-suiter or 3-suiter

2♥: one-suiter or 12-14 balanced

2♠: clubs, 16+

2NT: hearts, 16+

3♣: 5♦4♠, 16+

3♦: 6♦4♠, 15+

3♥: 6♦5♠, 14+

3♠: 4450, 15-17

 

After the potentially weak rebids of 2♦ and 2♥:

1st step: GF relay

2NT: BAL INV

3♣: 6♣ INV

3♦: 4+♦ INV

[whereagles]

I guess we differ from americans, std trteatment here is:

 

1♦-2♣ Forcing till 2NT, 10+

 

1♦-2♣

2M its a reverse

1) Yes, limit approach, btw can anyone name 5 top 100 players who still play this style at world class level? Just wondering?

2) yes, but for umpteeth time reverse does not promise 100% extra strength except by partnership agreement.

#1. The world-class nominees who play 1D-2C-2M as extras are:

 

1. Paul Chemla

2. Michel Perron

3. Christian Mari

4. Alain Levy

5. Frank Multon

6. Hervé Mouiel

 

Winners of the 1997 Bermuda Bowl, defeating the US Nickell team in the Final.

[glen1]

I use the old Duboin-Bocchi scheme {see above for rest}

Thats a very nice method.

[mike777]

I guess we differ from americans, std trteatment here is:

 

1♦-2♣ Forcing till 2NT, 10+

 

1♦-2♣

2M its a reverse

1) Yes, limit approach, btw can anyone name 5 top 100 players who still play this style at world class level? Just wondering?

2) yes, but for umpteeth time reverse does not promise 100% extra strength except by partnership agreement.

#1. The world-class nominees who play 1D-2C-2M as extras are:

 

1. Paul Chemla

2. Michel Perron

3. Christian Mari

4. Alain Levy

5. Frank Multon

6. Hervé Mouiel

 

Winners of the 1997 Bermuda Bowl, defeating the US Nickell team in the Final.

Not my question, my question was about limit approach. Part one not part two.