1H 2C* ?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&e=s7hak832dqt98ck32&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2c(*gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p?]133|200[/hv]

 

2♦ 2nd suit

2♥ min hand, 5+ hearts

3♣ clubs

 

What do you rebid here, is 2♦ more forward going than 2♥ or is it simply bidding your shape?

[AL78]

2♦, show your shape. I don't think it promises any more strength than rebidding hearts.

[pilowsky]

2♦ - playing 2/1 2♥ would show 6+ ♥

[DavidKok]

2♦, show your shape. Also this hand is not a minimum opposite 2♣. Where are the spades? The colours are perfect for the pesky opponents to break out the master suit, and partner is unlikely to have five of them. So they have a fit, which means we are odds-on to have one too. And your hand will play very well in either hearts or clubs, and just fine in diamonds as well.

 

2♦ - playing 2/1 2♥ would show 6+ ♥

This is a matter of style. A lot of partnerships prefer having the rebid promise nothing and deny nothing. This saves space if opener has a minimum balanced hand, with the additional benefit of possibly right-siding 3NT.

[pilowsky]

 

This is a matter of style. A lot of partnerships prefer having the rebid promise nothing and deny nothing. This saves space if opener has a minimum balanced hand, with the additional benefit of possibly right-siding 3NT.

 

Interesting.

In my (extremely) limited experience (only 3 sources) I haven't come across a version of 2/1 where after a game forcing 2minor over 2major bid it is appropriate to rebid a 5 card suit.

I will widen my search.

[nullve]

In my (extremely) limited experience (only 3 sources) I haven't come across a version of 2/1 where after a game forcing 2minor over 2major bid it is appropriate to rebid a 5 card suit.

This is commonly done with

 

• 5M(332) and unwillingness to declare NT
  
• 4S5H and insignificant extras*
  
• (1M-2♦ only:) 5M4-5C3-D and insignificant extras*
  

Over 1♠-2♥ it is commonly done with

 

• 5233 and unwillingness to declare NT
  
• 5S4-5m2-H and insignificant extras*
  

* Many (including GiB) play that 1♥-2m; 2♠, 1M-2♦; 3♣ and 1♠-2♥; 3m promise extras despite 1M-2x(x<M) being 100 % GF.

[Winstonm]

Interesting.

In my (extremely) limited experience (only 3 sources) I haven't come across a version of 2/1 where after a game forcing 2minor over 2major bid it is appropriate to rebid a 5 card suit.

I will widen my search.

Look for a book on 2/1 by Mike Lawrence

[paulg]

2♦, show your shape. Also this hand is not a minimum opposite 2♣. Where are the spades? The colours are perfect for the pesky opponents to break out the master suit, and partner is unlikely to have five of them. So they have a fit, which means we are odds-on to have one too. And your hand will play very well in either hearts or clubs, and just fine in diamonds as well.

 

This is a matter of style. A lot of partnerships prefer having the rebid promise nothing and deny nothing. This saves space if opener has a minimum balanced hand, with the additional benefit of possibly right-siding 3NT.

 

Interesting.

In my (extremely) limited experience (only 3 sources) I haven't come across a version of 2/1 where after a game forcing 2minor over 2major bid it is appropriate to rebid a 5 card suit.

I will widen my search.

Traditionally in the ACBL there were two authorities: Mike Lawrence, who advocated using 2M as the bucket bid; and Max Hardy, who advocated using 2NT as the bucket bid. Your affiliation can be guided by your preferred rebid in the auction:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s72hak832d432ckq2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

nullve summarises most of the problem hands well.

[paulg]

I think it is clear to rebid 2♦ on the hand shown, as you want to keep your bucket bid as easy to handle as possible. So I don't think 2♦ denies a minimum, but 2♥ denies four diamonds.

[LBengtsson]

2♦, show your shape. I don't think it promises any more strength than rebidding hearts.

 

agree..and its a 95% chance is that your next bid after 2♦ will be 3♣ so that will show your 1543 shape imo.

[mikeh]

Interesting.

In my (extremely) limited experience (only 3 sources) I haven't come across a version of 2/1 where after a game forcing 2minor over 2major bid it is appropriate to rebid a 5 card suit.

I will widen my search.

You shouldn’t have to look very far. For example, in ALL my partnerships, a rebid of 2M is just a ‘noise’, saying nothing about length while denying the ability to make a more descriptive rebid.

 

The issue is whether one wants to have to rebid 2N with, say, xxx AQJxx AJx xx and have partner bid 3N with Kx xx Kxx AKQxx, and have them run 5S on us after leading through the Kx, or have ambiguity after a 2H rebid.

 

So, is the ‘default’ rebid 2N, wrong siding notrump (often the correct strain when responder doesn’t fit the major) or 2M, introducing ambiguity about suit length?

 

I think the expert 2/1 community is fairly evenly split on this issue. Each school can point to pros for their method while, hopefully, acknowledging the cons.

 

Personally, my experience has been that one rarely ends up in a 5-2 fit by rebidding the major and, when one does, it’s usually better than notrump, since we’ll virtually always be exposed in a side suit when neither side can bid notrump.

 

However, there are definitely some benefits from playing 2M as 6+, since responder can raise with two.

[pescetom]

An interesting related question is what one does with:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s7hak8432dqt98ck2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2c(*gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p?]133|200[/hv]

[mikeh]

An interesting related question is what one does with:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s7hak8432dqt98ck2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2c(*gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p?]133|200[/hv]

Traditionally, one rebid 2H and then, if the auction permitted it, 3D, showing a minimum 6=4. Rebidding 2H then, if the auction permitted it, 3D shows an extra-values 6=4.

 

I like that approach, because one of the weak areas in 2/1 methods is when both partners have extras but neither has sufficient extras to risk going beyond game lest partner have a minimum. By using 1H then 2H/3D as minimum and 2D/3H as extras, one lets responder know when to push and when to hold back.

 

Edit. I screwed up here. 1H then 2D then 3H shows extras. 1H then 2H then 3D shows minimum values

[pescetom]

Traditionally, one rebid 2H and then, if the auction permitted it, 3D, showing a minimum 6=4. Rebidding 2H then, if the auction permitted it, 3D shows an extra-values 6=4.

 

I think this needs an edit

[jillybean]

I like that approach, because one of the weak areas in 2/1 methods is when both partners have extras but neither has sufficient extras to risk going beyond game lest partner have a minimum. By using 1H then 2H/3D as minimum and 2D/3H as extras, one lets responder know when to push and when to hold back.

So how do you sort out this hand where partner's 1♥ 2♣* 2♦ 2♠ 3♥ shows shape vs. extras, or are you saying bid 2♥ here?

[hv=pc=n&e=s7hak832dqt98ck32&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2c(*gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p2dp2sp3h]133|200[/hv]

[DavidKok]

Rebid 3♣ over 2♠ to show the complete hand.

[AL78]

I think this needs an edit

 

It confused me until I got to the end of his post and realised he had D and H flipped, so to show extra values you bid 2♦ followed by 3♥ if the auction permits it, as opposed to rebidding hearts followed by 3♦ to show a minimum 6-4.

[Gerardo]

I'd rebid 3♣ over 2♠ there.

[Chas_P]

I think this bears repeating:

 

"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." - MikeH

[mikeh]

So how do you sort out this hand where partner's 1♥ 2♣* 2♦ 2♠ 3♥ shows shape vs. extras, or are you saying bid 2♥ here?

[hv=pc=n&e=s7hak832dqt98ck32&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2c(*gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p2dp2sp3h]133|200[/hv]

I think I caused some confusion, when I discussed rebidding 2H then, if possible, 3D, to show a minimum, that was in the context of being 6=4 in the reds

 

With your original 1543 hand, 2D is the normal rebid over 2C p, followed by 3C over partner’s 2S call.

 

Neither partner has yet said much about strength, but opener will have described her shape very well.

[mw64ahw]

I find this approach works well

 

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/advancing-a-nebulous-2c-response/

 

2♦ Min 2♥ asks with responses as below.

2♥ 4♠ Min+

2♠ 4+♦ Int+

2NT 6+♥ Int+ with singleton/void 3♣ Shape?

3♣ 4+♣ Int+

3♦ 6322 Int+/5332 Str+ 3♥ asks?

3♥ Int+ self-sustaining suit

[jillybean]

I think I caused some confusion, when I discussed rebidding 2H then, if possible, 3D, to show a minimum, that was in the context of being 6=4 in the reds

 

With your original 1543 hand, 2D is the normal rebid over 2C p, followed by 3C over partner’s 2S call.

 

Neither partner has yet said much about strength, but opener will have described her shape very well.

Thanks. Here's the full hand, not anything to brag about.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s9542hqj64dj63c65&w=saqth975dk54caq97&n=skj863htda72cjt84&e=s7hak832dqt98ck32&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp2c(*gf%20clubs%20or%20bal)p2dp2np3dp4s(*kickback)p5dp6nppp]399|300[/hv]

[jillybean]

I find this approach works well

 

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/advancing-a-nebulous-2c-response/

 

2♦ Min 2♥ asks with responses as below.

2♥ 4♠ Min+

2♠ 4+♦ Int+

2NT 6+♥ Int+ with singleton/void 3♣ Shape?

3♣ 4+♣ Int+

3♦ 6322 Int+/5332 Str+ 3♥ asks?

3♥ Int+ self-sustaining suit

 

Very exact and detailed but way too memory intensive for my partnerships.

[mycroft]

I stay away from agreements I don't know usually, but that auction seems broken.

 

If you have to wait until you've used two rounds to show a balanced game force to show heart support, okay, fine - I hate it, but fine - but 3♥ is right there; 4♠ is decidedly premature. West has zero knowledge of where his 12 tricks are coming from opposite what looks like 1=5=5=2. But once he bids 4NT 4♠ "partner, we might have slam" and finds out you're off a red ace and the ♥Q, the two suits that have to set up to make slam, surely the answer is "no, we don't"? And if he is going to slam, why 6NT? There are going to be enough in this club in slam that you have to gamble that you don't need the ruff? Or is he just protecting the black AQs against the opening lead?

 

He used four bids to not show his hand; why?

 

Having said that, for East, even if 2♣-then-2NT is the way to show a GF+ balanced hand, why not shape out in case it's 3=2=3=5 or something? Somebody has to show their hand!

 

It looks like both halves of the partnership live in fear of their partner getting to (mis)play a hand.

[jillybean]

 

He used four bids to not show his hand; why?

I don't know their thinking, other than there's a lot of confusion. I was asked to look at East's bidding.

As usual, there are many opinions on how this should be bid but clearly, West must show 3 card heart support at his second bid.