1H 2C* ?

[AL78]

Why did East not bid 3♣ on the third round to bid out their shape? Repeating diamonds looks like a 5-5 or 6-5 shape. Also why is West messing about in NT when the auction has shown they have a double red suit fit? If both players aren't bidding according to the hands they are holding, it is no surprise they end up in the wrong contract.

[mycroft]

I don't know whether their system says that 2♣ then hearts, without bidding 2NT, would promise "unbalanced, clubs" (3=3=2=5 or 3=3=1=6 or...) As I said, agreements I don't understand well enough to play, I'm not going to criticize people for potentially following system (and yes, I did that once, earlier this year, to you. But that wasn't "agreement I didn't understand", it was "agreement I didn't even think was a thing"; and I apologized after, after being snarky).

 

But 3♥ is 100% standout.

 

If they asked me about that auction, I would say that they both have to learn to trust their partner and stop masterminding. And that keycard is not how you say "we might have slam, partner".

 

But the worst bid was 4♠ rather than 3♥, and not just because it's "premature keycard"; next worst was slam off two "key cards" with only a hope of tricks. Failing to bid 3♣ was awful, but only third place.

 

Now this hand is sort of a trap for the "nothing shows extras" (and therefore, nothing denies extras) style of 2/1 played in my area - it's really easy to get to 5♥ off three red tricks. But that at least will have company.

[jillybean]

I don't know whether their system says that 2♣ then hearts, without bidding 2NT, would promise "unbalanced, clubs" (3=3=2=5 or 3=3=1=6 or...) As I said, agreements I don't understand well enough to play, I'm not going to criticize people for potentially following system (and yes, I did that once, earlier this year, to you. But that wasn't "agreement I didn't understand", it was "agreement I didn't even think was a thing"; and I apologized after, after being snarky).

 

But 3♥ is 100% standout.

East does not have that agreement, I can't comment about what West is doing except agree that 3♥ could have helped prevent the chaos here, or perhaps not.

How to show a minimum was the basis for the question. 1♥ 2♦ 3♣ by East may have mitigated any blame.

[Stephen Tu]

How to show a minimum was the basis for the question.

Absent sophisticated Ambra-esque rebid structure like mentioned by mw64ahw, most standard 2/1 systems are *terrible* at showing range distinctions, with some worse than others. All you know is partner is min GF responder, or min opener, and max for either is unknown, so you are forced to assume min for the most part (mins being more common than max's; on your auction the hand with 15 with wasted black suit values basically forcing slam was insane). Mostly people focus on pattern, and largely give up on defining range.

 

There are some sequences that help make distinctions though, but it takes partnership agreement and not all experts agree, some adopt only some of these, or maybe none of these:

• high reverses showing extra values. Auctions like 1h-2d-3c, 1s-2h-3c. Many require extra values for this. Some require *both* extra values and 5-5. Thus if you employ a catchall before showing the 2nd suit, like 1h-2d-2h-2nt-3c, that implies min range since you didn't bid 3c directly.
• reversing into 2s showing extra values, 1h-2c-2s. Thus 1h-2c-2s shows stronger hand than 1h-2c-2h-2s-3s.
• jumping in NT unnecessarily to show something ~16-17 or so when 2nt was still available. Typically one bids 2nt with either a 12-~15 range, *or* 18+, planning to bid on after partner's 3nt attempted signoff with the latter
• Raising a minor directly to show extra values. E.g. 1h-2c-3c being stronger than 1h-2c-2h-2nt-3c

Thus, reasonably often one reaches suit agreement at 3M without either hand being meaningfully limited. Now you more or less "need" a frivolous flag/serious 3nt type gadget for cue-bidding to intelligently continue, because someone or the other has to show or deny extras at some point otherwise you just keep on cue-bidding and sometimes neither knows when to give up. Either that or mins have to immediately try to brake at 4M but frustrate a strong partner who wanted to hear a cue bid.

 

Some people also use "fast arrival", requiring responder with a fit to like jump to 4M with min hands with support, with lower support bids showing extras, but nearly all bidding theorists think this is completely awful (maybe except after a 2nt rebid showing a min bal hand the vast majority of the time). It kind of blows the whole point of 2/1, enabling low level GF to maximize room for slam exploration, wasting all your room.

[mycroft]

If I can start 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2♥, then there's lots of room to do things. Not sure what I would show, but there's room.

 

If I have to start 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2NT; 3♣-3♥, then my system would continue: 3♠ (forced cuebid)-3NT ("frivolous slam try", so, extras, but not "slam opposite the right minimum"); 4♥ (no interest). Actually, it probably shouldn't - having shown 0=5=4=4 or 1=5=4=3 already, there's no need to cuebid the "known shortness"; so after 3♥, 4♥ (not even "frivolous" slam interest). While as Stephen says, this frustrates the "all I needed was the CK" 20-counts, it shuts the "if partner has some extras, we could have slam" hand right down.

[mw64ahw]

I tend to exclude 3+card support from Major 2/1 sequences and instead show the support directly via a limit+ 3+ Jacoby 2NT style approach. In this case I think the combined hands eventually kick off a cue-bidding sequence, but would stop at 5♥

[jillybean]

Absent sophisticated Ambra-esque rebid structure like mentioned by mw64ahw, most standard 2/1 systems are *terrible* at showing range distinctions, with some worse than others. All you know is partner is min GF responder, or min opener, and max for either is unknown, so you are forced to assume min for the most part (mins being more common than max's; on your auction the hand with 15 with wasted black suit values basically forcing slam was insane). Mostly people focus on pattern, and largely give up on defining range.

 

There are some sequences that help make distinctions though, but it takes partnership agreement and not all experts agree, some adopt only some of these, or maybe none of these:

• high reverses showing extra values. Auctions like 1h-2d-3c, 1s-2h-3c. Many require extra values for this. Some require *both* extra values and 5-5. Thus if you employ a catchall before showing the 2nd suit, like 1h-2d-2h-2nt-3c, that implies min range since you didn't bid 3c directly.
• reversing into 2s showing extra values, 1h-2c-2s. Thus 1h-2c-2s shows stronger hand than 1h-2c-2h-2s-3s.
• jumping in NT unnecessarily to show something ~16-17 or so when 2nt was still available. Typically one bids 2nt with either a 12-~15 range, *or* 18+, planning to bid on after partner's 3nt attempted signoff with the latter
• Raising a minor directly to show extra values. E.g. 1h-2c-3c being stronger than 1h-2c-2h-2nt-3c

Thus, reasonably often one reaches suit agreement at 3M without either hand being meaningfully limited. Now you more or less "need" a frivolous flag/serious 3nt type gadget for cue-bidding to intelligently continue, because someone or the other has to show or deny extras at some point otherwise you just keep on cue-bidding and sometimes neither knows when to give up. Either that or mins have to immediately try to brake at 4M but frustrate a strong partner who wanted to hear a cue bid.

 

Some people also use "fast arrival", requiring responder with a fit to like jump to 4M with min hands with support, with lower support bids showing extras, but nearly all bidding theorists think this is completely awful (maybe except after a 2nt rebid showing a min bal hand the vast majority of the time). It kind of blows the whole point of 2/1, enabling low level GF to maximize room for slam exploration, wasting all your room.

This is great, thanks Stephen.

 

"Either that or mins have to immediately try to brake at 4M but frustrate a strong partner who wanted to hear a cue bid.". Exactly this used to frustrate me with one partner. I lost count of the number of 5-1 level contracts we got to before we sorted it out.

[DavidKok]

One other way to (belatedly) distinguish strength is by employing the Last Train convention. It's far from perfect, but at least you can show controls without having to jump on weak hands. I personally only employ (Non)Serious NT on specific auctions. In my experience it frequently happens that 3NT is the best contract despite a major suit fit, and on a typical 2/1 auction it would be a suggestion to play for me.

[jillybean]

Serious/Non Serious, Last Train and so on is too much given the experience level and memory load here. I'm impressed when I hear that people vary their slam try technique dependant on the auction :)

 

I think the best approach, although not without drawbacks, will be fast arrival with courtesy cues promising extras.