Another modest 5-5 hand

[nullve]

MP

[hv=pc=n&s=sk93haj764dk98ck2&n=saq852h2dt5caqt83&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp]266|200[/hv]

 

How would/should this auction proceed in your preferred system (2/1, Acol or whatever)?

Opponents will remain silent throughout.

nullve-nullve:

 

1♠(1)-2♣(2)

2♥(3)-2♠(4)

3♦(5)-3♥(6)

3N(7)-4♠(8)

P

 

(1) "10-21-ish, 5+ S, unBAL"

(2) "NAT (GF), not-too-unBAL (GF) or LR+"

(3) "13-15-ish, says nothing about shape" (I used to laugh at this kind of system as a junior!)

(4) GF relay

(5) 12-14, 5S5m

(6) relay

(7) 5S5C2-D

(8) to play

 

Here, Responder is giving up over 3N knowing that 6♠ might be good opposite a perfecto like AQxxx x Qx AQTxx.

 

One reason I play this system is that I can stop in 2♠ after

 

1♠-2♣

2♦*-2♠**

P

 

* contains all "10-12" hands

** LR

 

and not leak anything about Opener's shape. Those are two good things.

[Douglas43]

Any reason N doesn't have AQJxx, x, x, Axxxxx on this sequence ? and would you expect him to bid on ? slam is decent opposite that, great if partner has ♠10.

 

Fair question. I think being able to be descriptive with 5-5 is worth the risk of lack of differentiation from 5-6. An alternative with 5-6 is to bid clubs-spades-clubs-spades but I think that's more confusing and wouldn't want to try it at the table.

[pescetom]

We’ve looked at modifying our forcing raise structure but concluded that we’d lose quite a bit in terms of albeit low frequency descriptive rebids by opener, since the partnership is basically forced to waste some valuable bidding space clarifying degree and strength of the fit shown by responder. Plus in one partnership, we’ve given up on the weak jump raise. It rarely results in a good score…often, especially if red, we’re down 200 against nothing or a partscore. So we lump it into 1N or a single (semi constructive) raise…the 4th trump with some shortness seems to work ok. 1M 3M is mixed.

 

I find this weak jump raise quite effective (at MP) and rarely remember regretting the score, although I concede it might not be pulling its weight overall compared to 3-card invite or mixed. I'm not convinced the issue of opener description after 2NT invite is such a big deal: we will never miss a 4-4 fit in the other major, nor 3NT for that matter if both hands belong there, also opener who interrogates will often be able to figure out that responder has minors 5-2 or whatever and assess likeliness of fit without describing his hand to opponents.

 

My main concern about our 2NT is that the standard 3♦ rebid shows a hand that is close to accepting and asks responder to decide, which is essentially just blame transfer: probably it should be played as something more useful, such as a game force inviting a control-bid (suggestions are welcome here).

[DavidKok]

This sounds very similar to de Maas (which I play). It also uses 3♦ to kick the can back, but I've gotten good mileage from it. My openings are weak enough that your average 12-count with fit should not force to game, so distinguishing the crap from the sound openings is valuable. Also since our 2NT response ranges from basically a good 9 to a soft 14 responder will often have a good idea whether their hand is above average for the auction or not, the range is just very wide. I think we can only play a range this wide because we have a non-committal way to show extras below 3M.

[pescetom]

This sounds very similar to de Maas (which I play). It also uses 3♦ to kick the can back, but I've gotten good mileage from it. My openings are weak enough that your average 12-count with fit should not force to game, so distinguishing the crap from the sound openings is valuable. Also since our 2NT response ranges from basically a good 9 to a soft 14 responder will often have a good idea whether their hand is above average for the auction or not, the range is just very wide. I think we can only play a range this wide because we have a non-committal way to show extras below 3M.

 

Fair enough. Our range is not quite that wide, but maybe it should be.