2-oveR-1;

[petrarch]

1. My partner opens 1S. Hearts are only 4-card suit in my 14-point hand. That would satisfy the rubric got 2-over-1, but we are told again and again that a response of 2H promises a 5-card suit.

2. My partner opens 1H. Spades are the only 4-card suit in my 14-point hand. But we are told again and again that responding 2S would amount to a jump-shift, promising a long, good-quality suit, and a hand of at least 16 HCP.

 

Might it be permissible, where there is either of those difficulties, to use the response of 2C as satisfying the rubric for 2-over-1, but saying nothing about responder’s actual longest suit ?

[jillybean]

1. 2♣* gf clubs or balanced

2. 1♠ is 100% forcing

 

There is a lot written about 2♣ in a 2/1 auction, here and other forums, I will try to find it

[helene_t]

2♣ can be a 3card suit so that is what you probably bid on 1.

 

On 2. It's a question of style whether you bid 1♠ or 2♣. 1♠ doesn't deny a strong hand but nevertheless you might prefer to show your strength by bidding 2♣.

[steve2005]

On 2. It's a question of style whether you bid 1♠ or 2♣. 1♠ doesn't deny a strong hand but nevertheless you might prefer to show your strength by bidding 2♣.

2♣ is a terrible bid with 4-3-3-3

It is clear to bid your only 4-card suit. You can game-force with 4-th suit forcing next round or jump to 3NT/4♥

 

bidding 2♣ is a distortion of your shape, you will never be able to find 6♣ on hands where it is right if you bid 2♣ on these type of hands

[smerriman]

Some people play that a 3NT response to 1♠ shows a flat 3(433) minimum opening hand, allowing partner a choice of games. If you don't play that, then in "standard" 2/1, you have no choice but to lie a bit and bid 2♣. But it doesn't hurt much since you have easy natural continuations.

 

Some bid an artificial 2♣ on all balanced hands like jillybean suggested above, so that not only does 2♥ show a 5 card suit, but so does 2♦. This is pretty popular, but note that it does require changing follow-up definitions as well (e.g. after 2♣, 2♦ no longer promises diamonds, it becomes artificial / waiting too) - so it's not the same approach at all as just "lying" with 3433 only.

 

In the second case, it's a common misconception that playing 2/1 GF means if you have a GF, you need to make a 2/1. 1♠ is a perfectly normal response; you can force to game later.

[Stephen Tu]

2♣ is a terrible bid with 4-3-3-3

It is clear to bid your only 4-card suit. You can game-force with 4-th suit forcing next round or jump to 3NT/4♥

 

bidding 2♣ is a distortion of your shape, you will never be able to find 6♣ on hands where it is right if you bid 2♣ on these type of hands

 

1S is probably fine on a min GF, but with extra values a lot of experts have started to believe that 2c is better. The problem is that after 1h-1s, without a ton of special agreements, there are a lot of auctions where it's hard to both set hearts as trumps at the 3 level and have it be GF, when most people are playing jump preferences as inv, and 1h-1s-2h-3h is also inv. You can go through 4th suit/3rd suit but often partner will bid something inconvenient (3nt, 3S) and again you are deprived of being able to bid 3H.

 

After 1h-2c, it's not really a distortion of your shape if you are playing 2c includes a bunch of balanced hands with 3 or 4 clubs, or even 2 only clubs. Very few people are doing things that make it possible to play 2c as a real serious 5+ suit these days, they aren't playing 2nt bal gf nat or 1nt as absolutely forcing, so 2c is already suspect. Over an often balanced 2c probably you are supposed to do something like have the balanced hands just use relay-style bidding and use mostly artificial rebids by opener, with the option to break the relay with real natural clubs. Most non-expert partnerships or casual partnerships just kind of muddle through, it can make finding 6c a bit dicey and disturbs hand evaluation by opener as you don't know if partner's 2c is AQJxx or Jxx. But most of the time you survive. Non-real clubs just has to steer quickly back to NT or the major if opener shows interest in club contracts.

[DavidKok]

2♣ is a terrible bid with 4-3-3-3

It is clear to bid your only 4-card suit. You can game-force with 4-th suit forcing next round or jump to 3NT/4♥

 

bidding 2♣ is a distortion of your shape, you will never be able to find 6♣ on hands where it is right if you bid 2♣ on these type of hands

Helene has it right, it depends on agreements. My personal preference for 2♣ over 1M is NAT or BAL or FIT. The addition of this third type changes the expectations significantly, and when I later raise partner's major there is no expectation of a real club suit (the bid also shows only 0+ clubs, but I've never actually bid it on a void. I have on a singleton, though).

Similarly, if I show a balanced hand on the second round after 1♠-2♣ partner knows that I might have a 3-card club suit (2=4=4=3 being the worst case), and I think you may as well play something similar on 1♥-2♣. The only way to show real clubs is to bid a new suit or repeat the clubs on the second round, both showing 5(+) clubs (or 1=4=4=4 over 1♠).

[sfi]

2♣ is a terrible bid with 4-3-3-3

It is clear to bid your only 4-card suit. You can game-force with 4-th suit forcing next round or jump to 3NT/4♥

 

bidding 2♣ is a distortion of your shape, you will never be able to find 6♣ on hands where it is right if you bid 2♣ on these type of hands

As others have said, it depends on your intentions and how you see the auction playing out. If you bid 2C, you're essentially giving up on spades and committing to showing it as a game-forcing hand with three hearts. If you bid 1S, you find a fit in either major but may have trouble working out when you have slam in hearts.

 

The problem with clubs is kind of an illusion as long as partner knows that you could be doing this when you next bid hearts. Sure there are some hands where partner visualises two pitches and wants to play slam in the 4-4 fit. But those aren't that common and you usually have enough time to disabuse partner of their delusions. In particular, if you have four clubs and partner raises your suit, consider not supporting hearts if you're looking for slam.

 

What you gain is a set of much nicer auctions, where you don't start with things like 1H - 1S; 2D - 3C; 3NT and now run out of space before opener has any real idea what's going on.

 

If you do insist on bidding 1S on these hands, you might want to consider playing 4th Suit Invitational rather than 4SF. Now your forcing auction can start 1H - 1S; 2D - 3H and you have better chances of a decent slam auction.

[Stephen Tu]

As others have said, it depends on your intentions and how you see the auction playing out. If you bid 2C, you're essentially giving up on spades and committing to showing it as a game-forcing hand with three hearts.

Not really. These days people bid 1h-2c-2s with 4s5h pretty automatically, then you can agree spades.

 

[sfi]

Not really. These days people bid 1h-2c-2s with 4s5h pretty automatically, then you can agree spades.

Fair point. It's been so long since I've used 2C as natural, I don't actually know current practice over it anymore.

[mw64ahw]

Just had a thought; I guess over 1♥ you can construct an approach where 2♣ and 2♦ are natural 5+ GF.

 

If you play Kaplan Inversion then

1♥-1♠ artificial F1

--1NT Balanced or Diamonds; 2♣ asks?

--2♣ natural

--2♦ 4♠

--2♥ 6+♥

--2♠ usually artificial

Responder may then GF via 2♠, invite via 2NT, sign-off with a long weak minor, sign-off in 3NT

When responder is 5+♠ GF opener should be in a position to show a ♠ count over 2♠ so the ♠ contract is achieved.

 

1♥-1NT is 5+♠ Weak

[the hog]

"2♣ is a terrible bid with 4-3-3-3

It is clear to bid your only 4-card suit. You can game-force with 4-th suit forcing next round or jump to 3NT/4♥

 

bidding 2♣ is a distortion of your shape, you will never be able to find 6♣ on hands where it is right if you bid 2♣ on these type of hands"

These comments are completely incorrect. With a 3343 and a game force good bidders will either bid 2C to set up the game force, though some would bid 1S over a 1H opening on a 4333 shape. Many experts would bid 2C on this also.

Stephen Tu: "Not really. These days people bid 1h-2c-2s with 4s5h pretty automatically, then you can agree spades." This is also incorrect. Some 2/1 players will and others who prefer their reverses to show extra values, like me, will not.

 

[Stephen Tu]

"2♣ is a terrible bid with 4-3-3-3

It is clear to bid your only 4-card suit. You can game-force with 4-th suit forcing next round or jump to 3NT/4♥

 

bidding 2♣ is a distortion of your shape, you will never be able to find 6♣ on hands where it is right if you bid 2♣ on these type of hands"

These comments are completely incorrect. With a 3343 and a game force good bidders will either bid 2C to set up the game force, though some would bid 1S over a 1H opening on a 4333 shape. Many experts would bid 2C on this also.

Stephen Tu: "Not really. These days people bid 1h-2c-2s with 4s5h pretty automatically, then you can agree spades." This is also incorrect. Some 2/1 players will and others who prefer their reverses to show extra values, like me, will not.

 

 

OK maybe I should have said "most people". I think these days the 2 level reverse without extras (I still prefer 3 level high reverse = extras) is much more popular than in the past because:

 

- now we have tools like non-serious 3S/3nt to distinguish strength on auctions like 1h-2c-2s-3s-? and 1h-2c-2s-3h-? whereas without these tools it's easier if opener has provided info about range.

- reversing without extras lets opener pattern out with something like 1h-2c-2s-2nt-3c, with 4513, allowing responder to evaluate where to play a lot better, while 1h-2c-2h-2nt-3c doesn't really convey nearly as much info

- decline of the style where 1h-2c-2R-3c is inv NF so less need to have 2S have extras and make it a GF auction.

 

Also, if you are going to bid 1h-2c on 4333 shape, to me it's a lot easier to find spades if you can count on opener to bid them if he has them. Else 1h-2c-2h-? If you bid 2s opener may not believe you to have 3 cd hearts later, will think only 2 after 1h-2c-2h-2s-3c-3h, or may think more 4315 rather than 4333 after 1h-2c-2h-2s-2nt-3h. And if you don't bid 2S then you've basically committed to hearts or NT.

[the hog]

"OK maybe I should have said "most people"." I even doubt most bid like this. Perhaps those using the Weasel convention a lot do.

[smerriman]

"OK maybe I should have said "most people"." I even doubt most bid like this. Perhaps those using the Weasel convention a lot do.

A poll of 740 in 2017 had 58% preferring 2♠ could be a dead minimum, and another 30% only very moderate extras (~ 14 HCP).

 

I've seen other polls more recently with even greater numbers in favour of no extras.

 

I still prefer extras myself, but I'm in the minority.

[pescetom]

A poll of 740 in 2017 had 58% preferring 2♠ could be a dead minimum, and another 30% only very moderate extras (~ 14 HCP).

 

I've seen other polls more recently with even greater numbers in favour of no extras.

 

I still prefer extras myself, but I'm in the minority.

I polled it two years ago with IIRC 68% in favour of no extras.

BWS failed to poll it last time, perhaps in fear of a similar result.