GF (almost) with a void in partner's suit

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat76dj63caqj876,d=n,v=e,b=1sp?]133|100[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1♠, pass to you

 

How do you handle this playing 2/1, 12-14nt, forcing 1nt

[Cyberyeti]

I don't play 2/1 but I think you have to force to game, doesn't mean you make it, but you will have a more intelligent auction if you do.

[LBengtsson]

I don't play 2/1 but I think you have to force to game, doesn't mean you make it, but you will have a more intelligent auction if you do.

 

Totally agree. I think with 2/1 the only time you do not want to GF is with a poor 12 (perhaps with a misfit also), not a good 12 with aces, and a good suit. The 1NT forcing/semi-forcing response should only be used where you have a poor(ish) hand imo, except if you have something conventional going on. To me this is not even a "almost" GF: if my partner did not GF here I would be upset, even if we cannot make game when the cards are down.

 

The one thing with 2/1 is that while a two over one response forces a game auction, players do have the option not to go to game. I watched one expert partnership land on a dime and stop in a 4♦ contract - the only contract that made using a 2/1 auction.

[DavidKok]

Some people play 2/1 "forcing to 3NT", meaning they can stop in 4m. Personally I think this is not a good idea at all, and I've missed some cold slams when partner insisted this was the one exception to 4m being forcing. In my opinion it is mostly used as an excuse to bid 1M-2m on hands that are too weak to force to game. But it is still somewhat popular at all levels of play.

[Cyberyeti]

A question for people who do play 2/1, does it make any difference whether you play 2♣ as clubs, or clubs or balanced. Are there any marginal club hands where it would make a difference ?

[DavidKok]

A question for people who do play 2/1, does it make any difference whether you play 2♣ as clubs, or clubs or balanced. Are there any marginal club hands where it would make a difference ?

I play 2♣ as clubs or balanced or fit, making it 0+ clubs. I don't think it matters - when we bid 2♣ we are saying our hand is strong enough to force to game facing a minimum, and that set of hands doesn't really change with the method.

[sfi]

A question for people who do play 2/1, does it make any difference whether you play 2♣ as clubs, or clubs or balanced. Are there any marginal club hands where it would make a difference ?

I don't see why it should matter assuming you can sort out the hand types in some way. I play something similar to David - mostly opener will rebid at the two-level and let partner clarify what they have. Since you're not losing any ability to exchange information, you don't need to change which hands you will force to game on.

[cherdano]

A question for people who do play 2/1, does it make any difference whether you play 2♣ as clubs, or clubs or balanced. Are there any marginal club hands where it would make a difference ?

Doesn't make a difference as you will reveal your hand to be unbalanced with real clubs in your rebid anyway.

 

In any case, this hand isn't really close - yes we might not make anything if we are in a misfit, but equally we make game opposite many minimums, and we have to explore the best game.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat76dj63caqj876&w=st872h2dkt972c932&n=sakj9653hkj85da5c&e=sq4hq943dq84ckt54&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1sp1n(forcing)p4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's the full hand, my partner opted to respond 1nt. I think most roads lead to 4♠ but it's not an easy 2/1 auction,

Only 3/18 pairs played in hearts after a precision 1♣ opening, everyone else other than 3NT-1 and 7NTX-2 after a bidding disaster were in spades. This was played against NZ players who are not 2/1 players, their auction was 1♠ 2♣ 4♠

[mw64ahw]

Interesting problem which is tricky to solve even if you play 2/1 GI unless 1♠-2♣-2X-3♣ remains invitational

If opener is 6331/6241 and minimum would you rather play in 2NT or 3NT? You are taking a punt on whether ♣ or ♠ can make the extra tricks required

If you start with 1♠-1NT (assuming F1) then you preserve the option to play in 2NT when the field may be competing to 3NT and going down.

If you play a subsequent 3♣ as invitational with 6+♣ then you may have another way to 3NT

Take your pick, but with a void in ♠ what are the probabilities of a weakish misfit?

[jillybean]

Interesting problem which is tricky to solve even if you play 2/1 GI unless 1♠-2♣-2X-3♣ remains invitational

If opener is 6331/6241 and minimum would you rather play in 2NT or 3NT? You are taking a punt on whether ♣ or ♠ can make the extra tricks required

If you start with 1♠-1NT (assuming F1) then you preserve the option to play in 2NT when the field may be competing to 3NT and going down.

If you play a subsequent 3♣ as invitational with 6+♣ then you may have another way to 3NT

Take your pick, but with a void in ♠ what are the probabilities of a weakish misfit?

1♠:2♣ is pure GF for me, regardless of follow ups

[mw64ahw]

1♠:2♣ is pure GF for me, regardless of follow ups

That was clear - I hadn't seen the hands before posting, but regardless of what South responds North should and did push to game regardless.

It looks like your question is did you miss the slam because of the 1NT response rather than making or not making 3NT because of the GF response?

South has a self-sustaining ♠ suit and 4♥ so do you have a GF rebid that shows the 4♥? If the answer is yes then why wasn't it used?

I would have thought at the basic level 1♠-1NT-3♥ puts South in a great position to go for the slam.

[jillybean]

No, the question was as posted, no hidden agenda. I am playing with a partner who is new to 2/1, this is a gf 2♣ bid for me but I understand his hesitancy with a void in my suit, I wanted to check that 2♣ is the common approach.

 

The slam may be double dummy, those who bid 6♥ did not make it.

 

1♠ 1nt 3♥ is a strong invite for us, 1♠ 1nt 4♠ is gf. I don't really want to introduce ♥KJ85 when I have 7 spades to the AKJ

[mikeh]

No, the question was as posted, no hidden agenda. I am playing with a partner who is new to 2/1, this is a gf 2♣ bid for me but I understand his hesitancy with a void in my suit, I wanted to check that 2♣ is the common approach.

 

The slam may be double dummy, those who bid 6♥ did not make it.

 

1♠ 1nt 3♥ is a strong invite for us, 1♠ 1nt 4♠ is gf. I don't really want to introduce ♥KJ85 when I have 7 spades to the AKJ

Regardless of the actual hands, imo playing 1S 1N 3H as invitational is very strange

 

You hold AKJxx AKxx Ax xx

 

Your bid after 1S 1N? You seriously want partner able to pass with, say, xx Jxxx Kxxx Qxx?

 

And so on. There’s a very good reason that it is standard, in virtually all natural (ie not big club and similar methods) for opener’s jumpshift to force to game.

[jillybean]

Regardless of the actual hands, imo playing 1S 1N 3H as invitational is very strange

 

You hold AKJxx AKxx Ax xx

 

Your bid after 1S 1N? You seriously want partner able to pass with, say, xx Jxxx Kxxx Qxx?

 

And so on. There’s a very good reason that it is standard, in virtually all natural (ie not big club and similar methods) for opener’s jumpshift to force to game.

 

After 1♠ 1N, holding AKJxx AKxx Ax xx I'm going to bid 2N to show this 18 count. Do I want to force a game in a major opposite say, xx xxx Kx QJxxxx ?

 

As I understand, partner's 1N response limits the hand, to a maximum of invitational values, 3 card support, or at worst, partner has (5)6 points and a mis fitting minor suit. 1S 1N 3H is strong 2 suited invite, partner would rarely pass but we don't play it as GF. If we have a heart fit,we find it via checkback.

 

We do play jump shift in non 1nt auctions as gf

[smerriman]

After 1♠ 1N, holding AKJxx AKxx Ax xx I'm going to bid 2N to show this 18 count. Do I want to force a game in a major opposite say, xx xxx Kx QJxxxx ?

It's a 19 count, closer to 20, and 3♥ doesn't rule out 3nt, but even if game isn't making with that hand I'd rather be there than a partscore.. and if partner does have a fit a nonforcing bid would often leave us in game rather than a potentially cold slam.

 

Back to the original bidding problem from South's perspective (not North's actual hand), after 1♠ - 2♣ and a likely 2♠, how would people continue? I expect 3♣ given there's no heart fit, but it gets murky after that as to whether we end up somehow bidding 3NT or what to do if not..

[thepossum]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat76dj63caqj876,d=n,v=e,b=1sp?]133|100[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1♠, pass to you

 

How do you handle this playing 2/1, 12-14nt, forcing 1nt

 

I think most of the time I would bid 2c but may occasionally bid 1NT for a laugh. Both legitimate or required bids

[pescetom]

I play 2♣ as clubs or balanced or fit, making it 0+ clubs. I don't think it matters - when we bid 2♣ we are saying our hand is strong enough to force to game facing a minimum, and that set of hands doesn't really change with the method.

I play the same style with the same logic - it is unconditionally forcing to game, be it 3N or 5m or whatever.

[apollo1201]

A clear 2C, GF.

 

There could be a case to bid 3C, 6+, invitational, at pairs, had we not a 4-cd H suit.

 

But 1NT does not make justice to the hand. We won’t be able to catch up, partner will not guess we have 12 HCP, 2 aces, honors working together… Sure, the S void is not an asset so I won’t push unless partner gets excited.

[jillybean]

It's a 19 count, closer to 20, and 3♥ doesn't rule out 3nt, but even if game isn't making with that hand I'd rather be there than a partscore.. and if partner does have a fit a nonforcing bid would often leave us in game rather than a potentially cold slam.

 

Back to the original bidding problem from South's perspective (not North's actual hand), after 1♠ - 2♣ and a likely 2♠, how would people continue? I expect 3♣ given there's no heart fit, but it gets murky after that as to whether we end up somehow bidding 3NT or what to do if not..

 

1♠ 2♣*

2♠ 3♣ to show the club length

3♠ now what

[mw64ahw]

1♠ 2♣*

2♠ 3♣ to show the club length

3♠ now what

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

[mw64ahw]

A clear 2C, GF.

 

There could be a case to bid 3C, 6+, invitational, at pairs, had we not a 4-cd H suit.

 

But 1NT does not make justice to the hand. We won’t be able to catch up, partner will not guess we have 12 HCP, 2 aces, honors working together… Sure, the S void is not an asset so I won’t push unless partner gets excited.

Perhaps not if you find yourself facing a minimum without the entries to ♠/♣ and go down especially if you stretch to open.

 

I also have the 3♣ bid, but not with the ♥. I did run a number of simulations when considering whether 11 or 12 should be the top end of the range for this bid, settling on 12 especially with the void.

[LBengtsson]

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

 

That is easy to say seeing all the cards, but I agree with this principle +1. What does 2♠ then 3♠ after 2♣/3♣ actually tell us? Nothing much other than North is possibly minimum with a 6(+) ♠ suit. I think if you are at least 5+♠4+♥ shape, you should be able to mention the ♥ suit at the two level. I doubt if any 2/1 books - well I had look through a couple - cover this topic adequately. The problem with this principle though is that when you then mention the ♠ suit again is it looked upon as length or could be taken for some other conventional bid such as a cue.

 

It is a good hand to post, jillybean, so +1 to you also.

[DavidKok]

1♠ 2♣*

2♠ 3♣ to show the club length

3♠ now what

Now partner has shown a decent 7-card suit in spades and set trumps by partnership agreement. In my experience this is one of the sequences many weaker players get wrong - bidding your major suit for the third time without a jump is not consultative. If you belong in any other strain you should have made an effort to bid them, and weaker hands can jump to game with a long suit. This is a try for 6♠, although you may correct to 6NT. Your hand can hardly be less suitable, and I would bid 4♠. Partner will expect a singleton in support at most.

 

I don't know why we would rebid 3♣ rather than 3♥ though. That rebid shows a clubs-hearts two-suiter. Seems reasonable.

 

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

With 7 nice spades and 4 soft hearts I would bypass the hearts always, and I think it is strange to not do so. Even with a 4-4 heart fit (it is a near certainty we don't have a 4-5 heart fit after 2♣) the spades are likely to play better - if we can't establish the spades this hand doesn't have a source of tricks.

 

That is easy to say seeing all the cards, but I agree with this principle +1. What does 2♠ then 3♠ after 2♣/3♣ actually tell us? Nothing much other than North is possibly minimum with a 6(+) ♠ suit. I think if you are at least 5+♠4+♥ shape, you should be able to mention the ♥ suit at the two level. I doubt if any 2/1 books - well I had look through a couple - cover this topic adequately. The problem with this principle though is that when you then mention the ♠ suit again is it looked upon as length or could be taken for some other conventional bid such as a cue.

 

It is a good hand to post, jillybean, so +1 to you also.

This is exactly what I meant. I have not been able to find any books that cover this adequately, and I struggled quite a bit with convincing my partners to stop bidding their 6-card suit a third time ("But the second time could have been five, so of course I had to show my sixth on the third round!"). There are numerous solutions out there. Personally I think that weaving the (semi)balanced minimum hands in with the 6(+) major suit hands is a clear mistake in system design, and rebidding suits that are not self sustainable twice is doubling down on that mistake. Keep in mind partner had 3♦ and 3♥ available over 3♣ on the example auction. What would those have meant, having denied length in those suits on the previous rounds? To me those bids show doubt about strain, and promise a sixth spade while showing values(/a fragment).

[mw64ahw]

I've moved away from a standard approach so never rebid 2♠ to show 6 or balanced. This is why I show the ♥ first and I'm happy with KJxx if playing standard. A direct 3♠ shows the self-sustaining hand with extras if I do want to skip ♥