[Winstonm]

When it comes to certain 2/1 sequences, there is broad disagreement on best methods. This thread is simply an attempt to quantify the arguments for 3:

The sequences:

1. Major suit rebid after a 2/1 response
2. Minor suit raise after major opening and 2/1 response
3. 2N rebid after major opening and 2/1 response

My personal view is that 2/1 was designed for IMP play is therefore loaded for game/slam bidding and is less valuable for ideal part-score bidding. To that end, the question is what is best usage for the above sequences.

On 1, the major choices are to show a 6-card or longer suit or a "catchall" bid that denies other holdings. What makes best sense?

On 2, there are more questions: does a raise show 4-card support or can it be made on 3-card support?, does it show extra values? does a raise deny a 6-card major? how do you handles 6-4 hands?

On 3, the questions are about bidding shape verses suits stopped.

What do you think? What is the best method for each choice and how do those choices affect other bidding?

[mike777]

All great questions, all worthwhile questions that could deserve there own separate thread.

My personal view is 2/1 was designed to focus on the major suits and nt at the expense of the minor suits. If anything 2/1 is poor at best if you want to bid minor suit games and is very poor when it comes to part scores and bidding slams in the minor suits compared to many other approaches. At least at MP in general this is not a high cost.

As for your first request rebidding a major after 2/1 response. I was taught, so I have a bias towards, it promising a 6 card suit, not as a catch all bid. As a result rebidding a second suit will not promise extras. Responder will assume opener does not have extras, playing a lite opening style in fact opener very often does not have extras.
A typical hand might look like: AQTxx,,,x....xxx...AKxx=an ok hand but not a hand with extras after 1s=2h=?

I believe the vast majority of forum posters prefer the rebid played as a catch all bid.

[spotlight7]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-30, 12:22, said:

When it comes to certain 2/1 sequences, there is broad disagreement on best methods. This thread is simply an attempt to quantify the arguments for 3:

The sequences:

1. Major suit rebid after a 2/1 response
2. Minor suit raise after major opening and 2/1 response
3. 2N rebid after major opening and 2/1 response

My personal view is that 2/1 was designed for IMP play is therefore loaded for game/slam bidding and is less valuable for ideal part-score bidding. To that end, the question is what is best usage for the above sequences.

On 1, the major choices are to show a 6-card or longer suit or a "catchall" bid that denies other holdings. What makes best sense?

On 2, there are more questions: does a raise show 4-card support or can it be made on 3-card support?, does it show extra values? does a raise deny a 6-card major? how do you handles 6-4 hands?



***** 1) A major rebid as a 'waiting' bid solves some problem hands. In 2/1 bidding

responder swill almost always make a rebid that allows opener to show the sixth card.

2) A raise shows 4 card support and I like a style that it also shows extra values.

With a 6-4 shape, I would rebid the major and raise the minor later.


On 3, the questions are about bidding shape verses suits stopped.

What do you think? What is the best method for each choice and how do those choices affect other bidding?

3) Using the 2M rebid as a 'waiting' bid allows opener to avoid bidding NT first with xx or xxx holdings in side suits.

Concentrated values in two suits is helped by a 2M waiting bid. AKxxx AKx xxx xx is not my idea of a good 1S-2m-2N auction.

[gordontd]

I like reverses to show extra after 2/1s, as otherwise it's too easy for neither of you to realise that you both have 15+ and are in slam territory. A consequence of this is that a 2M rebid needs to be able to be made on any hand with no other sensible rebid. One possibility that I like is to play that a 2NT rebid shows 6+ of the major suit, so the 2M rebid shows only five, but may have another suit in a minimum hand. I think this helps avoid wrong-siding NT contracts too.

[Winstonm]

Although it is nice to be able to show 6+ cards in the opened suit, that style has problems when it comes to rebidding 2N without proper stoppers. The nightmare hand is xxx, xxx in the unbids.

Yet at the same time I have advocated for the 2NT rebid in inverted minors to simply be a weak NT with no regard to stoppers, so maybe stoppers should not be such a strong component?

I had forgot about reverses, and this, too, is something that needs to be discussed in a 2/1 system - does it show extras or not?
I think it should but I also know it makes opener's problems less when he can freely reverse hearts to spades with minimums.

[mike777]

yes, the exact same issue exists for 1nt rebids also...you either rebid 1nt without promising stoppers and all the worries about "wrong siding" or you don't. Actually the same issue regards opening 1nt...without stoppers.


As far as showing extras, given most posters play the rebid of a major as a catchall they also play the new suit as showing extras. Most who play rebids promise 6 don't worry about this issue. They simply assume natural and no extras which in fact is the case most often, very often. You choose to live with the problem hands and work it out.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-July-30, 15:48, said:

yes, the exact same issue exists for 1nt rebids also...you either rebid 1nt without promising stoppers and all the worries about "wrong siding" or you don't. Actually the same issue regards opening 1nt...without stoppers.


As far as showing extras, given most posters play the rebid of a major as a catchall they also play the new suit as showing extras. Most who play rebids promise 6 don't worry about this issue. They simply assume natural and no extras which in fact is the case most often, very often. You choose to live with the problem hands and work it out.

I think there is a slight difference. With inverted minors, a weak NT hand is already at the 2-level before there is a chance to describe the hand - hence, to me, it makes more sense to bid 2N in that sequence as that is really the only bid available that describes the hand. In my views, other bids in inverted minor should show shortness.

This is not the case with 1M-2m-2N. As discussed, there is always a raise or a rebid avaiable so is it wise to use 2NT as a "catchall" for hands that don't otherwise fit the system? After all, how often is it necessary to find the 6-2 major fit at the 2-level?

Of course, as with all things, if the rebid can be made on 5-card length, then a jump rebid needs to be more flexible to show a 6-card suit and a more slammish hand, not necessarily only the 1-loser suit bid. With AJ10xxx, AKx, x, Kxx it makes more sense to me to rebid 3S over 2C. Otherwise, if 2S does not guarantee 6, you are at the 4 level or making some invented artificial sequence to show a 6-card suit.

[helene_t]

Respond 2♣ with all balanced hands (as well as hand with clubs)

Now opener rebids 2♦ as the catch-all, and other bids are more descriptive. So
1♠-(something other than 2♣)
(first step)- now opener is captain

1♠-(something other than 2♣)
(something other than first step)- now responder is captain

1♠-2♣
(something other than 2♦)- now responder is captain

1♠-2♣
2♦-2♥ - now responder is captain

1♠-2♣
2♦-(something other than 2♥) - responder has real clubs and opener is captain

A real relay system would of course be better.

[steve2005]

mike777, on 2017-July-30, 13:22, said:

My personal view is 2/1 was designed to focus on the major suits and nt at the expense of the minor suits. If anything 2/1 is poor at best if you want to bid minor suit games and is very poor when it comes to part scores and bidding slams in the minor suits compared to many other approaches. At least at MP in general this is not a high cost.

I don't know if I would go that far. Certainly if the minor suit fit isn't found immediately at MP you often have to risk an easy 3N if you look for slam which is bad.

All the questions asked are good questions. I don't think there is a consensus on any of them. Playing weak or 10-12 NT will also complicate the 3rd answer.

[mike777]

I believe if we are discussing a weak nt structure we are moving to what used to be called eastern scientific rather than 2/1. A 10-12 nt moves us further away

Chip certainly won many world championships with a weak notrump style.

When I first learned bridge in 71 I thought a 10-12 nt was standard bridge
A few years later 2/1 was called the worst possible style one could learn to play. (:

[Winstonm]

If memory serves, Mike Lawrence advocated a raise as better than minimum or a shapely raise. I don't quite follow that reasoning as it puts more pressure on other bids as "marking time" bids. IMO, I would think with: KQxxx, xxx, AK, xxx that 3C over 2C would be the best bid available.

The other side is that minor suit slams are hard to reach in 2/1 and without setting a higher standard for a raise they are harder still.

Perhaps Lawrence is right. He usually is.

[msjennifer]

As regards the rebid of 2NT after an opening bid of 1M and a 2/1 response I like the super precision system where it shows a balanced 15 HCP.With less HCP opener simply rebids his major suit and to show a 6card suit he first bids his major at 2 level and then as per partners next bid he may rebid his major at 3 level.Of course this is only possible as opener is limited to 15 HCP in that system.In usual standard system it may or may not work.With double suited hands and maximum HCP or less losers one rebids the second suit at three level if required e.g. 1S-2H-3C/D.

[Winstonm]

msjennifer, on 2017-July-31, 11:02, said:

As regards the rebid of 2NT after an opening bid of 1M and a 2/1 response I like the super precision system where it shows a balanced 15 HCP.With less HCP opener simply rebids his major suit and to show a 6card suit he first bids his major at 2 level and then as per partners next bid he may rebid his major at 3 level.Of course this is only possible as opener is limited to 15 HCP in that system.In usual standard system it may or may not work.With double suited hands and maximum HCP or less losers one rebids the second suit at three level if required e.g. 1S-2H-3C/D.

The issue with a rebid that does not show 6 is that the auction is at the 4-level (unless hearts are trump) before the fit is established. 1S-2D-2S-3C-3S-? Now, there needs to be an agreement: what to do with Kx, x, AQxxxx, Axxx?

[miamijd]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-31, 09:40, said:

If memory serves, Mike Lawrence advocated a raise as better than minimum or a shapely raise. I don't quite follow that reasoning as it puts more pressure on other bids as "marking time" bids. IMO, I would think with: KQxxx, xxx, AK, xxx that 3C over 2C would be the best bid available.

The other side is that minor suit slams are hard to reach in 2/1 and without setting a higher standard for a raise they are harder still.

Perhaps Lawrence is right. He usually is.

That was back 30 years ago he did that. He doesn't advocate that any more. Few do. The minor raise generally shows 4 pieces, but it can be made on a minimum. With the hand you gave, however, 2S seems best.

Cheers,
mike

[miamijd]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-30, 12:22, said:

When it comes to certain 2/1 sequences, there is broad disagreement on best methods. This thread is simply an attempt to quantify the arguments for 3:

The sequences:

1. Major suit rebid after a 2/1 response
2. Minor suit raise after major opening and 2/1 response
3. 2N rebid after major opening and 2/1 response

My personal view is that 2/1 was designed for IMP play is therefore loaded for game/slam bidding and is less valuable for ideal part-score bidding. To that end, the question is what is best usage for the above sequences.

On 1, the major choices are to show a 6-card or longer suit or a "catchall" bid that denies other holdings. What makes best sense?

On 2, there are more questions: does a raise show 4-card support or can it be made on 3-card support?, does it show extra values? does a raise deny a 6-card major? how do you handles 6-4 hands?

On 3, the questions are about bidding shape verses suits stopped.

What do you think? What is the best method for each choice and how do those choices affect other bidding?

Here is what is probably "standard" nowadays, although there are dozens of different treatments:

1. A 2M rebid over 2m is the default bid (nothing else available). You can show 6-7 later on. The reason for that is to avoid having to bid 2NT on hands like:

AKQxx xxx Ax xxx

over 2D. Ugh!

2. A 3m raise will often show 4 pieces, but there are hands where raising on 3 is fine:

AKxxx x KJx Kxxx

bids 3D over 2D.

AKxxx Kxx xxx Kx

bids 2NT.

A minimum is fine. 6-4 hands usually raise the minor first and then rebid the major if available, but to some extent it depends on the hand.

3. Assuming 15-17 1NT openers, a 2NT rebid shows 12-14 OR 18+, generally no singleton (though a stiff honor in partner's minor is OK), and some semblance of a stopper in the unbids (Qx or Jxx will do in a pinch; Txxx is fine). The 3NT rebid is used to show 15-17 with a hand that didn't want to open 1NT (either two doubletons; a stiff in partner's minor; or 17 with a five card major).

4. I like 3-level bids to show extras. Hardy didn't, and GIB doesn't, but I think most 2/1 players do.

Cheers,
mike

[miamijd]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-31, 11:29, said:

The issue with a rebid that does not show 6 is that the auction is at the 4-level (unless hearts are trump) before the fit is established. 1S-2D-2S-3C-3S-? Now, there needs to be an agreement: what to do with Kx, x, AQxxxx, Axxx?

Why would the hand you showed be a problem? 4S, of course. The 3S bid shows 6. If you didn't have six spades, you would rebid 3NT (with a h stop), 3H (asking for a H stop; can't be a H suit on this auction, as partner has denied H); or raise one of partner's minors.

Cheers,
Mike

[Winstonm]

miamijd, on 2017-July-31, 16:49, said:

Why would the hand you showed be a problem? 4S, of course. The 3S bid shows 6. If you didn't have six spades, you would rebid 3NT (with a h stop), 3H (asking for a H stop; can't be a H suit on this auction, as partner has denied H); or raise one of partner's minors.

Cheers,
Mike

The problem as I see it is that no one has been able to show their strength - there is no room for a mild slam try unless a minor suit bid at this point is agreed as a cue bid in support, which is not that bad of agreement, in my estimation. You?

[hamish32]

helene_t, on 2017-July-30, 17:07, said:

Respond 2♣ with all balanced hands (as well as hand with clubs)

Now opener rebids 2♦ as the catch-all, and other bids are more descriptive. So
1♠-(something other than 2♣)
(first step)- now opener is captain

1♠-(something other than 2♣)
(something other than first step)- now responder is captain

1♠-2♣
(something other than 2♦)- now responder is captain

1♠-2♣
2♦-2♥ - now responder is captain

1♠-2♣
2♦-(something other than 2♥) - responder has real clubs and opener is captain

A real relay system would of course be better.

We play along these lines in a weak NT context:

2C = 2+ C (so C or balanced)
2D = 5+ D
2H = 5+ H

after 2C:

2D weak relay
2H 16+ 4+H
2S 6+ cards non solid
2NT 16+ balanced
3C 16+ 4+C
3D 16+ 4+D

the 2D as a weak relay works well in a weak NT context where the 2NT rebid shows the range above the 1NT opening.

this means responder describes after the 2!D relay:

1S - 2C
2D - ?

2H = 4H
2S = 3+ cards support
2NT = balanced slam interest
3C = 5C
3D = 4D
3NT no interest in slam opposite partners minimum (no concerns about holds)

[miamijd]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-31, 20:18, said:

The problem as I see it is that no one has been able to show their strength - there is no room for a mild slam try unless a minor suit bid at this point is agreed as a cue bid in support, which is not that bad of agreement, in my estimation. You?

On your auction, 4H would almost of necessity be somewhat slammish in spades, but with a slightly different auction it is a problem, I admit.

Cheers,
mike

[Winstonm]

miamijd, on 2017-August-01, 10:53, said:

On your auction, 4H would almost of necessity be somewhat slammish in spades, but with a slightly different auction it is a problem, I admit.

Cheers,
mike

The question to resolve is whether or not the problem is better to solve at the 3-level (with a 2 rebid showing 6) or whether it is better to have stoppers for NT and leave 2 rebid ambiguous.

A possible solution may be to utilize 2C as an unspecified game force without 3 or 4-card support for the opened major - but I haven't thought this through.