[Flame]

im not looking for a formal syac answers, just bridge common sense.
1♠-2♥
2♠-2NT

2♠ is forcing for one round.
2NT is invitational

1. Should 2NT show or denay 2 cards in the spade suit ?
2. opener continue with 3♦ this is still invitation, but would it tend to show 6-4 or 5-5 ? or in other words should partner correct to 3♠ with and a 2♠3♦ hand.

[whereagles]

My views:

1. No. Responder, with 10-11, might be stuck for a rebid and be forced to bid 2NT on 0-1 spades.

2. 3m would be weakish with a 55 shape. With 64 either pass or bid 3♠. To accept the invitation, just bid 3NT.

[kfgauss]

1. As whereagles said, many hands with 0-1 spades and only 5 (or a poor 6) hearts will bid 2NT (because 3m would be forcing). Also, many hands with 2 spades will have to bid 2NT as well (because 2S is forcing).

2. This is a problem. I would go with 5-5, but clearly you lose something either way.

An issue here: what are 3H and 3S by opener at this point? My interpretation is that 3H is NF (any non forcing heart raise bids 2S catchall first because an immediate 3H would be forcing). It appears 3S should also be NF, but if you play it NF, either any GF hand with a decent 6 card spade suit has to jump to 3S immediately (as opposed to having extras as well -- ie 16-18) or you have to give up on 6-2 fits after this auction and just bid 3N.

Andy

[mikeh]

I would agree with the earlier posters that 2N is silent on the length of ♠: other than denying 3+ support, of course


As for opener's rebid, in standard methods (and one school of 2/1 as well) the sequence 1♠ 2♥ 3m shows significant extras: forcing to game opposite a standard 2/1 showing about 10+ hcp. As to why this is best in 2/1 (as I believe) that is an entirely different thread.

Accordingly, the classic way of bidding a minimum 2-suiter is for opener to rebid 2♠ even on a 5 card suit, and to then bid a non-forcing 3 minor next time... over 2N.

Thus 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2N 3♣ suggests playing 3♣ or 3♠: responder should not bid 3N.

This has flaws, in that responder cannot tell if opener has 6-4 or 5-5 or so.

[awm]

The 2♠ bid is a catch-all, and as is often the case it tends to be good to avoid bidding the catch-all when another bid would describe your hand. So with a hand worthy of a game-force and including a four-card side suit (or a heart fit) I would tend to bid at the three-level directly over 2♥. Better to bid 3-minor and then 3♠ with a good 6-4 I think.

So 1♠-2♥-2♠ shows either: (1) 6+♠ or (2) 5♠ and not enough to bid game opposite a minimum 2/1 response. Therefore after responder's 2NT:

3m = 5+♠ and 4+minor, minimum, ambiguous about whether 5-5 or 6-4 (probably with 5-4 would pass) but definitely not values for game.

3♥ = 5+♠ and 3♥ and not enough for game.

3♠ = 6+♠ (often seven spades or a good six) but not game values.

3NT = choice of games, game force values and therefore six spades, but not a good enough suit to rebid 3♠ over 2♥.

[kfgauss]

awm, on May 8 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

3NT = choice of games, game force values and therefore six spades, but not a good enough suit to rebid 3♠ over 2♥.

Thanks, this is a nice inference and solution to my issue above.

Andy

[whereagles]

kfgauss, on May 8 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

awm, on May 8 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

3NT = choice of games, game force values and therefore six spades, but not a good enough suit to rebid 3♠ over 2♥.

Thanks, this is a nice inference and solution to my issue above.

Andy

Note sure about that.. why can't it be a 5♠-4m with 13-14 hcp?

[kfgauss]

whereagles, on May 8 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

kfgauss, on May 8 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

awm, on May 8 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

3NT = choice of games, game force values and therefore six spades, but not a good enough suit to rebid 3♠ over 2♥.

Thanks, this is a nice inference and solution to my issue above.

Andy

Note sure about that.. why can't it be a 5♠-4m with 13-14 hcp?

Adam's claim is that you have to bid 3m directly with any 5♠-4m GF. You could play it differently, but then you'd have the issue I described above (and possibly other minor issues relating to stoppers in the other minor).

Edit: Of course, playing it his way, 1♠-2♥;3♦ is ridiculously overloaded. Perhaps he bids 2NT with some 5♠-4♦ hands though?

Andy

[foo]

awm, on May 8 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

The 2♠ bid is a catch-all, and as is often the case it tends to be good to avoid bidding the catch-all when another bid would describe your hand. So with a hand worthy of a game-force and including a four-card side suit (or a heart fit) I would tend to bid at the three-level directly over 2♥. Better to bid 3-minor and then 3♠ with a good 6-4 I think.

So 1♠-2♥-2♠ shows either: (1) 6+♠ or (2) 5♠ and not enough to bid game opposite a minimum 2/1 response. Therefore after responder's 2NT:

3m = 5+♠ and 4+minor, minimum, ambiguous about whether 5-5 or 6-4 (probably with 5-4 would pass) but definitely not values for game.

3♥ = 5+♠ and 3♥ and not enough for game.

3♠ = 6+♠ (often seven spades or a good six) but not game values.

3NT = choice of games, game force values and therefore six spades, but not a good enough suit to rebid 3♠ over 2♥.

Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.

The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:
1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)

1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid.

This makes 1S-2H;2N the most common sequence here by Opener.
This also has the pleasant side effect of more often "right siding" NT contracts.

So, 1S-2H;2N-??
3m= all sorts of hands.
(Some play 3C! here as artificial so Opener can further describe their hand below 3N)
3h= 6+H
3s= 3card Limit Raise
3n= To Play
4m= all sorts of shapely GF hands.
4h= To Play
4s= GF Spade Raise

Hope this helps,
Foo

[Codo]

In contrary to foo, I really hate it, if 2 NT is the catch all bid.
Reason: The range is too big to make an intelligent descision. If opener has the typical 5233 with 11-14, I can always flip a coin with the very common 12 or 13 HCPs hands, if we belong in two or three NT.

So I prefer the french system, where 2 Spade is the catch all bid.
2 NT from responder then shows a semibalanced hand with 11-12 HCps, which is a quite small range and opener can decide quite easy, if he should bid game or not.

And for the question Flame raised: In my opinion, responder should have at least one, mostly two spades. If he has a 10 -11 HCP hand with zero cards in openers suit, he should bid a simple 1 NT if his suit is not good enough to bid game anyway.
So worst hand, I had expect (before I red this threat) had been some 15(43) hands with 11 HCPs or so.

[foo]

Playing Standard American:
-Many if not most 5332 11 HCP hands should not Open.

-1S-2H promises 5+H

-A 2/1 is one of
a) a Full Opening bid, GF
b ) Invitational w/ support for Opener's suit.
c) Invitational w/ a rebiddable suit, usually 6+ cards long
d) a really strong Natural 2N invite w/o support ~11-12 HCP.
(yes, you raise a 2N rebid by Opener to 3N)
e) combination of b+c
In general, any hand w/o support must be stronger to 2/1 than any hand with support. 10 HCP hands w/o support or a rebiddable suit should be downgraded to minimums.

-Opener's 2N rebid after a 2/1 shows ~12-14 or 18-19 (rare you have this)

-Opener's 3N rebid after a 2/1 shows 15-17

-1S-2H;3S and 1M-2m;3M show 15+ HCP and very nice suits (the kind of suit that even if Responder has a singleton "x" in Opener's suit it is still not embarrassing).

-Opener's rebid of 2 of their Major is wide ranging both in terms of shape and HCP
However, after 1S-2H it is easy to show 4+m w/o needing extra values, and the same goes for showing 4+D after 1M-2C. 1M-2D is the problem auction since it requires 15+ HCP to bid 1M-2D;3C to show 4+C
When the auction begins 1M-2D, there is a greater chance that 1M-2D;2M and 1M-2D;2N are hiding 4+C because Opener is not strong enough to show them.


So in reality all I'm advocating is choosing the more accurate of 2M and 2N as a rebid when holding a minimum Opening.
This can often help the partnership find the right spot more easily than just blindly rebidding 2M with both xxxxx and AKQJxx in 12-14 hands would.

[whereagles]

foo, on May 9 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Playing Standard American:

-A 2/1 is one of
d) a really strong Natural 2N invite w/o support ~11-12 HCP.
(yes, you raise a 2N rebid by Opener to 3N)

-Opener's 2N rebid after a 2/1 shows ~12-14 or 18-19 (rare you have this)

Playing it this way leads to some 3NT on 23-24 hcps. Ok, so you have 1 or 2 long suits so 3NT should have some play. But do you always want to be in it?

French standard solves this by rebidding 2M with 12-14, and pass responder's 2NT (11-12) with 12 or a bad 13. (By the way, 1M-2x-2/3NT is 15-17/18-19.)

Not saying SAYC is inferior to french standard, but it seems to me french standard has this particular situation better dealt with.

[foo]

whereagles, on May 9 2006, 08:56 AM, said:

foo, on May 9 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Playing Standard American:

-A 2/1 is one of
d) a really strong Natural 2N invite w/o support ~11-12 HCP.
(yes, you raise a 2N rebid by Opener to 3N)

-Opener's 2N rebid after a 2/1 shows ~12-14 or 18-19 (rare you have this)

Playing it this way leads to some 3NT on 23-24 hcps. Ok, so you have 1 or 2 long suits so 3NT should have some play. But do you always want to be in it?

French standard solves this by rebidding 2M with 12-14, and pass responder's 2NT (11-12) with 12 or a bad 13. (By the way, 1M-2x-2/3NT is 15-17/18-19.)

Not saying SAYC is inferior to french standard, but it seems to me french standard has this particular situation better dealt with.

YMMV. I personally have seen problems when a 2M rebid can have anything from xxxxx to AKQJxx for a suit in a minimum hand.

As you correctly point out, every bidding agreement has a cost. The question is always is the cost worth it.

Being able to tell the difference between a minimum w/ a rebiddable suit and a minimum w/o a rebiddable suit seems to help more often than We end up getting in a light 3N; and most of the rare occasions we end up in those light 3N's, they are cold or at least have decent play.

Benefit seems to outweigh the cost.

[SoTired]

My thots - for SAYC and not 2/1:
1. 2S is not a catchall in SAYC. It strongly implies 6+. The catchall bid with a min balanced hand is 2N. 2S is forcing since responder promises a rebid (except over 2N) by making a 2/1.
2. responder should not be void in spades, but may have a singleton. I can't think of a hand that has the hcp strength to bid 2H(10+), has a void in spades, and wants to make an invitational 2N, rather than an invitational 3H or a game-forcing 3m rebid.
3. most play that 3m by opener is game forcing, likely showing a 6-4.
4. 3S by opener is the only bid by opener (other than pass) that almost all accept is a weak bid asking responder to pass.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

1. 2S is not a catchall in SAYC. It strongly implies 6+. The catchall bid with a min balanced hand is 2N. 2S is forcing since responder promises a rebid (except over 2N) by making a 2/1.

Baloney. You didn't read the SAYC document carefully. Responder promises a rebid after a 2/1 if below game. There is no exception for a 2nt rebid by opener. This is in your imagination (along with that of many other players who have not carefully read the sayc document).

Quote from yellow card booklet (http://web2.acbl.org...y/sayc_book.pdf):
NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two
level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level.

As explained previously, 2nt doesn't work well as a catchall if it's forcing & responder doesn't have GF values & is forced to overbid frequently.

Even if playing 2/1 GF, I dislike 2nt as the catchall. I strongly disagree with foo's assertion that this

Quote

also has the pleasant side effect of more often "right siding" NT contracts.

.
I think the opposite is true, and is the main reason I don't like 2nt as the catchall. If opener has JTxxx AKx xxx KQ, if 2M guarantees a good suit, isn't one forced to rebid 2nt over 2c? Doesn't this wrongside the diamond stopper if any?

Even though playing 2M as the catchall leaves you unable to distinguish Jxxxx suits from AKQxxx suits, this is not fatal IMO. You can still probe for the 6-2 major fit at the 3 level. When one bids 2nt with or without stoppers, it is permanently wrongsided, and partner won't often probe to see if you really have all the stops, and you get to 3nt with a suit wide open. In SAYC if you adopt this style you get the same effects plus reach a bunch of 22 point games.

[awm]

I agree with Stephen Tu's post.

In addition, 2NT is extremely useful as a game-forcing catch-all in many sequences. This gives partner the chance to pattern out without any ambiguity about being dropped below game. It also means that opener need not introduce ratty four-card suits at the three-level just to create a game-force (can bid 2NT instead) and allows us to retain 1♠-2♥-2♠-2NT-3m as non-forcing, which is extremely valuable when opener has a minimum 5-5 hand (and many of us open a bit light with that shape).

[foo]

Stephen Tu, on May 9 2006, 05:32 PM, said:

Even if playing 2/1 GF, I dislike 2N as the catchall.  I strongly disagree with foo's assertion that this

Quote

also has the pleasant side effect of more often "right siding" NT contracts.

.
I think the opposite is true, and is the main reason I don't like 2N as the catchall. If opener has JTxxx.AKx.xxx.KQ, if 2M guarantees a good suit, isn't one forced to rebid 2N over 2C? Doesn't this wrongside the diamond stopper if any?

Even though playing 2M as the catchall leaves you unable to distinguish Jxxxx suits from AKQxxx suits, this is not fatal IMO. You can still probe for the 6-2 major fit at the 3 level. When one bids 2N with or without stoppers, it is permanently wrongsided, and partner won't often probe to see if you really have all the stops, and you get to 3N with a suit wide open. In SAYC if you adopt this style you get the same effects plus reach a bunch of 22 point games.

Stephen makes some decent points. Nothing is perfect and sometimes we have to choose between evils.

However,
1= If you take a look at a Standard reference like Truscott's Bidding Dictionary or Root's Common Sense Bidding, you'll see that Opener's 2N rebid is defined as showing a minimum (12-14 HCP or 13-15 HCP + distribution) or 18-19.

2= Both sources will also say that 1M-2foo;2M also shows a minimum and tends to emphasize the suit more than 2N would.

3= Most of the time when Opener does not have a good suit nor a 2nd suit nor support for the 2/1 suit, they will have a hand suitable for a 2N rebid given the auction.

4= Stephen and others are absolutely wrong about getting to 22 HCP games regularly unless they are playing SA incorrectly. Systemically, Responding hands w/o support for Opener's suit have to be nigh onto GF to make a 2/1 playing SA.

The vast majority of 11 HCP 54's and 55's with a singleton in Opener's suit are not good enough to make 2/1's playing Standard! Figure such hands are only worth ~8-9 playing points unless some good news comes to light later in the auction.

Similar but less severe adjustments should be made to 10 HCP hands with a doubleton in Opener's presumed 5card Major. Similar and =more= severe adjustments should be made by Responder when void in Opener's suit.

Except under special circumstances; 26+ HCP w/o a fit, or 25+ HCP w/ a fit, or 24 HCP split exactly 12+12 are required to be in a "good" game.


...and then we get to the rare hand like Stephen's where you have to choose between evils:
JTxxx.AKx.xxx.KQ

1f 1S-2H;-?? We all raise to 2H's and there is no problem.

If 1S-2D;-?? I have =no= problem rebidding 2N here. If GOP is w/o S support and has GF values, 3N rates to play about equally as well from either side.

If 1S-2C;-?? =Now= Stephen's point is very evident. It should be noted that on most hands it still will not make any difference who Declares 3N if that is the game we end up in, but it will make a difference on some.

This a good example of where partnerships should agree on which evil They find more acceptable. Here a decent rule is "tell the smallest lie". JTxxx is more of a feature of the hand than xxx, so I'd grit my teeth and rebid 2S in tempo. If the S's were xxxxx and the D's JTx, I'd rebid 2N.


No system can replace judgement. A good system can only aid judgement.
And all systems have problem hands. There is no perfect system that handles every hand well.

[kenberg]

Since I often play, and certainly prefer to play, SAYC when I play in an Individual I really appreciate this discussion. I was aware that 1S-2C/D/H-2N is, according to SAYC rules, not passable since the two level reponse promises another bid. I have often wondered what to make of it. Of course SAYC implitly suggests pretty sound openings. For example, on page 3 of the acbl booklet it discusses "Rebids [by opener] with a minimum hand (13-16 points)". On the same page, it describes the reponse of 2C/D over 1H as 11 or more points. Putting these together, it shouldn't be too horrible if 1S-2x-2NT carries you on to the 3 level. Responder can get out by bidding 3x or go on to 3NT as he thinks best.

Since most folks these days don't wait around for 13 points before opening, a practical approach, which is what was requested by the poster, is probably something like this: With a minimum major opener a player asks himself: If I open and partner bids 2x, am I prepared to either rebid this ratty suit or to rebid 2N forcing us to the 3 level. If he is not prepared to do either one, then passing cerrtainly has merit.

With this in mind, I don't think 1S-2H-2S-2N either promises or denies two spades. However, responder had the choice of bidding a passable 2N or a passable 3S. I doubt he has Kx. SAYC is designed to be reasonably playable w/o long discussion. Bids should be interpreted as being what is most likely to be right most of the time. If my partner rebids 2S, I am bidding 3S with a reasonable 2 card holding. If partner's opening bid means he has thought through, before opening, the consequences of having to rebid 2S over my 2X, then this has a reasonable chance of working out.

Ken

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

1= If you take a look at a Standard reference like Truscott's Bidding Dictionary or Root's Common Sense Bidding, you'll see that Opener's 2N rebid is defined as showing a minimum (12-14 HCP or 13-15 HCP + distribution) or 18-19.

This is probably the most common agreement when playing 2/1 GF. But without 2/1 GF, just a standard system, there is considerably more variation. Check out the bridge encyclopedia for discussion. Some people play the 2nt rebid NF, which obviously rules out the split range treatment. And if the 2nt rebid is forcing, then doing it with the 12-13 counts is problematic. There are plenty of people for whom 2nt shows extras and is GF in the context of SA. Whether you allow 15-17 bal hands to open 1M would also figure into your methods here.

Quote

3= Most of the time when Opener does not have a good suit nor a 2nd suit nor support for the 2/1 suit, they will have a hand suitable for a 2N rebid given the auction.

This is only true if you are willing to raise responder's hands and make reverses & high reverses on minimum hands. Say Qxxxx Qx AKJxx x. 1S-2h-?

I have a strong opinion that high reverses & raising partner's minors without extras is unplayable (at least in a mostly natural context, one could probably conceive some convoluted artificiality to get around this). If the 2/1 is not GF, then the space consuming bid will get you overboard too often. Even if the 2/1 is GF, you have problems because of opener's extremely wide range. If the bid doesn't show extras, responder with extras has a problem. By bidding conservatively, you get to 3nt, but if opener also has extras you miss a slam. But if you bid aggressively, opener might be min & you go down in 4nt or 5m when 3nt was cold. Rebidding 2M before supporting partner or showing the second suit helps to establish your strength range, which aids bidding accuracy. The only thing you really lose is the inference that a 2M rebid is a really good suit, but as I said this isn't bad as one can probe for doubleton support at the 3 level. I don't think you lose as much rebidding 2M on bad suits (as long as partner knows this is frequent and doesn't recklessly leap to 4M on small doubletons), as you do by wrongsiding 3nt contracts or having to deal with wide strength ranges for minor raises & high reverses.

Quote

4= Stephen and others are absolutely wrong about getting to 22 HCP games regularly unless they are playing SA incorrectly. Systemically, Responding hands w/o support for Opener's suit have to be nigh onto GF to make a 2/1 playing SA.

Supposedly 1nt is limited to 6-10, there are a lot of 11 counts out there that are going to start with a 2/1 not playing 1ntf. Combine that with openings based on shapely 11 counts, and using the 2nt f rebid, that equals a lot of 22-23 pt games.

Quote

The vast majority of 11 HCP 54's and 55's with a singleton in Opener's suit are not good enough to make 2/1's playing Standard! Figure such hands are only worth ~8-9 playing points unless some good news comes to light later in the auction.

Then you are going to miss a lot of decent 14 opposite 11, 15 opposite 11 games this way, after 1M-1nt-all pass. How about all the 11 pt hands with doubleton support for the major?

I think you are mistaken about this near GF requirement for 2/1s w/ misfit in SA. Read some of Goren's old books. People used to routinely bid 2/1 on a lot of 10 counts many decades ago. Lots of sequences were NF after this. Standards have been creeping up over time, as more sequences became forcing, and especially in conjunction with using a 1ntf response. But I don't know many people who routinely bid 1nt on misfitting 11 counts playing SA. It has the merit of keeping low on a possible misfit, but you absolutely will miss some games on power this way.
It's hard to gauge what's "right", because I don't know any good players using a nat 5cM base without 1ntf response.

[foo]

Let's be very clear here: We are talking about Standard American (the basis for SAYC), not 2/1 GF.

Quote

Quote

1= If you take a look at a Standard reference like Truscott's Bidding Dictionary or Root's Common Sense Bidding, you'll see that Opener's 2N rebid is defined as showing a minimum (12-14 HCP or 13-15 HCP + distribution) or 18-19.

This is probably the most common agreement when playing 2/1 GF. But without 2/1 GF, just a standard system, there is considerably more variation. Check out the bridge encyclopedia for discussion. Some people play the 2N rebid NF, which obviously rules out the split range treatment. And if the 2N rebid is forcing, then doing it with the 12-13 counts is problematic. There are plenty of people for whom 2N shows extras and is GF in the context of SA. Whether you allow 15-17 bal hands to open 1M would also figure into your methods here.

Playing SA, Opener's rebid of 2N after Responder's 2/1 CAN NEVER EVER BE PASSED.
A SA 2/1 is a promise "written in heart's blood" that Responder will take a 2nd bid. No matter what Opener rebids.

The defined SA range for Opener's 2N rebid after Responder's 2/1 is a minimum (~12-14 HCP or ~13-15 if counting distro) or a maximum (18-19 HCP or ~19-21 if counting distro).

The defined SA range for Opener's 3N rebid after Responder's 2/1 is a medium hand (15-17 HCP or ~16-18 if counting distro)

All of is straight out of the ACBL's Club Series and other such elementary teaching texts.

Quote

Quote

3= Most of the time when Opener does not have a good suit nor a 2nd suit nor support for the 2/1 suit, they will have a hand suitable for a 2N rebid given the auction.

This is only true if you are willing to raise responder's hands and make reverses & high reverses on minimum hands. Say Qxxxx Qx AKJxx x. 1S-2H;??

Again, straight from the novice books on Standard American:
A new suit at the Three Level after a 2/1 requires Opener to have a medium+ strength hand. ~15+ HCP or ~16+ if including distribution.
With the given example, the "book bid" is 2N.

Playing Standard American, Raising Responder's minor to the Three level also requires such extras on Opener's part, but now Opener gets to count Dummy Points in making the decision as to whether they have enough extras to raise Responder's to the Three Level.

Quote

I have a strong opinion that high reverses & raising partner's minors without extras is unplayable (at least in a mostly natural context, one could probably conceive some convoluted artificiality to get around this).  If the 2/1 is not GF, then the space consuming bid will get you overboard too often.  Even if the 2/1 is GF, you have problems because of opener's extremely wide range.  If the bid doesn't show extras, responder with extras has a problem.  By bidding conservatively, you get to 3N, but if opener also has extras you miss a slam.  But if you bid aggressively, opener might be min & you go down in 4N or 5m when 3N was cold.  Rebidding 2M before supporting partner or showing the second suit helps to establish your strength range, which aids bidding accuracy.  The only thing you really lose is the inference that a 2M rebid is a really good suit, but as I said this isn't bad as one can probe for doubleton support at the 3 level.  I don't think you lose as much rebidding 2M on bad suits (as long as partner knows this is frequent and doesn't recklessly leap to 4M on small doubletons), as you do by wrongsiding 3N contracts or having to deal with wide strength ranges for minor raises & high reverses.

I (and the books on SA) agree with your general sentiment. I disagree about some of your exact sequences.

Quote

Quote

4= Stephen and others are absolutely wrong about getting to 22 HCP games regularly unless they are playing SA incorrectly. Systemically, Responding hands w/o support for Opener's suit have to be nigh onto GF to make a 2/1 playing SA.

Supposedly 1N is limited to 6-10, there are a lot of 11 counts out there that are going to start with a 2/1 not playing 1NTF. Combine that with openings based on shapely 11 counts, and using the 2NTF rebid, that equals a lot of 22-23 pt games.

The sequence 1foo-1N shows a =minimum= in Standard American. A "minimum" is to some extent context dependent. Clearly, if Responder has a Opening Bid, then they do not have a minimum.

Opener is supposed to pass 1N if and only if they have a minimum in terms of both shape and values or if they can not afford to make any of the bids that would show their shape.

In Practice, the hands Opener bids or passes with end up looking very similar to what Opener does when a pair is playing 1N Semi-forcing.

In addition, I believe it was Stephen in another forum who made a notable comment about "If We have auctions that =Up= grade our hands, then there must also be auctions that =Down= grade our hands or our initial evaluation for our hand was not good enough in the first place."

Hands that would not Open the bidding, even maximum passes, should be downgraded when lacking support for partner nor having a rebiddable suit nor they have no safe sequence for them.

Quote

Quote

The vast majority of 11 HCP 54's and 55's with a singleton in Opener's suit are not good enough to make 2/1's playing Standard! Figure such hands are only worth ~8-9 playing points unless some good news comes to light later in the auction.

Then you are going to miss a lot of decent 14 opposite 11, 15 opposite 11 games this way, after 1M-1nt-all pass. How about all the 11 pt hands with doubleton support for the major?

I see novices making this mistake with 11 HCP 5D+5C hands after a 1M opening all the time. It is a common novice mistake to think that all shapely hands have greater trick taking potential than their HCP value suggests. The reality of course if that shape is only good in the presence of fits. Misfits destroy the potential of hands just as much as fits enhance their potential.

If it goes 1S-1N with a 11 HCP (12)55, or 1(345) hand, and Opener passes with a minimum in terms of both shape and values, the odds of you missing a good game are minimal.

As I said, this is all Standard American as taught to novices.