[paulg]

And what do they respond to 1♠ with:

♠ K 10 x
♥ A Q 10 x
♦ A x x x
♣ x x

(It's a lot to catch up if you have to use a forcing 1NT for this).

We are actually considering making our 2♣ response either natural or balanced, as per Versace/Lauria and Bocchi/Duboin (and I expect others too). This also allows 2♦ to guarantee a 5-card suit.

Paul

[mike777]

cardsharp, on Jun 8 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

And what do they respond to 1♠ with:

♠ K 10 x
♥ A Q 10 x
♦ A x x x
♣ x x

(It's a lot to catch up if you have to use a forcing 1NT for this).

We are actually considering making our 2♣ response either natural or balanced, as per Versace/Lauria and Bocchi/Duboin (and I expect others too). This also allows 2♦ to guarantee a 5-card suit.

Paul

This seems like an easy 2D and then probably 4s rebid, wtp? Even I do not bid 1nt with this one. Again a hand at the margin across from a junky 11 hcp 5=3=3=2 but you got to live with it.
1s(open on junk)=2d(game force)=3d(not extra)=4s(minimum fast arrival) is typical bidding for me.

Marshall Miles advocates 1nt as 100% forcing so 2/1 promises 5 card suit 100% but not my style.

[david_c]

cardsharp, on Jun 8 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

We are actually considering making our 2♣ response either natural or balanced, as per Versace/Lauria and Bocchi/Duboin (and I expect others too). This also allows 2♦ to guarantee a 5-card suit.

Ah good, that saves me pointing it out.

[jchiu]

Hannie, on Jun 8 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

In the US it is quite standard (at least among 2/1 players) to respond 2C with 3+clubs and 2D with 5+. Certainly no player with that agreement would consider 2D.

This is news to me. I have always played 2♥ promising 5+, or a four-card suit that I would open 1♥ third seat with that suit and out; 2♦ and 2♣ promising 4+ except when 3=4=3=3, in which case 2♣. I don't mind bidding 2♦ with four pieces, since opener may bid the catchall 2M, then show support for diamonds. Also, I would never think of bidding 2♣ with a minimum FG hand with 3=4=4=2 shape opposite a 1♠ opener. Bidding where I do not live just hurts partner's evaluation of his hand.

[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Jun 8 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 6 2006, 09:14 PM, said:

This is a style issue and I think if you aren't playing a natural 2N, you'd get votes for a forcing 1N, 2♣, 2♥ and immediate spade raises.

One style issue is that I think many British players would consider 2♣ to be a tactical call with 2♦ being the more normal choice. It is an interesting observation (to me) how many do not appear to have considered 2♦.

And the 3NT bidders appear to have given up on finding a 4-4 heart fit - as Mike says the 4333 shapes normally have a 4-card minor, not the other major.

But clearly no choice is perfect and, unfortunately, you do have to make a bid.

Paul

Obviously we can both quote 'most British players' to our heart's content without being able to prove ourselves right or wrong.

However, I believe the 'British standard' response on this shape - 3433 - is 2C. The current Orange book mentions this specifically, with wording that says a 2-level response that doesn't promise a suit must be alerted, except that exceptionally a 2C response that could be 3433 does not have to be.

I also play that the 'systemic' response on this hand is 2C. I'm quite tempted by 2H, but only because I know I can get out into 4S if necessary.

[kfgauss]

2H is very attractive on this hand, but do note that you'll never be sure of your 4-4 heart fits which can easily play a trick better on this sort of hand. We all love lead-anti-directing bids too, of course.

Andy