[Apollo81]

IMPs, all NV, partner was 1st seat.

♠AJ54
♥A4
♦K7
♣107654

1♥ - 2♣*
2♥**- 2♠
3♣ - ????

* game forcing
** any higher bid would have shown some extra

Please answer the poll in the context of the auction and methods in use at the table before complaining about them. Complain about them afterwards

-Noble

[pclayton]

3♥ looks cheap and sensible to me. I don't see the point of 3♦ and 3N is too much with a suspect source of tricks in clubs and a tenuous diamond stop.

I'm sure your opponent did something else otherwise this hand wouldn't be posted.

[inquiry]

OMG, really. I have to choose an impossible bid? Ok.. close my eyes and bid 4H (which I hope in this context is a signoff, but I doubt it). If 4H is more encouraging the way you play than 3H, then I bid 3H (voted for 3H). I can't bid 3NT if partner can only bid 2H then over my "reverse" bid 3C.

Ok, so I made an impossible bid there, now I can comment on the bidding. What in the world is this player thinking bidding 2C and then reversing? First, I would respond 1S and if partner bids 1NT, I would only invite to game, not force to game. Second, if I bid 1S and partner rebids 2H, at least I know he has six of them. Third, if I bid 1S and partner bids 2D I can bid some number of notrump with more confidence. Fourth, if I bid 1S and partner bids 2C that brings 5 and 6C into play as possible contracts without me having promised a club suit I more or less lack. Fifth, it keeps me from accidently making the dreadful choice of reversing into spades that somehow occurred on the given auction.

[Walddk]

3♥; shows what I have: Hx. I would bid 3♦ (no clear direction) on

AJxx
xx
Kx
A10xxx

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3NT.

My partner know, that I wont have a single in their
suit 99% of the time, i.e. if opener holds a 6 card
suit he will always correct to 4H.

3D ask about a diamond stopper, 3H shows secondary
support, but partner will be endplayed, if he lacks the
diamond stopper.

I wont complain about the methods, but I complain
about the 2C game force.
What is wrong with 1 NT, selling the hand as bal. 10-12?

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: After reading Bens comment, I agree, that showing
the spades is better than the forcing NT, but Ben certainly
will also agree, that 1NT is better than 2C.

[inquiry]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 11 2006, 09:51 AM, said:

PS: After reading Bens comment, I agree, that showing
the spades is better than the forcing NT, but Ben certainly
will also agree, that 1NT is better than 2C.

LOL.. anything is better than 2♣... yes 1NT is much, much better than 2♣.

[Echognome]

I wouldn't condemn 2♣ out of hand. For all we know, Al Roth is sitting across and we don't mind GF-ing on this hand. If I bid this way up until now I bid 3♥.

[mike777]

Apollo81, on Jul 11 2006, 09:29 AM, said:

IMPs, all NV, partner was 1st seat.

♠AJ54
♥A4
♦K7
♣107654

1♥ - 2♣*
2♥**- 2♠
3♣ - ????

* game forcing
** any higher bid would have shown some extra

Please answer the poll in the context of the auction and methods in use at the table before complaining about them. Complain about them afterwards

-Noble

Given these methods, 2c =game force and 2H promises minimum hand.
If 2c=game force than opener must have at least this to open and be minumum.



Kx....KQxxx.....xx...AQx
or
Kx....KQJxx....xx.....AJx

[Walddk]

Ben won't be surprised to hear that I don't mind that responder treats his hand as good enough for a game force. If it is, I agree that one should bid one's longer suit first.

♥A makes all the difference to me.

AJxx
xx
AK
xxxxx

and I would bid 1♠.

Roland

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Jul 11 2006, 10:18 AM, said:

I wouldn't condemn 2♣ out of hand. For all we know, Al Roth is sitting across and we don't mind GF-ing on this hand. If I bid this way up until now I bid 3♥.

I don't mind forcing to game or treating this hand forcing to game. What I mind is 2C followed by 2S. This hand is no where in the neighborhood of that auction. You know you CAN BID 1S and then still force to game if you like?

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Jul 11 2006, 10:23 AM, said:

Ben won't be surprised to hear that I don't mind that responder treats his hand as good enough for a game force. If it is, I agree that one should bid one's longer suit first.

♥A makes all the difference to me.

AJxx
xx
AK
xxxxx

and I would bid 1♠.

Roland

I typically treat xxxxx as a four card suit, if I have any other alternative. Here I have another alternative, namely 1♠. Also, note, if you evalaute this as a game forcing hand, you can force to game after 1♠ anyway.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 11 2006, 10:20 AM, said:

Given these methods, 2c =game force and 2H promises minimum hand.
If 2c=game force than opener must have at least this to open and be minumum.

In most versions of 2/1 (all of them known to me) 2♥ does NOT show a minimum: it is essentially unlimited, but it does exclude certain hand-types: thus opener will not have a ♥ suit that looks like AKQJxx. But he may well hold 18 or 19 hcp. One of the main advantages flowing from 2/1 is the ability to conserve bidding space... this comes with some costs as well, especially when both players are in the 15-16 range: sometimes the auction bogs down in 3N.

As it is, I would have chosen 2♣ for much the same reason as Roland: I like the ♥A and I like the controls.

Wild horses could not get me to bid a forcing 1N. Maybe, just maybe, I'd conside it if playing F******y, but not otherwise: show me a convincing auction to 4♠ opposite KQxx Kxxxx x AQx after 1♥ 1N....

If partner were a known aggressive opener and not a great declarer, then I'd bid 1♠.

On the given auction, I bid a reluctant 3♥.... 3♦ would, for me, tend to suggest concern about ♦ for NT purposes while denying significant interest in ♥, and I don't quite have that hand.

I do not think that this 3♥ shows more than Hx in ♥: had I held primary ♥ support, I would have raised a round earlier...one of the advantages of 2/1 is that I could make a forcing 3♥ call last time, leaving all kinds of room for slam exploration. So this sequence is not an overbid, but I still don't like my hand for the auction to date.

However, there are many sequences after 1♠ or (shudder) 1N in which I would be uncomfortable as well... altho (I suspect) not opposite partner's actual hand.

[Stephen Tu]

Nowhere in the neighborhood? At most it is a jack away. Yes, one can bid 1s and GF later, but ...
- you won't ever be able to show longer club later, partner with 4 clubs will never believe 9 cd fit. Yes your clubs are terrible but sometimes partner has AKJ.
- on some auctions partner will be led to believe you have 5+ sp.
- sometimes you lose club suit entirely. Partner 0-5-4-4, if his style is to rebid 2d ...

[joshs]

I have a strong opinion on this hand. You want to suggest 3N without committing yourself to playing 3N (4H might be right instead. In fact 4S or 5C might even be right.). The way you do that is you bid 3D and then 3N if you are still not sure that something else is better. This sequence shows something in diamonds, but doubt about 3N. Here, do to your sharp values in the pointed suits, if partner bids 3H over 3D you probably should just raise (he usually will have 6 hearts, or 5 very strong hearts and no help in diamonds). If partner bids 3S, you can bid 3N next expecting partner to probably pull this (If he bids 4C next I will bid 4H keeping all 3 strains in play). If partner bids 4C over 3D you can bid 4H and offer partner a choice.

[whereagles]

I'll be practical and bid 3NT.

Apollo's methods after 2/1 are quite in line with what I advocate

[Apollo81]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 12:51 PM, said:

I'll be practical and bid 3NT.

Apollo's methods after 2/1 are quite in line with what I advocate

In my infrequent 2/1 partnerships I prefer:

* using 2♦ (or 2NT if 2♦ not available) as opener's "default rebid" if available so that a 2M rebid actually means 6+ most of the time

* using 1♥-2m-2♠ as not showing extras so that responder can rebid 2NT on a hand like ♠AQxx ♥Ax ♦Kx ♣10xxxx

* 2♣ response to 1M frequently made on a 3-card suit to allow opener room to make the 2♦ default bid. 1M-2♦ shows 5+

I do believe in cutting partner a little slack on his openings, (and hope for the same in return) so I would probably respond 1♠ and raise 1NT to only 2. If partner rebids 2 of any suit, my hand contains far too many working cards to merely invite, so I would bid either 3NT or 4 of our major fit depending on the rebid.

[SoTired]

I bid 3H. 3N is premature as partner may have xx in diam. Are you sure you can run 9 tricks without giving up the lead?

I see nothing wrong with bidding 2C followed by 2S. I also see little wrong with responding 1S and treating the clubs as 4-card. I think it is more accurate to bid 2C. I don't think the 2S rebid showed any extra strength than the original 2C did.

[inquiry]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

Nowhere in the neighborhood? At most it is a jack away. Yes, one can bid 1s and GF later, but ...
- you won't ever be able to show longer club later, partner with 4 clubs will never believe 9 cd fit. Yes your clubs are terrible but sometimes partner has AKJ.
- on some auctions partner will be led to believe you have 5+ sp.
- sometimes you lose club suit entirely. Partner 0-5-4-4, if his style is to rebid 2d ...

The "isn't in the neighboorhood" comment wasn't for the 2♣ bid, it is the responder reverse holding that horrible hand (for a reverse (2C followed by 2S). I have no qualms forcing to game within a 2/1 context with this hand. I do have problems reversing then supporting heart or cue-bdding diamonds or "retreating" to 3NT after partner support clubs. The reason is he will have QUITE A DIFFERENT view of my values. I suspect he will bid on with all but the most minimum values.

So you can bid 2C and give up on spades if partner rebid 2H, that is fine, but I can not see 2C followed by a reverse. If partner is 0544 and rebids 2D (better diamonds), then I suspect you will still do ok with either a 2NT (not GF) or 3NT rebid. Over 2NT, opener with a void will surely pattern out, and over 3NT where you didn't check back, proabably patterns out as well.

[hatchett]

3♥, I have about the best heart holding I could have for the auction to date. 3NT would sound like 4135, with a good diamond holding to me and is far too committal.

[mikeh]

Ben, in most 2/1 methods, the 2♠ is not a reverse... it shows no values beyond that required for a game force... it merely patterns out.

Requiring that responder have extra values, beyond a mere gf, to bid 2♠ here makes the whole system a mess, especially if (as many play) the auction 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ by opener does suggest at least some extra values... does this smack of inconsistency, in that the 'reverse' by opener shows extras while that by responder does not? Maybe, but the situations are quite different in that, to the extent that captaincy exists or is about to be assumed in the 2/1 sequence, it is responder who is more likely to be or to become captain, so opener's rebids are somewhat more constrained.

I recognize that not everyone agrees that opener's rebid is so constrained (this is similar to the arguments about whether 1♠ 2♥ 3♣ shows extras).

However, no matter which school, you belong to in terms of opener's rebids, I doubt that more than a small minority ascribe to the idea that responder's 2♠ bid shows any more values than were shown by 2♣.