[grbradt]

When making a 2/1 game force bid, is there any minimum suit quality for the suit bid? And specifically for the auction 1♦-2♣, is ♣Qxxxx sufficient quality? Thanks!

[Stephen Tu]

No, there is no minimum suit quality for the bid, although 1♠-2♥ is assumed by most to promise a 5 cd suit.

How good the suit is will be influenced by other factors, particularly if you have other methods to show a balanced GF. Some like to use natural GF 2nt (as described in Fred Gitelman's articles at the bridgebase.com site), some use an absolutely 1RF 1nt response with some artificial 2nd rnd jump rebids (Miles), others like 2♣ to be bal GF or clubs w/ some artificial followups. Without such methods & using 2nt as a raise, one has to bid 2/1 on a lot of mediocre 4 baggers, plus occasional 3 bagger if 3433.

Having a bal GF bid will allow an alternative bid on many hands with bad 4 cd suits, so opener can assume 5 cd suit or good 4 cd suit.

Also the specific sequnce you mention, 1♦-2♣ is a special case, many people who play 2/1 GF over a major do not do so after this sequence. This is a special case because you don't have a forcing NT response to deal with game-invitational hands. If you play this, you need to make other compromises such as 1♦-3♣ & 1♦-2nt invitational rather than forcing otherwise you will have holes in the system.

[Winstonm]

The entire concept of 2/1 as a game force is predicated on the ability to use 1N as a forcing call to define hands just short of a game force. A 1D opening eliminates the use of forcing 1N; therefore, 1D/2C should not be considered game forcing.

An example for the reasoning - you hold: xxx, KJx, x, AQJ9xx. Quite a reasonable hand but certainly not strong enough to force to game unilaterally.
The only reasonable solution over 1D is to bid 2C naturally but not as a game force.

On the other hand, over 1H with xxx, x, KJx, AQJ9xx, you can depending on methods bid 1N followed by 3C or 3C directly as an invitational sequence. This feature is lacking after a 1D opening bid.

[kenrexford]

This Q depends upon the particular school/agreements you reach, as discussed. It is sort of like whether you play a forcing notrump or not using Standard American. I'd suggest getting a general feel for as many different schools of thought on this issue and then pick one you like (or partner likes) and learn that school well.

My personal preference is for a GF 2♣, as an artificial bid. This does occasionally cause two possible problem-hand solutions, whether (a.) a rare 3-card major response or, more likely, (b.) 1NT on 5-11, possibly wildly unbalanced (long clubs).

This problem also explains some of the recent trend (recent among some top players it seems, but I've been doing this with many folks for years) to default to a 1♣ opening on all balanced hands (even 3352), reserving a 1♦ opening for unbalanced hands (at least a stiff somewhere or rebiddable diamonds). Using this approach, the problem vanishes as a practical issue. With 3316, for instance, you will usually have interference unless partner has some 3451/4351-ish hand where NT is probably the end contract anyway.

[EricK]

If I may I would like to extend the OP by asking if it makes a difference whether you have a fit with partner's suit or not.

eg partner opens 1♠ and we have
♠x ♥Txxxx ♦AKJx ♣KQx is everyone agreed that we should bid 2♥ here?
Now suppose we have
♠KQx ♥Txxxx ♦AKJx ♣x do we still all mention the ♥ suit?

[Blofeld]

I wouldn't mention the ♥ suit in the second case, EricK; instead I'd bid 2♦. This is because if we go slamming I don't want partner to devalue heart shortage, and also I want to play in spades rather than hearts (may be tricky if partner raises a 2♥ bid).

[whereagles]

xxx is enough for me. As in

♠ Axx
♥ Axx
♦ KQxx
♣ xxx

[EricK]

Blofeld, on Sep 16 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

I wouldn't mention the ♥ suit in the second case, EricK; instead I'd bid 2♦. This is because if we go slamming I don't want partner to devalue heart shortage, and also I want to play in spades rather than hearts (may be tricky if partner raises a 2♥ bid).

Suppose I make the hand ♠xx ♥Txxxx ♦AKJ ♣KQx (and you don't have a natural 2NT or 3NT bid available)?

[mike777]

EricK, on Sep 16 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

Blofeld, on Sep 16 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

I wouldn't mention the ♥ suit in the second case, EricK; instead I'd bid 2♦. This is because if we go slamming I don't want partner to devalue heart shortage, and also I want to play in spades rather than hearts (may be tricky if partner raises a 2♥ bid).

Suppose I make the hand ♠xx ♥Txxxx ♦AKJ ♣KQx (and you don't have a natural 2NT or 3NT bid available)?

If you open balanced 11 counts, I do, then I bid one semiforcing NT. Yes that means we may play 1NT.

IF you make the hand stronger but still with weak 5hearts, I bid 2H.

Typical emphasis on the majors at the expense of the minors.