[Gerben42]

2♥ with the actual hand, with ♦QJx I bid 3♥.

By the way this is not greatly different from SAYC on the actual hand, except that in SAYC you might be playing 1NT on a 6 - 3 ♥ fit. On the actual hand I am very happy that I am playing 2/1 instead.

[awm]

Well, playing SAYC I could start with 2♥ and plan to rebid 2NT if partner temporizes with 2♠ (which should be the rebid on any minimum opener). Of course this could be too high, but it seems like playing 2/1 you have three options:

(1) Underbid your hand by rebidding 2♥.
(2) Unilaterally decide that you are playing in hearts opposite a minimum by rebidding 3♥.
(3) Suppress the hearts completely by rebidding 2♠ or 2NT.

Playing SAYC you can show the values and at least five of the six hearts, and still end the auction in 2NT if partner has some minimum without a great fit. This gets you to a somewhat better spot opposite the dreaded 5143 minimums. And you can also potentially play 3♦ or 3♠ if partner has some minimum with 5-5 or more in the pointy suits.

Obviously there are hands where it's better to be playing 2/1, most notably a weaker hand with better hearts, where you can guarantee to get to 2♥ and partner might pass 1NT in SAYC. But I don't think this is such a hand.

[Winstonm]

Quote

(1) Underbid your hand by rebidding 2♥.
(2) Unilaterally decide that you are playing in hearts opposite a minimum by rebidding 3♥.
(3) Suppress the hearts completely by rebidding 2♠ or 2NT.

I will respectfully disagree with the above. Bidding 2H in no way underbids the hand as the range of the 1N bid is quite wide, usually 6-12 or thereabouts.

IMO, the one thing you do when playing 2/1 is to sacrifice accuracy at the 2-level in order to bid more games. When the auction starts 1S-1N-2C/2D there is no guarantee of more than a 3-card holding in the bid suit so you immediately start with innaccuracy. To try to stop in exactly 2H after this start is fighting the system that is designed for constructive approaches rather than weak approaches.

It therefore makes most sense to use the 2H bid by responder as a semi-constructive move - a hand that either has long hearts with no tolerance for spades or a hand with 5 or more hearts in the invitational range - in other words a 1-round force if partner has better than minimum - if partner is on a minimum he may pass. The worst that happens is you play 2H on a 5/2 fit with 22/23 combined or play 3H with a least a 6/2 or 7/2 fit in one precise auction: 1S-1N-2C/D-2H-2N-3H. The disadvantage of this method is you cannot bid 2H on x, KJxxx, xx, Qxxxx after 1S-1N-2D-??? (help)

As with all bidding, it is a tradeoff - the one thing that cannot be done is try to use 2H for a weak stop hand or a goodish hand.

IMO, playing 2/1 the flexible bids should be the lowest bids - jumps should have very precise meanings. In this sequence, 1S-1N-2C/2D-3H can be assigned its own meaning dependent on how you chose to use 1S-3H - if 1S-3H is the strongly invitational hand with 6 good hearts then I would use 1S-1N-2C/D-3H as specifically solid 6-card hearts and nothing outside - more of an invite to 3N than 4H.

[pclayton]

Winstonm, on Nov 18 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 17 2006, 11:54 PM, said:

FWIW, I wouldn't respnd 3♥ to 1♠, playing IJS because the ♦QJ are of very questionable value. Once pard bids 2♦ these are very valuable cards.

I don't believe you can assign that much strength to the QJ of diamonds as the 2D bid is only semi-natural playing 2/1. The 2D bid implies that the QJ of diamonds may be worth more but there is not an assurance as partner would be forced to bid 2D with KQxxx, xxx, xxx, AK - KQxxx, Axx, xxx, Kx or the like.

The other problem is that if the QJ of diamonds are of value then the heart K may be worthless when pard holds KQxxx, x, AKxx, xxx.

In my judgement this hand is simply a 2H rebid, which should be slightly constructive - with a very weak hand you would either pass or correct to 2S so when you do bid 2H you should have either a weakish hand with long enough hearts to be O.K. if partner raises to 3 or a semi-constructive hand with as few as 5 hearts.

I think many, if not most, rebid 2♣ on any 5332. Assuing pard has 4+ ♦'s, the QJ are pulling full weight. I agree that the ♥K may be hitting shortness, and perhaps can be discounted.

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on Nov 18 2006, 11:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 18 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 17 2006, 11:54 PM, said:

FWIW, I wouldn't respnd 3♥ to 1♠, playing IJS because the ♦QJ are of very questionable value. Once pard bids 2♦ these are very valuable cards.

I don't believe you can assign that much strength to the QJ of diamonds as the 2D bid is only semi-natural playing 2/1. The 2D bid implies that the QJ of diamonds may be worth more but there is not an assurance as partner would be forced to bid 2D with KQxxx, xxx, xxx, AK - KQxxx, Axx, xxx, Kx or the like.

The other problem is that if the QJ of diamonds are of value then the heart K may be worthless when pard holds KQxxx, x, AKxx, xxx.

In my judgement this hand is simply a 2H rebid, which should be slightly constructive - with a very weak hand you would either pass or correct to 2S so when you do bid 2H you should have either a weakish hand with long enough hearts to be O.K. if partner raises to 3 or a semi-constructive hand with as few as 5 hearts.

I think many, if not most, rebid 2♣ on any 5332. Assuing pard has 4+ ♦'s, the QJ are pulling full weight. I agree that the ♥K may be hitting shortness, and perhaps can be discounted.

I tried that approach for a while but found it less useful to know about the 4D than about 3 or more clubs.

[fred]

Here is what I think:

Since 1NT is not 100% forcing, it is very unlikely that partner has 3 diamonds. With most (if not all) 5(332) hands with less and less than 17 HCP he should either open 1NT or Pass 1NT. If partner thinks he has a hand that falls into the narrow (if it exists) gap between opening 1NT and Passing 1NT, 2/3 of the time he will bid clubs.

I would expect my regular partners to have 4+ diamonds between 90% and 100% of the time (and none of them would ever rebid 2C with specifically 5332).

It is practical to make the assumption that partner's diamonds are real and to bid accordingly.

The more diamonds partner is likely to have, the fewer hearts he is likely to have. It is not unlikely that partner has a singleton heart and, if he does, it is probably not a good idea to suggest hearts as a trump suit - especially, as other posters said, since neither 2H (heavy on high cards) nor 3H (light on hearts) describe this hand well.

If I had to choose one of these calls I think 2H is clear. 3H doesn't just say "invitational" - it is a strong statement about your hearts. Partner should be able to raise 3H to 4H with a singleton heart and an otherwise suitable hand. That is the last thing you want him to do when your hearts are Kxxxxx. 3H says "I think hearts should be trump".

Even if your partnerships can accept bidding 3H with such a weak suit, the not unlikely misfit with respect to hearts and your weak suit suggest being conservative (especially facing a partner who might open light).

But in my regular partnerships we would not have the luxury of bidding 2H - 2H is a convention

The 2H convention does not have a name but here is how it works:

1S-1N-2D-2S is constructive - a good 8 to 10 points with a doubleton spade (we call this a "good preference"). This is what I would bid on the hand in question if I was using the 2H convention.

1S-1N-2D-2H asks partner to bid 2S (which he almost always does) then:

- Pass - less than a good 8 points with 2 spades or a really bad hand with 3 spades
- 2NT - Balanced invitation with 4-card diamond support
- 3C - Invitational
- 3D - Strong invitation
- 3H - Invitational

1S-1N-2D-3C=signoff
1S-1N-2D-3D=Lesser invitation
1S-1N-2D-3H=signoff

What this convention gains: Responder can economically describe almost twice as many hand types as he can without this convention.

What this convention loses: You can't play in 2H.

On the hand in question, that wouldn't really bother me. I would bid 2S and be happy that I had a chance both to show constructive values and to suggest that we might belong in spades. The (unavailable) signoff in 2H does neither of these things.

Partner's diamond length, in addition to making this is a bad hand for hearts, makes this a good hand for spades.

There are plenty of "bad hands" for this convention, but the hand in question is not one of them. Strange (to me at least) to consider that using this convention means that you can't make the plurality (2H) bid anymore, but you don't mind!

My experience of 10 or so years using this convention suggests its "bad hands" are not nearly as frequent as its "good hands". If you play 1NT as 100% forcing and/or are unwilling to open 1NT with a 5-card major (ideally even with "a good 14"), the number of "bad hands" will increase (perhaps to the point that the convention becomes a net loser).

Suggest you don't adapt it except with a serious and regular partner.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com