[pclayton]

Had a discussion on VG yesterday about this sequence:

1♠ - 1N
2♣ - 2♦
2♠

1N was by a passed hand, and is SF.

What kind of hand is implied by 2♠:

1. AKxxxx, x, xx, AQxx
2. AQJxx, xx, x, Axxxx

or is it something else?

[Fluffy]

is 2♦ to play?

Then my guess is 6-4, with strong clubs 15-17

My guess is KJ8xxx, x, Ax, AQJx

[Codo]

6-4 in the blacks no additional strength

[helene_t]

Hand 1 is typical. Hand 2 might have passed 2♦.

Although 2♠ certainly doesn't deny extra strength (responder is allowed to make a game try) I don't think it should promise extra strength either. I know some play that a minimum 6-4 must rebid 2♠ rather than 2♣ and if you have that agreement, this sequence does of course show extras

[whereagles]

In Europe this would tend to show a 6-4 with no particular extras.
In the US it is, I believe, a 6-4 with extras (~15-17).

I kinda like the US version best.

[ArcLight]

In 2/1 the 2♦ shows a weak hand, with 6 or more ♦, not enough for an invitational jump shift (if they are even on by a passed hand because you would have had the option to preempt).

I can't imagine bidding on.
I'd pass with either:
AKxxxx, x, xx, AQxx
AQJxx, xx, x, Axxxx


Opener knows responder is weak. With a great hand opener needs to make a forcing bid which they didnt.

2♠ must show a hand that hates ♦. Probably a ♦ void.
Maybe 6♠ and 5♣? Or 5-5 or 6-4.

[inquiry]

Yzerman had a number of post on rebids by opener after a forcing 1NT... some of these were quite good... here are links to two of them. It is a shame he stopped posting here, he posted good stuff......

6 card major after 1NT forcing

Requirements for Rebids After (1M-1N)

[jdonn]

First hand seems perfect. Second hand should take its lumps in 2♦.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on May 25 2007, 07:27 AM, said:

First hand seems perfect. Second hand should take its lumps in 2♦.

Thats what I was discussing with the other commentators. They were saying a 'weak, distributional hand unsuitable for 2♦.

I said its best to play this as a strong sequence, and practically forcing.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on May 25 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 25 2007, 07:27 AM, said:

First hand seems perfect. Second hand should take its lumps in 2♦.

Thats what I was discussing with the other commentators. They were saying a 'weak, distributional hand unsuitable for 2♦.

I said its best to play this as a strong sequence, and practically forcing.

Correct... This is the point of the Yzerman series. With a weak hand and 6♠ rebid 2♠ directly over 1NT. Only introduce a minor when you hold a six card major when you ahve a strong hand. His arguement, which I supported in a number of threads was that hand 1 should be bid this way. His second argument wat that 1M-1NT-2m was almost "forcing". Responder with 2S could not pass even with 4 card in the m... he had to raise to 2M.

[jdonn]

I don't believe the auction should promise significant extras, the first hand is ideal. A nice minimum that will do great in either suit if it finds a fit is fine. Partner is allowed to raise and can do so much more accurately than if you had just rebid 2♠. Like if he has Qx Jxxxxx Kxx Kx he will raise when he would have passed a 2♠ rebid, and I will continue on to game because my hand is so pure.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 25 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

I don't believe the auction should promise significant extras, the first hand is ideal. A nice minimum that will do great in either suit if it finds a fit is fine. Partner is allowed to raise and can do so much more accurately than if you had just rebid 2♠. Like if he has Qx Jxxxxx Kxx Kx he will raise when he would have passed a 2♠ rebid, and I will continue on to game because my hand is so pure.

I think the point about having extras is valid, it's just that the extras may very well be shape.

You need a lot less HCP to continue bidding after 1M-1N;2C-2D; with some shapes than with others.

Nonetheless, I agree that
1. ♠AKxxxx♥x♦xx♣AQxx
Should bid this way
This has 5 losers and 5/7 of the controls we need for 3N or 4M. We also have a D fit.
In my world, all of those are extra's compared to a minimum opening.

This OTOH
2. ♠AQJxx♥xx♦x♣ Axxxx
simply stinks on this auction and should pass 2D.
This is a minimum that has gotten worse as the auction progresses.

[han]

I don't like to rebid 2S on all minimal hands. It seems a crime anytime I'm 6-5, and I would certainly pull to 2S with those hands.

So I'm voting for 6 spades, likely short diamonds, no game interest.

[mike777]

pclayton, on May 25 2007, 06:02 AM, said:

Had a discussion on VG yesterday about this sequence:

1♠ - 1N
2♣ - 2♦
2♠

1N was by a passed hand, and is SF.

What kind of hand is implied by 2♠:

1. AKxxxx, x, xx, AQxx
2. AQJxx, xx, x, Axxxx

or is it something else?

I am a bit surprised that you are not playing BART
1s=1nt
2c(BART)

If not why not just pass 2D?

[whereagles]

nice posts by yzerman, though they include that dreaded US school phoney jump-shift on 63s which I terminantly hate

[foo]

whereagles, on May 25 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

nice posts by yzerman, though they include that dreaded US school phoney jump-shift on 63s which I terminantly hate

There's a treatment played by Karen McCallum and a few others where

1M-1N;3C! is an alertable "phony jump shift" that actually makes a decent amount of sense.

[han]

If you play that 3C guarantees a phony JS then you must have some other way of showing a strong hand with clubs.

Perhaps more common is to play 1S-1NT-3C as a multi way bid. 3D asks and then:

3H = 5-4 in the majors, GF
3S = single suited GF
3NT = at least 5-4 in spades and clubs, GF.

Alternatively you could scrap the single suited hand and play that 3S shows at least 6-4 in the black suits.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on May 25 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

If you play that 3C guarantees a phony JS then you must have some other way of showing a strong hand with clubs.

Perhaps more common is to play 1S-1NT-3C as a multi way bid. 3D asks and then:

3H = 5-4 in the majors, GF
3S = single suited GF
3NT = at least 5-4 in spades and clubs, GF.

Alternatively you could scrap the single suited hand and play that 3S shows at least 6-4 in the black suits.

Thats how it was taught to me.

[han]

I played this with Ch00 in the Spingold last year and it came up. And guess what, I actually didn't forget! (I vaguely remember I had 5-4 in the majors)

This is a gadget where the alerts could definitely work in your favor. If you bid 3C intending it as a natural jumpshift and partner alerts you can bid 3NT to show the hand with clubs. Only an unusually ethical player would then intentionally misbid at his or her next turn. Would you?

[jdonn]

Hannie, on May 25 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

If you play that 3C guarantees a phony JS then you must have some other way of showing a strong hand with clubs.

Perhaps more common is to play 1S-1NT-3C as a multi way bid. 3D asks and then:

3H = 5-4 in the majors, GF
3S = single suited GF
3NT = at least 5-4 in spades and clubs, GF.

Alternatively you could scrap the single suited hand and play that 3S shows at least 6-4 in the black suits.

I got the idea to switch 3♠ with 3NT. That way you can bid 3♠ first then pull when you have extra shape (5-5 on certain hands, else 6-5), instead of risking partner passing. And when you have the spade hand you can utilize all the bids 3NT+, maybe to show a side fragment of strength.