[kenrexford]

I think there is only one good start for the first four bids, at least one that makes any sense to me:

1♠-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-3♦-P-?

At this point in the auction, however, I like Opener bidding 3♥. Several reasons:

1. Responder might make a delayed raise of spadees (3♠). Opener has no reason to suspect that Responder might not have Qx in spades, but Opener knows that Opener has xxx in diamonds.

2. Opener can "convert" the heart call to a diamond-fit cuebid if he so desires. Thus, if Responder bids 3NT, Opener can convert to 4♣, which tells Responder that 3♥ was actually an advanced cue in support of diamonds. Further, as can be seen, he sneaks in a club cue also. (Possibly K-R-S?)

3. If Responder does something weird, like a 4♣ call, Opener is not poorly placed.

This creates a slight problem for Responder, of course. I believe he should support the spades now, setting trumps. He rebid diamonds because of the seven-bagger and poor support, but now's the time. 3♠.

Now, all kinds of weird rocket science starts up. However, the end position seems interesting. So, fair warning...

The key to this is that Opener must induce a diamond cue from Responder, and assure that he is so doing, to make the next call obvious. My choice would be a low-ball 4♣ (non-serious, club control), as it is one below what I want to hear. Responder will comply and cue 4♦.

This allows Opener to bid 5♦. When spades are agreed, a five-level call (K-R-S) is often Exclusion, but not when you just induced a cue showing two of the top three and then immediately bid 5♦; you could have bid 5♦ directly with that holding. 5♦, in this sequence, would be RKCB, but with the diamond King and Queen shown as Keys rather than the spade King and Queen. Opener knows that he can live, in 7♦ (or 6♦ for that matter) without the spade Queen.

Responder shows two with the queen (6♣), unfortunately. The grand ain't being bid. So, 6♦.

[helene_t]

1♠-2♦
2♠-3♦
4♣-4♦ (minorwood)
5♠(2)-6♦
pass

2N as responder's second bid is not good IMHO. If opener cannot bid 3♥ over 3♦, 3N is not the good place.

For an initial 3♦ I think the hand is too weak.

[skjaeran]

I totally agree with all who rebids 3♦ as responder when this is forcing. It's important to get across to partner that you've got an excellent suit.

[keylime]

Here's why I think bidding 2♠ on autopilot is not necessarily best.

What will partner rebid on a minimum 5-x-3-x, balanced hand? If they rebid 2S as well to show this hand type, how can responder after rebidding 3D (which I like Adam's strong jump shift concept in a SAYC context) ever go right after opener rebids 3NT because they don't want to get past the ideal game and then go down because we're wide open in a suit while we've got a viable diamond suit we're sitting on to play?

This is a reason why I don't play 2/1 without some understandings; there are people that swear up and down that 2♠ rebid here is ensuring six spades versus some that state that 2♠ here is showing a degree of lack thereof of values (likewise the 2NT rebid from opener being a catchall versus value showing).

This construction is a problematic one for many that will land at 3NT instead of 6D.

[kenberg]

Jlall, on Aug 17 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

1S-2D-2S-3D-4D-4H-4N-5S-6D

This seems right to me. A question. A partner and I have been thinking of putting kickback into our system If so, does it apply here?

1S-2D-2S-3D-4H?

Kickback takes priority over splinters, right? And I trust that this is not an offer to play 4H.

I have always been a little wary of kickback, expecting it to sooner or later land me in a silly contract through misunderstanding. Any thoughts?

I hope this is not a hijacking of the original Q. Given the general "How do we bid this" form it seems reasonably in line.

Ken

Added: If you have agreed to play kickback and the auction begins 1S-2D-2S-3D-4D then 4H is kickback rather than the ace of hearts or whatever?

[kenrexford]

kenberg, on Aug 18 2007, 08:19 AM, said:

A question.

[kickback]

I would have thought that, whether you play Kickback or Out-of-Focus Major as RKCB for diamonds (this time, both are 4♥), that either Opener OR Responder, by bidding 4♥, would be asking. Opener would elect 4♦ to allow Responder to ask, or could bid 4♥ himself to ask. Either bidding 4NT is either Exclusion for Hearts, or a sign-off suggestion, depending upon the needs/logic of the auction.

The one thing I find somewhat strange in jlall's auction (probably done to maintain the simplicity of the auction and not toss a "strange" call into a "basic" 2/1 auction) is the election by Opener of the 4♦ call, rather than a 4♣ call. 4♣ seems like it must be a cue in support.

However, it is also plausible for 4♣ to be choice, but I would expect Opener to simply bid 4♦ with that hand and for Responder to have the option of choicing out a 4♠ call if appropriate.

[kenrexford]

keylime, on Aug 18 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

Here's why I think bidding 2♠ on autopilot is not necessarily best.

What will partner rebid on a minimum 5-x-3-x, balanced hand? If they rebid 2S as well to show this hand type, how can responder after rebidding 3D (which I like Adam's strong jump shift concept in a SAYC context) ever go right after opener rebids 3NT because they don't want to get past the ideal game and then go down because we're wide open in a suit while we've got a viable diamond suit we're sitting on to play?

The problem with your problem is that you assume a strange auction. If 2♠ does not promise a sixth spade in the technique described, then why is Opener, after a rebid of 3♦, bidding 3NT? Wouldn't Opener bid 3♥ or 3♠ with the sixth spade if systemically not promising a sixth spade earlier?

If the style is such that 2♠ promises no more length, and neither 3♥ nor 3♠ is allowed after 3♦, and 3♦ is a call that is made without protection for this sequence, then the style does seem flawed, but that seems dumb.

[jdonn]

keylime, on Aug 18 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

Here's why I think bidding 2♠ on autopilot is not necessarily best.

What will partner rebid on a minimum 5-x-3-x, balanced hand? If they rebid 2S as well to show this hand type, how can responder after rebidding 3D (which I like Adam's strong jump shift concept in a SAYC context) ever go right after opener rebids 3NT because they don't want to get past the ideal game and then go down because we're wide open in a suit while we've got a viable diamond suit we're sitting on to play?

This is a reason why I don't play 2/1 without some understandings; there are people that swear up and down that 2♠ rebid here is ensuring six spades versus some that state that 2♠ here is showing a degree of lack thereof of values (likewise the 2NT rebid from opener being a catchall versus value showing).

This construction is a problematic one for many that will land at 3NT instead of 6D.

Over 3♦, with 6 spades opener can bid them a third time, and anyway if opener raises to 4♦ now on a hand like the actual one, responder can bid 4♠ not forcing on a doubleton. So I don't see the problem you are seeing. I have to agree with the others that a 2♠ rebid seems obvious.

[Winstonm]

1S-2D
2S-2N
3D-3H
3S-4D
4H-5C
6D

[pclayton]

I think many of you are complicating a rather simple hand. One at a time:

1S - Duh

2D - Duh

2S - More Duh. 3D on xxx is wrong looking at AKJxxx.

3D - Even more duh. 2N is for control freaks.

3H - This is either a probe for 3N or an advance cue for diamonds. In my style 2S denies 4H.

4C - whatever pard has in mind - 3N is wrong.

4D - confirms diamond support

5C (or 4N)

6D.

[kenberg]

pclayton, on Aug 18 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

I think many of you are complicating a rather simple hand. One at a time:

1S - Duh

2D - Duh

2S - More Duh. 3D on xxx is wrong looking at AKJxxx.

3D - Even more duh. 2N is for control freaks.

3H - This is either a probe for 3N or an advance cue for diamonds.  In my style 2S denies 4H.

4C - whatever pard has in mind - 3N is wrong.

4D - confirms diamond support

5C (or 4N) 

6D.

After 1S-2D-2S-3D-3H it is true that as responder I would avoid 3N. I would, however, bid 3S. The 2S bid did not, as I play, promise six cards but it didn't deny six either and it would seem to me that it is time to show my tolerance of spades. Partner will not expect three since I would have raised 2S to 3S.

When partner bid 2S over 2D he either has six cards or else he has five and doesn't think highly of NT. On some hands like that, 4S in the 5-2 fit may be the best shot at game.

[Winstonm]

Quote

3D - Even more duh. 2N is for control freaks.

2N is for those whose 3D is non-forcing in this auction.

[hoolie]

kenberg: "I think many of you are complicating a rather simple hand."

That is true but not in the way you think. Several of the comments did
not seem to be that familiar with 2/1. The 2/1 2D bid is forcing to game
and shows a good suit. It is a principle of 2/1 to establish the trump suit
early on since you are not in danger of being passed. Thus the 3D raise
1S P 2D P
3D
is dictated by the 2/1 system in all 5 of the books I've read as fixing the
trump suit and showing extra values, 15+ HCP. The question of whether
spades is a superior trump suit does not arise. The value of this 3D
systemic treatment is to improve slam bidding and is pretty basic.

Because of that good 7 card suit, responder's hand is worth 17+ points
and can almost bid 6D strait away because opener shows extra values.
So responder can initiate RKC blackwood and discover one missing key
card, so no GS, but 6NT is very likely to make with opener having 2 K's
and 2 aces or 3 Kings and one ace and a queen. If the spade suit is
funky, say K-J, then 6D or 6NT has the same problem facing xx. The
6NT idea comes from Kaplan's book on RKC which is not at all basic.
So I agree with keylime who presented the usual expert exposition and
which is still part of the basic level of system bids in this case and can be
found in the Lawrence 2/1 Workbook and Hardy's 21st Century, vol 1/2.

[gwnn]

Yea I wonder how this can be bid in SAYC or where repeat of 2/1 suit is NF. I know that wasn't the point of the opening post, but it would seem somewhat redundant to open another thread.

[han]

hoolie, on Aug 28 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

...in all 5 of the books I've read....

I recommend reading more before you talk more.

[hoolie]

Winstonm: "2N is for those whose 3D is non-forcing in this auction."

3D would not be forcing playing Lawrence style: 1S - 2D - 2S -3D

The 3D rebid by opener rather than 2S does not rate as positive as "extra values"
like I thought: Lawrence "(1) When opener raises responder's minor suit, he does
promise a little more than a minimum. It is not the same as when opener raises
responder's major."

Thus 1S - 2D -2S - 2NT, looks better since it is game forcing with Lawrence style,
and the hand has no singleon. It shows a tolerance for spades but not as good
as Qx. Then I think opener can show a preference to diamonds rather than rebid
his spade suit for the 3rd time. Since the trump suit has been fixed at the 3 level,
then responder can explore slam using RKC for minors.

[the hog]

Hannie, on Aug 29 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

hoolie, on Aug 28 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

...in all 5 of the books I've read....

I recommend reading more before you talk more.

I don't think there are that many books on 2/1, so if he has read 5 of them, that is actually quite a lot. Have you read 5 books on 2/1?

[han]

Jokes are never funny when you have to explain them. This one probably wasn't even funny to start with.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Aug 28 2007, 11:25 PM, said:

Jokes are never funny when you have to explain them. This one probably wasn't even funny to start with.

I disagree, this one got funnier when Ron didn't get it