[Double !]

This hand was the subject of considerable discussion during a small, after-game. chat room.

game is imps/ imp pairs/ whatever
opps are vul, you are not

You hold the following: ♠ 3, ♥ AT652, ♦ QT8, ♣ AQ93.

You are playing 2/1GF with no unusual conventions other than your misbids.

Partner opens One Spade. Pass on you right. Your bid. (More to come on openers hand later. I promise. )

DHL


note: Please try to limit the "wtp"s. Thank you.

[han]

Close but yes.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Aug 27 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

Close but yes.

Unfair, you already know the hand!! lolololol.

DHL

[mike777]

Double !, on Aug 27 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

This hand was the subject of considerable discussion during a small, after-game. chat room.

game is imps/ imp pairs/ whatever
opps are vul, you are not

You hold the following:  ♠ 3, ♥ AT652, ♦ QT8, ♣ AQ93.

You are playing 2/1GF with no unusual conventions other than your misbids.

Partner opens One Spade.  Pass on you right.  Your bid.   (More to come on openers hand later.  I promise.   )

DHL


note:  Please try to limit the "wtp"s.  Thank you.

Game force, good grief no.......We may have many more hcp than partner has for his opening bid. Do you see what people open on.

give partner:
KTxxx..void....Axxx....Kxxx
Yes people will open that nv....

[gwnn]

I hate forcing NT on 5 hearts. Just force to game.

[hrothgar]

As folks are not doubt aware, I don't play 2/1 GF unless I am also playing fairly sound openings. Consequently, I consider this a pretty clear GF...

[joshs]

Double !, on Aug 27 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

This hand was the subject of considerable discussion during a small, after-game. chat room.

game is imps/ imp pairs/ whatever
opps are vul, you are not

You hold the following: ♠ 3, ♥ AT652, ♦ QT8, ♣ AQ93.

You are playing 2/1GF with no unusual conventions other than your misbids.

Partner opens One Spade. Pass on you right. Your bid. (More to come on openers hand later. I promise. )

DHL


note: Please try to limit the "wtp"s. Thank you.

The answer is maybe not if you open very light, but you should game force anyway (and quite frankly aces are good!) and this is not a close decision here. One of the main principles in bridge bidding (and the reason for palying 2/1 game forcing) is if you have a choice between:
a. making sure you are at the right level
b. making sure you are in the right strain

You should choose strain.

This is a complex hand that could belong in any one of 5 strains. Starting with a forcing NT, just leaves you stuck on the next round (what do you bid over 2m by partner? 2H doesn't show the values, and its usually based on 6H, and 2N can lose the hearts). Would it suprise you to end up in 2N down, when 4H makes, or in 2H down, when 3N makes? Besides if partner has a big 2 suiter, you might belong in a minor suit game or even slam. Besides, there is a game bonus....

There are two hand types which are trouble in 2/1:
a. Game INV with exactly 5H over a 1S opener
b. Constructive with a stiff in opener's major, and no strong suit of your own.

There is not much you can do about b (other then switching to a strong club system), but with a, whenever reasonable, force to game. That will at least insure you get strain correct.

[kenrexford]

Joshs wrote exactly what I was about to write. A decision to force game does not offer a guarantee that you will make game or that game is even a good bet. A decision to force game is a tactical one that pays best in the long run.

All that said, incorporating all joshs said, leads me to the conclusion that 2♥ GF is the right response. I reach that decision quite confortably when I assess whether I'd like to declare 3NT opposite a 6-4 9-count with primes, the worst-case horrifying possibility. If partner has some mess like KQ109xx-x-A9xx-xx, this will not be an easy contract and may easily fail, but I still have a prayer.

[pbleighton]

I also agree with Josh.

This hand is a good example of why I don't like 2/1.

Peter

[ArtK78]

It all depends on what your agreements are concerning opening hands.

With most partners, this would be a game forcing hand for me. But with some more agressive partners I would like to be able to get out short of game. If you play 2/1 GF then you should play BART (or something similar) opposite a 1♠ opening so that you can deal with hands with hearts that have less than game forcing values. If you play 2/1 GF and you do not play anything special after a 1♠ opening, you will find yourself in many awkward bidding situations.

[pclayton]

If I have a way to sniff out hearts after a forcing NT using something like Bart, thats what I'll try. That way I can still find the proper strain.

Not playing Bart, I will bid 2♥.

[han]

Double !, on Aug 27 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Hannie, on Aug 27 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

Close but yes.

Unfair, you already know the hand!! lolololol.

DHL

I do, but I don't see why that would influence my decision. Certainly you get to the same spot no matter what you bid.

And I'm looking forward to the last part of this discussion. I think I will use stronger terms than "close but yes".

[Double !]

OK, since hannie is looking forward to the next part of this discussion, let me first ask this question.

Assuming that the bidding has gone 1S - p - 2H - p so far, does a rebid of 3 diamonds show at least a sound opener if not extra values? Or could it be made with a sketchy, ragged minimum 5-5?
Does a 2 Spade rebid promise a 6+ card suit or at least a very strong 5-bagger? (And, just for good luck, does a 2NT rebid show extras?)

again, TIA


DHL

bidding is so much fun

[han]

Both a matter of agreement. I strongly prefer to play that 3D shows extras (not just a sound opening) and 2S does not show 6+ spades or even 5 good ones.

I believe this is fairly standard these days, although there are still a few people out there that like 2S to show 6+ spades and 3D not to show extras. My partner in the LMP felt strongly about this so we played it that way.

[Winstonm]

A standard problem inherent with standard systems - standard by its nature must boost opening requirements to fascilitate constructive bidding. 2/1 especially does not suit a light opening methodology.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

A standard problem inherent with standard systems - standard by its nature must boost opening requirements to fascilitate constructive bidding. 2/1 especially does not suit a light opening methodology.

I play 2/1 GF. I open shapely 9-counts 1M and balanced 11-counts 1m. I'm not noticing this problem that is inherent with natural systems. I must be doing something wrong, I suppose.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Aug 28 2007, 10:02 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

A standard problem inherent with standard systems - standard by its nature must boost opening requirements to fascilitate constructive bidding.  2/1 especially does not suit a light opening methodology.

I play 2/1 GF. I open shapely 9-counts 1M and balanced 11-counts 1m. I'm not noticing this problem that is inherent with natural systems. I must be doing something wrong, I suppose.

Lets assume that you open 1♠

Please show a reasonably sized sample of hands that you consider strong enough to make a game foricng 2/1 opposite a 1♠ opening?

How often are you able to make a 2/1 GF response?

How often do you respond with a forcing NT?