[kenrexford]

This sequence caused some disagreement between me and a regular partner of mine. I think there is a bit of a philosophical issue at work here. The comments about this being an impossible argument assume one philosophical viewpoint, where the auction would be impossible, rather than another viewpoint, where the auction makes sense.

The idea is hinted at by dburn: "Detest 2♣ - that just tells the opponents to bid, when we might easily buy it in 1NT and run seven tricks with them cold for eight or nine in a major."

The implication of this is that Opener should not rebid 2♣ in this sequence just to better the partscore, when at IMP scoring. First of all, the "better partscore," if it truly is better, may not actually gain, because, in the long run, the gains get countered by major-suit competition. If anything, I could see merits in treating 3♣ in this sequence as a weaker bid than 2♣, because converting 1NT to 2♣ all but guarantees making a 3♣ bid later anyway. So, why bid 2♣?

In my thinking, it makes more sense for 2♣ at IMP scoring to be a stronger move, suggesting possible 3NT (T form). As this sequence (1♣-1NT-2♣) leaves all strains out other than clubs or a T-form 3NT contract, the call enables two-level calls in all other suits as exploratory bids for the hypothetical 3NT contract. With the actual hand held by Responder, a maximum with outstanding internal support, a side Ace, and a Queen with that side Ace, the values are clearly there for the acceptance (if 2♣ is understood this way), but informatory bidding gains little.

Consider the two possible approaches.

In the one, Opener is forced to bid 3♣ to show prospects, thereby depriving the partnership of the entire three-level to explore game. In the other, Opener passes this hands but is able to explore game with as little as AKxxxx in clubs amd a side Ace (all that is needed for the game to be fair).

I like the idea of Opener being able to show something like this hand (six if fit plus one) with a 2♣ call. Were Responder to have something like the spade King instead of the diamond Queen and heart Jack, he could isolate that card (2♠) and this way find a 3NT contract (on a combined 21 HCP), a T-form 3NT contract, with relative three-level safety in clubs (we'd bid 3♣ over 2♥ anyway), a result not attainable otherwise.

All that said, no one with cred (that I know) seems to buy this argument. I think the CW is wrong here, but I find myself in a very small minority. So, I ended up just giving in to the pressure when playing with people with cred.

[skjaeran]

dburn, on Oct 2 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

Would have opened 1♣ every day of the week and twice on Sundays - ace-ace-king is an opening bid in all positions at all vulnerabilities. So that can't be the worst bid.

Might have responded 1♦ just in case partner had a balanced 2NT rebid with some major that could profitably be led through (AQ doubleton, or Kx). But 1NT makes it harder for them to bid the majors, or to judge how high to contest if they do bid the majors, so that can't be the worst bid either.

Detest 2♣ - that just tells the opponents to bid, when we might easily buy it in 1NT and run seven tricks with them cold for eight or nine in a major. So that could easily be the worst bid, had it not been superseded by...

3NT, which is an out-and-out gamble in a position where there is no need to gamble. If I'm not supposed to be 3=3=5=2, then I could bid a simple 2♦ or try two of a major, to show values in that suit and maybe attract a diamond lead against 3NT if that's where we end up. But I would bid an honest 3♣ - that way, if partner bids 3NT we will make it, and if he doesn't we will have done what we can.

Agree with this almost 100%. But IMO it's closer between 2♣ and 3NT being the worst bid than David think.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

The implication of this is that Opener should not rebid 2♣ in this sequence just to better the partscore, when at IMP scoring. First of all, the "better partscore," if it truly is better, may not actually gain, because, in the long run, the gains get countered by major-suit competition. If anything, I could see merits in treating 3♣ in this sequence as a weaker bid than 2♣, because converting 1NT to 2♣ all but guarantees making a 3♣ bid later anyway. So, why bid 2♣?

I've never played it, but I think its a very reasonable approach to play 2♣ stronger than 3♣. I think Auken - Von Arnim play this. 2♣ is forcing and can encompass a lot of different hands.

I think they play it in any 1m-1x-2/3m situations, but there may be exceptions.

[ASkolnick]

I disagree the auction doesn't exist, because partner held this hand at IMPS.

Ax
Axx
QTxx
xxxx


Auction
1D-1N
2D-3N

Unfortunately, I had the
xx
xxx
AKxxx
Axx

hand, but certainly partner was correct in bidding 3N. He thinks, I probably have 6 top tricks in diamonds, and 2 Acess. If partner has a 9th trick for me, we just bid a
good very light game at IMPS.

[FrancesHinden]

Oooooh noooooooooo I'm starting to agree with Ken.....

In one partnership we play all four of the 1m - 1NT - 2m sequences as forcing (with semi-artificial rebids by responder) and the three obvious 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences as pre-emptive.

But I would never assume anything like that agreement. Without discussion, 2C is weak attempting to play in the known club fit (well, known unless you think 1NT is right with five diamonds). It's all very well saying you would 'never' pull to 2C because it's asking the opponents to bid 2M, but if you are vulnerable you might prefer to defend 2M than go a few off in 1NT.

[FrancesHinden]

ASkolnick, on Oct 2 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I disagree the auction doesn't exist, because partner held this hand at IMPS. 

Ax
Axx
QTxx
xxxx


Auction
1D-1N
2D-3N

Unfortunately, I had the
xx
xxx
AKxxx
Axx

hand, but certainly partner was correct in bidding 3N.  He thinks, I probably have 6 top tricks in diamonds, and 2 Acess.  If partner has a 9th trick for me, we just bid a
good very light game at IMPS.

No, I'll stick with the auction doesn't exist.

Since when is 4-card support with 2 honours and 2 outside aces a 1NT response? It's not as if it has any particularly positional holdings that mean it wants to declare NT.

I show this is a limit diamond raise in whatever way my methods allow. If partner has 6 diamonds and 2 aces he won't find it hard to bid 3NT.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 2 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

Oooooh noooooooooo I'm starting to agree with Ken.....

In one partnership we play all four of the 1m - 1NT - 2m sequences as forcing (with semi-artificial rebids by responder) and the three obvious 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences as pre-emptive.

But I would never assume anything like that agreement. Without discussion, 2C is weak attempting to play in the known club fit (well, known unless you think 1NT is right with five diamonds). It's all very well saying you would 'never' pull to 2C because it's asking the opponents to bid 2M, but if you are vulnerable you might prefer to defend 2M than go a few off in 1NT.

You play 1♣ - 1N - 3♦ as natural and non-forcing?

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Oct 2 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 2 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

Oooooh noooooooooo  I'm starting to agree with Ken.....

In one partnership we play all four of the 1m - 1NT - 2m sequences as forcing (with semi-artificial rebids by responder) and the three obvious 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences as pre-emptive.

But I would never assume anything like that agreement.  Without discussion, 2C is weak attempting to play in the known club fit (well, known unless you think 1NT is right with five diamonds).  It's all very well saying you would 'never' pull to 2C because it's asking the opponents to bid 2M, but if you are vulnerable you might prefer to defend 2M than go a few off in 1NT.

You play 1♣ - 1N - 3♦ as natural and non-forcing?

I hoped that the "three obvious" 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences would exclude that one (which I play as an autosplinter).

[mikeh]

If you play that opener will rebid 1N with all balanced hands, including one or two 4 card majors, then I think that responder should bid 1♦, and I don't think that this is remotely difficult or close. What is it that makes this a good hand to declare 1N, with those wonderful major suit cards?

If opener rebids 1N, we have no problem: this hand has no reason to think it missed a game, so has the world's easiest pass.

If opener rebids a major, showing an unbalanced hand, we may have an issue: 2♣ or 3♣? But that hasn't happened yet.

Yes, 1♦ makes it easier for the opps to get in, but if 4th seat has a major suit overcall, he's leading that suit, probably successfully, against 1N (or higher) or he may be bidding 2Major anyway.. so this loss is not as great as it may seem.

If you don't play this method (and this hand is a classic illustration of some of the advantages of doing so) then I accept 1N, since the hand is impossible after an up the line major suit, which might be based on 1=4=3=5 or 4=4=2=3 and so on.

Assuming that 1N was blameless in context, 2♣ strikes me as semi-idiotic. We have a balanced minimum, and partner suggested 1N as a destination.

Yes, maybe on a bad day we go down.. but partner has at least 3 clubs, so we can realistically see 5 or 6 tricks in our hand.. why the pessimism?

The kindest thing one can say about 3N is that it makes 2♣ seem like an almost normal bid. 3N shows an utter failure to have the slightest clue about standard bidding, or it is intended as an insult to partner.

If one wanted to express doubts about partner's bidding of 2♣, the way to do so is to bid 3♣.. conveying the message that 'your clubs are running, and I have a super-max... wanna try for game?'.

BTW, another issue not canvassed, that impacts the assessment of blame, is the meaning of 1N. In NA many players define 1N as 8-10, in which case pulling 1N becomes less semi-idiotic, and more purely idiotic, while bidding 3N passes the outer limits of idiocy.

Not that I have any strong feelings on the bidding.

[han]

I like the Ken-Frances switch only after 1C-1NT, not after 1D-1NT.

[benlessard]

3Nt is just too lame. If i would make a move over 2C i would just bid 2D.

For me 2C doesnt show extra it just say that i prefer 2C to 1Nt.

The argument that 2C help the opponent to compete more than its help your side doesnt hold. Responder has 8-10 and a balanced hand and opener might easily have 4M or a balanced 5332. So competing inst safe at all.

You might have the agreement that 2C is invitationnal so that with minimum hand you are forced to pass 1NT, I dont really like it & i would consider this not standard.

[kgr]

Quote

1C-1NT-2C Invites the opps to compete in the major

...but were I play opps will also compete over 1C-1NT-Pass. My partner prefers then that I have bid 3C and that he knows that I have real Clubs.