[helene_t]

I thought it was obvious that 3NT by opener over my 3♠ would be natural but with hindsight I think it should probably be frivolous 3NT or whatever. In that case I am not so sure about 3♠. Hard to come up with a lesser evil, though.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

dburn, on Oct 6 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

Perhaps people believe (correctly) that if you have to play artificial continuations over 2/1 in order to reach the right contract, you should not bother playing 2/1 in the first place.

Are you saying people shouldn't open 1NT, over which almost all bids are artificial?

No - there is a considerable advantage to opening 1NT in the first place, since it provides a much more informative description of your hand than any other opening bid (except possibly 3NT or 7NT). Moreover, the various artificialities that people have devised over 1NT openings have provided measurable advantages over a long period of time.

The principal advantage claimed for 2/1 game-forcing, however, is that it provides a ready-made framework in which players can for the most part bid naturally, because they have enough space not to need artificial bids to describe their hands. If you then decide that even within this framework you need to make artificial bids anyway (from opener's rebid onwards) it seems to me that you might as well not bother - just play 1X-2♣ or even 1X-1NT as a relay.

Having said that, jdonn's suggestion appears at first sight to have the advantages of simplicity and efficiency possessed by many of the common methods of responding to 1NT. Whether it is as memorable, I am not sure (for example, if 1♠-2♦-2♥ is the "default bid" while 2♠ shows six spades, how does opener show four hearts?) But I am always prepared to be convinced of anything, except that celery is food.

[jdonn]

dburn, on Oct 6 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

The principal advantage claimed for 2/1 game-forcing, however, is that it provides a ready-made framework in which players can for the most part bid naturally, because they have enough space not to need artificial bids to describe their hands. If you then decide that even within this framework you need to make artificial bids anyway (from opener's rebid onwards) it seems to me that you might as well not bother - just play 1X-2♣ or even 1X-1NT as a relay.

Fair enough. I have no real experience playing 2♣ as a complete relay, but I'm sure it works well.

Quote

Having said that, jdonn's suggestion appears at first sight to have the advantages of simplicity and efficiency possessed by many of the common methods of responding to 1NT. Whether it is as memorable, I am not sure (for example, if 1♠-2♦-2♥ is the "default bid" while 2♠ shows six spades, how does opener show four hearts?) But I am always prepared to be convinced of anything, except that celery is food.

I guess my explanation wasn't very clear.
2♥ = Any hands that would have rebid 2♠, including 6+ spades.
2♠ = 4+ hearts.

I like celery.

[mike777]

It seems 3s describes 12 of my 13 hcp....not sure how many spades I am suppose to promise for this bid in this style of 2/1. It seems in this stated style 3s may not even promise which game we are trying for yet.

Since I play 2s promises 6 now 3s is a slam try.

[pclayton]

2N.

If pard raises to 3 I will feel as though we are in the right spot, since pard will most likely be 5=3=2=3 but didn't want to rebid 2N because of a weakness somwhere. Over 3x, I have an easy 3♠ call, although I will probably just bid 4♠.

3N will be wrong sided for the 1st trick.

If I raise to 3♠, I can never get to 3N, because its frivolous.

[fred]

pclayton, on Oct 6 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

2N.

If pard raises to 3 I will feel as though we are in the right spot, since pard will most likely be 5=3=2=3 but didn't want to rebid 2N because of a weakness somwhere. Over 3x, I have an easy 3♠ call, although I will probably just bid 4♠.

3N will be wrong sided for the 1st trick.

If I raise to 3♠, I can never get to 3N, because its frivolous.

You have a fairly strong indication that the quality of partner's spade suit is nothing to write home about.

Do you really expect him to bid his Kxxxxx or KJxxxx a third time?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

fred, on Oct 6 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 6 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

2N.

If pard raises to 3 I will feel as though we are in the right spot, since pard will most likely be 5=3=2=3 but didn't want to rebid 2N because of a weakness somwhere. Over 3x, I have an easy 3♠ call, although I will probably just bid 4♠.

3N will be wrong sided for the 1st trick.

If I raise to 3♠, I can never get to 3N, because its frivolous.

You have a fairly strong indication that the quality of partner's spade suit is nothing to write home about.

Do you really expect him to bid his Kxxxxx or KJxxxx a third time?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The best hope to get back to spades is if opener can bid a minor, and maybe he can.

Thus, with no extras and 4 clubs, he stalled with 2♠ (I think that this approach is the majority position with 5=4 in the blacks) hoping to pattern out over a hoped-for 2N, and with 3 diamonds and weakness/shortness in hearts, he is often going to bid 3♦.

So 2N doesn't need him to rebid his spades for us to get to spades.

Having said that, obviously there will be hands, including some hands with 3 diamonds, where he is simply going to bid what's in front of his nose: 3N.


Unfortunately, in my serious partnerships, 3N is unavailable after 3♠.

I don't think that this hand-type, even tho not especially rare, is enough to abandon the slam-bidding benefits of an artificial 3N.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Oct 6 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 6 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 6 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

2N.

If pard raises to 3 I will feel as though we are in the right spot, since pard will most likely be 5=3=2=3 but didn't want to rebid 2N because of a weakness somwhere. Over 3x, I have an easy 3♠ call, although I will probably just bid 4♠.

3N will be wrong sided for the 1st trick.

If I raise to 3♠, I can never get to 3N, because its frivolous.

You have a fairly strong indication that the quality of partner's spade suit is nothing to write home about.

Do you really expect him to bid his Kxxxxx or KJxxxx a third time?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The best hope to get back to spades is if opener can bid a minor, and maybe he can.

Thus, with no extras and 4 clubs, he stalled with 2♠ (I think that this approach is the majority position with 5=4 in the blacks) hoping to pattern out over a hoped-for 2N, and with 3 diamonds and weakness/shortness in hearts, he is often going to bid 3♦.

So 2N doesn't need him to rebid his spades for us to get to spades.

Having said that, obviously there will be hands, including some hands with 3 diamonds, where he is simply going to bid what's in front of his nose: 3N.


Unfortunately, in my serious partnerships, 3N is unavailable after 3♠.

I don't think that this hand-type, even tho not especially rare, is enough to abandon the slam-bidding benefits of an artificial 3N.

Fred, in the future, please address all correspondence to me through my attorney, Mike Hargreaves of Victoria, BC, CA.

Just kidding.

He said it better than I ever could.

[fred]

pclayton, on Oct 6 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 6 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 6 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 6 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

2N.

If pard raises to 3 I will feel as though we are in the right spot, since pard will most likely be 5=3=2=3 but didn't want to rebid 2N because of a weakness somwhere. Over 3x, I have an easy 3♠ call, although I will probably just bid 4♠.

3N will be wrong sided for the 1st trick.

If I raise to 3♠, I can never get to 3N, because its frivolous.

You have a fairly strong indication that the quality of partner's spade suit is nothing to write home about.

Do you really expect him to bid his Kxxxxx or KJxxxx a third time?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The best hope to get back to spades is if opener can bid a minor, and maybe he can.

Thus, with no extras and 4 clubs, he stalled with 2♠ (I think that this approach is the majority position with 5=4 in the blacks) hoping to pattern out over a hoped-for 2N, and with 3 diamonds and weakness/shortness in hearts, he is often going to bid 3♦.

So 2N doesn't need him to rebid his spades for us to get to spades.

Having said that, obviously there will be hands, including some hands with 3 diamonds, where he is simply going to bid what's in front of his nose: 3N.


Unfortunately, in my serious partnerships, 3N is unavailable after 3♠.

I don't think that this hand-type, even tho not especially rare, is enough to abandon the slam-bidding benefits of an artificial 3N.

Fred, in the future, please address all correspondence to me through my attorney, Mike Hargreaves of Victoria, BC, CA.

Just kidding.

He said it better than I ever could.

Agree with your attorney's point that 2NT will sometimes lead to 4S.

But I still disagree with your point that, if partner raises 2NT to 3NT, he will likely have a 5332 hand.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

hmm Posters seem to be saying with many hand types you are stuck rebidding 2s with only 5 and not 2nt or 3d with a minimum, let alone not bidding 3c over 2d.

It does just seems easier to let partner bid out his shape and just assume he has a minimum hand. If partner must open on junk just make 2/1 response stronger.

[ArcLight]

What is wrong with responder bidding 3C instead of 3S?

[fred]

Bidding 3C is yet another way (along with 2NT and 3S) to distort your hand. Same goes for bidding 3D now.

Like both 2NT and 3S, 3C (and 3D) will sometimes work well and sometimes work badly.

As I tried to say in my first post in this thread, this is a judgment call. There is no good bid so you have to choose the bid that you think will work best in the long run.

My judgment suggests that 3S is superior to 2NT which is superior to 3C which is superior to 3D in this regard, but my judgment is obviously colored by things like:

- when partner will rebid 2S with 5
- when partner will rebid 2NT
- when partner will rebid 3C
- how partner will bid with various hands if I bid 2NT or 3C
- ...

Probably no two people who are involved in this discussion have exactly the same views about such issues so it should not be surprising that various strong players have differing judgments about what bid rates to work best.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Oct 6 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

My judgment suggests that 3S is superior to 2NT which is superior to 3C which is superior to 3D in this regard, but my judgment is obviously colored by things like:

- when partner will rebid 2S with 5
- when partner will rebid 2NT
- when partner will rebid 3C
- how partner will bid with various hands if I bid 2NT or 3C
- ...

Probably no two people who are involved in this discussion have exactly the same views about such issues so it should not be surprising that various strong players have differing judgments about what bid rates to work best.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Says it all.

[EricK]

Naively, one would have thought that 2NT, being the cheapest lie, would leave you more room to sort this mess out. But what do opener's 3rd round bids mean after 2NT?

Does 3♣ shows a hand with 5♠ 4♣ and no extras? If so are there any further inferences because responder bid 2NT rather than 3♣?

Does 3♦ show any hand with 3 card support?

What about 3♥ given that opener and has denied 4 of them (or would he bid this way with 6-4 in the majors)?

And does 3♠ just show 6♠ (and perhaps) <3♦) or is it a statement of suit quality?

And what of 3NT? Does it show specifically a minimum balanced hand, or is opener meant to bid 3NT on lots of hands to avoid giving too much information to the opposition?

[mike777]

As I said
1) vast majority play 2s=minimum 5s
2) It just seems easier for non super experts.......to bid out shape and assume bid not does show extra.....if partner opens on junk then 2/1 shows alot...alot more.....
3) that means you got to live with:
1s=2d=3c(non extra)=3h=4sf but really this is really rare ......
...given 2d is not on junk but one spade maybe

[benlessard]

For me 2Nt isnt a catch all bid, It show the desire to declare the hand in Nt. 3S is ok but since ive got no ruffing power i prefer to bid 3C, its just way more likely to reach a bad 4S after 3S than to reach a bad 5C after 3C.

Of course some of the hands will play 4S in 5-2 fit better than 3Nt. But i expect that my 3C will strongly encourage opps to lead H and 3Nt should be the best spot fairly often.

[SoTired]

I am amazed. If you bid 2N, you know opener will bid 3N. If you had one of the suits stopped like Qx Axx AQxxx Jxx, then 2N would be a reasonable bid. I believe stoppers are for wimps, but here you are missing stoppers in both unbid suits. Opps will find the best suit to lead.

And 3C? Why are we bidding a 3-card suit? And we don't even have any strength in it.

Just bid 3S. The worst that will happen is we end up in 4S on a 5-2 fit. But we have HH in spades, so that is not too bad.

[junyi_zhu]

cnszsun, on Oct 6 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠-2♦
2♠-??

---

2♦ forcing to game, 2♠ did not promise 6, what's your rebid?

lol, you want to undo cause you may not belong to games after an 2/1 gf sequence.
Basically, 2S says "my hand isn't not suitable for NT". Let's assume the simple case that partner holds 5 spades and semibalanced, here, you can can't expect Qx from partner in clubs, cause if he holds Qx in clubs, it's hard for him to open the hand without H honors, but with H honors, he can rebid 2NT. So what's his likely hand?
Kxxxx AKQ xx xxx, now you have to hope that opps don't have 5 club tricks and spades are 3-3, which means you are already too high, no matter what:) Your shot in
4S is no better if they find club lead and promote their trump tricks.
So now, you are asking which negative EV contract you want to bid if partner holds a minimum with 5 spades, I'd say 4S can be slightly better cause partner may hold the right minimum like: KJxxx Axx KJx xx. Then you may ask me which bid you like?
I'd say, still 2NT, cause partner would bid 3D over your 2NT, then you bid 3S and he can bid 4S. Also, 2NT allows you to find 5D sometimes, for example:
XXXXX AKQ KJx xx, or xxxxx AKQ Kxxx x if you raise to 3S, you will most likely declare in 4S and if you bid 2NT, it would go like: 2N 3D 3S 5D(4D)
The basic idea here is that you don't want to play in 3NT, but your 2NT keeps you low
and allows your partner to raise you at a low level. You may ask me what if partner bids 3NT over your 2NT? I'd say, good luck, although you have one suit wide open, you still hold 6 cards in that suit and opps may not find the right lead and partner may hold SKJxxx xxx xx AKQ, 3NT is probably slightly worse than 4S, but it is still pretty good if they don't lead H.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 6 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

You don't want to bid 2NT with nothing much in either black suit?

This is the old story once again. Strength/shape come before tertiary things like stoppers and right-siding. Pard hasn't yet shown much of his hand, thus we should't engage into decisons so early.

2NT isn't a thing of beauty, but it leaves pard with a chance to show what he has before we get too high. Now it can go:

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 2NT
3♣ = 54 and a min (else he'd have bid 3♣ before). Now we bid 3♥ to ask for the stopper.
3♦ = support and a min, probably some wide open suit somewhere (else 3NT). Good case for us to follow-up with 5♦.
3♥ = probably a 3 card suit, with clubs open. Now we bid 3♠ to suggest the 5-2 fit.
3♠ = a 6 card suit and min. Easy 4♠ for us now.
3NT = some bal or unbalanced min. Easy pass now.

I can only see advantages in 2NT and close to no problems.

Still, it's an excellent problem. It took me close to a minute to decide what's the correct bid. (correct, IMHO ofc.)

[whereagles]

dburn, on Oct 6 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Perhaps people believe (correctly) that if you have to play artificial continuations over 2/1 in order to reach the right contract, you should not bother playing 2/1 in the first place.

That is totally correct, but I believe the ONLY artificial follow-up you need is a simple 2NT