[cnszsun]

Scoring: IMP

1♠-2♦
2♠-??

---

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

[ochinko]

3♣ hoping to right-side 3NT. Partner must have points somewhere even if 2♠ means minimal opening.

If partner bids 4♣ instead I'm correcting to 4♠.

[Codo]

I bid 3 ♣ and later 3 Spade if pd asks me with 3 ♥.

[P_Marlowe]

2NT.

I guess, you have to ask yourself, which lie
is the least crime in your eyes.

2NT showes the bal. nature of your hand, but
promises stopper in the undbid suits.
3C showes values in clubs, which you have, ...
sort of, but indicates also a unbal. hand.

Take your pick.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

3♣, lets see what p really has.

[helene_t]

3♠.

[dicklont]

3♦ I must repeat my diamonds or lie.
It looks awfull but it's not so bad.
Either partner bids 3NT now, or else I finally support his spades.

[P_Marlowe]

dicklont, on Oct 6 2008, 09:35 AM, said:

3♦ I must repeat my diamonds or lie.
It looks awfull but it's not so bad.
Either partner bids 3NT now, or else I finally support his spades.

I am pretty sure 3D showes a six carder, i.e.
3D is also a lie ...

I wont argue with you, if this is a lesser or a bigger
lie than 2NT, 3C or 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

2NT, surprised to see any disagreement here.

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Oct 6 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

2NT, surprised to see any disagreement here.

Surely the system bid is 2NT here. You don't have 3-card spade support, you don't have another suit to bid, you don't have 6 diamonds...

You don't want to bid 2NT with nothing much in either black suit? Then call it 3-card spade support and raise spades. I don't hate that totally, but it's no different from e.g.

xx
AKx
Qxx
AKQxx

after 1C P 1H ? when most people shrug their shoulders and make the normal systemic rebid of 2NT; if you want to invent a diamond reverse here, then invent a spade raise on the original question.


p.s. this hand is another advertisement for playing artificial continuations after a 2/1. It never fails to surprise me how few people play anything complex here when they play such detailed and sophisticated e.g. 1NT methods.

[dburn]

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.

[jdonn]

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?

I think what to bid here is greatly influenced by what 3NT by partner would mean if I bid 3♠ now. Even to the point that I base my current choice on that.

[FrancesHinden]

dburn, on Oct 6 2008, 04:37 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.

eh?

As jdonn says, if the true test of a method is whether you need to play artificial continuations over it to make it worthwhile, we'd better give up opening 1NT, or 2C.

[awm]

I like 3♠ here. If partner has stuff in both unbid suits and only five spades, he would have bid 2NT over 2♦. So we either have a spade fit or there is a wide-open suit; in either case spades is highly likely to be the best strain.

Perhaps dburn's point is that we could play 2♣ relay over 1M (for example). This has the advantage of leading to pretty accurate auctions. The main reason people don't play it (as best I can tell) is that it requires a lot of artificial followups and a lot of memory work. But if playing 2/1 doesn't let you get to the right contract without a similar amount of artificiality and memorization, we might as well all switch to 2♣ relay and free up our other 2/1 responses for invitational hands (or some artificial meaning like strong raises).

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 6 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

I like 3♠ here. If partner has stuff in both unbid suits and only five spades, he would have bid 2NT over 2♦.

Not with a singleton diamond.

[fred]

Yes 3S is supposed to show 3-card support, but my judgment suggests that it is more likely that 2NT will lead to a bad 3NT than that 3S will lead to a bad 4S.

There is no bid that describes this hand so just go with what you think rates to work best. For me that would be 3S.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[skjaeran]

3♣ shows 5-5 to me, so that's definitely out on JTx.
The alternatives would be 2NT and 3♠. 3♠ probably gives us the best chance for reaching the best spot.

[han]

OK, I should take back what I wrote earlier. I don't dislike 3S even though I never do this with 2 spades. I don't agree with part of what Fred wrote (that 2NT misdescribes this hand) but I do agree that 2NT may lead to the wrong contract when 3S won't.

As Josh wrote, part of the reason about not bidding 3S here is that 3NT by partner would not be a suggestion to play there for me, 3S gives up on playing in 3NT. Also, I don't bid 2NT as opener with diamond shortness as Adam does. If you do then that makes it less likely that 3NT is the best contract.

Still think that 3C and 3D should not be options on this hand.

[jdonn]

I'll mention that if you want artificial followups that are pretty simple, after a 2/1 that isn't in the suit right below opener's (so 1♠ 2♣, 1♠ 2♦, 1♥ 2♣), simply reverse the cheapest rebid with the suit rebid, and allow responder to 'support' the major with a doubleton if he can on the 2 level. All bidding after that can be essentially natural and very simple, although you can also do more complicated things if you want.

So I would be very happy to start this hand 1♠ 2♦ 2♥* 2♠, and base my next bid on whatever opener does.

It's true in a sense you create a new problem when opener has the second suit instead, but I believe this is both less common, and less damaging since it's a more informative bid. I have played this or things like it for years with lots of partners, and been very happy with it.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

I'll mention that if you want artificial followups that are pretty simple, after a 2/1 that isn't in the suit right below opener's (so 1♠ 2♣, 1♠ 2♦, 1♥ 2♣), simply reverse the cheapest rebid with the suit rebid, and allow responder to 'support' the major with a doubleton if he can on the 2 level. All bidding after that can be essentially natural and very simple, although you can also do more complicated things if you want.

So I would be very happy to start this hand 1♠ 2♦ 2♥* 2♠, and base my next bid on whatever opener does.

It's true in a sense you create a new problem when opener has the second suit instead, but I believe this is both less common, and less damaging since it's a more informative bid. I have played this or things like it for years with lots of partners, and been very happy with it.

This is approximately what I do: step 1 by opener is the 'default' bid and everything else shows something special e.g. 1S - 2D - 2S shows 6 spades.

We've added some more artificiality recently, but the cost/benefit isn't as good as that first basic step.