[jillybean]

You have a game forcing major raise, unsuitable for J2nt or a splinter, how do you play; 2M and 3M here? And is anything standard.

1M:2m
2x:??

[kenrexford]

If I am reading this right, then the auction is something like:

1♠-P-2♣-P-
2♥-P-?

In that sequence, what I like to play:

2♠ = non-picture spade GF
4♠ = picture spade GF (spade support with two of the top three honors in spades, club suit with three of the top four honors, no 1st/2nd control in either of the remaining suits

3♥ = heart raise GF
4♣ = picture heart raise (see above)
4♦ = picture splinter for hearts (same as picture raise, but with a stiff diamond)
3♠ = picture splinter for hearts (same as picture raise, but with a stiff spade)

4♥ = in theory, picture splinter in support of spades

2NT = waiting/natural
4th suit = waiting/natural

3♣ = natural

4NT = RKCB for hearts (assume hearts trumps)
5♣+ = asking bids, hearts trumps (assume hearts trump)

5♥ = in theory, asking bid with spades as trumps

[jillybean]

Thanks Ken, and what is openers bid after after 1♠:2♣ 2♥:2♠?

3x cue
3♠ no cue available
4♠ no cue, no slam interest?

[Stephen Tu]

Jillybean, please note that Ken's recommendations are extremely non-standard, as many/most of his posts are. I don't think they are at all appropriate for someone learning 2/1. An advanced established partnership might look at some of his ideas, and may or may not adopt some of them if they seem to have value. Some ideas are intriguing, others are arguably too complicated for memory load vs. frequency of gain, some perhaps too revealing to the defense when stopping in game vs. the number of thin HCP slams they are designed to reach.

For learning 2/1 continuations, IMO the best resources are by Mike Lawrence. His "Workbook on the 2/1 system", "Uncontested Auctions" if you can find it (out of print), and his 2/1 CD.

Standard, playing with adv/expert, undiscussed, you should assume 1s-2c-2h-4h = picture heart raise, not spade raise as above, and 1s-2c-2h-3s = slammish spade raise.

[JLOL]

Yeah Ken's method is very standard. Over 1S 2C 2H 2N would be a trump cue, etc.

[orlam]

jillybean2, on Jan 24 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Thanks Ken, and what is openers bid after after 1♠:2♣ 2♥:2♠?

3x cue
3♠ no cue available
4♠ no clue, no slam interest?

Strange, where I learned 2/1, follow-ups here are just naturalish, patterning out. After 1S 2C 2H 3S, I learned to start cuebids right away. I haven't heard of these trump cues but then I am not an expert like some of the other posters around here.

[jillybean]

Ok, partner opens 1♠ and you hold Axx,AKx,QJx,KJxx and want partner to cue.

bidding the rexford way the auction would be;
1♠:2♣
2♥:2♠

and the other way;
1♠:2♣
2♥:3♠

[Fluffy]

the simplest way is to use 3♠ as demanding a cue, and 2♠ as a more frequent strong raise with no clear direction, or jsut that wants to know partner's singleton.

[jillybean]

So you are in pickle if you haven’t discussed this with your partner and you’re probably better to make a jump, 1♠:2♣ 2♥:3♠ - this is more commonly played as a strong hand with ♠ support?

No matter which way you bid it, no agreements and partner signs off in 4♠,
do you make a second slam try with Axx,AKx,QJx,KJxx ?

[Winstonm]

jillybean2, on Jan 25 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

So you are in pickle if you haven’t discussed this with your partner and you’re probably better to make a jump, 1♠:2♣ 2♥:3♠  - this is more commonly played as a strong hand with ♠ support?

No matter which way you bid it, no agreements and partner signs off in 4♠,
do you make a second slam try with Axx,AKx,QJx,KJxx ?

JB, you are asking some good questions here. IMO, the big hand shown is of the type that is better bid if it can somehow be defined for partner, allowing partner to make decisions on slam try.

If it is available, an immediate and natural 2N followed by a subsequent 4N shows this precise hand.

I understand this doesn't answer your question - but my method of solving bidding problems is from a systemic perspective, meaning is my whole system flawed because I cannot bid this hand type? My personal answer to this question was yes, the 2N bid is needed too much as a natural bid to be used as a forcing raise.

IMO, the last question you asked about making another try was quite valid but also impossible to answer: ergo, the problem is one of system.

[awm]

It is normal to rebid 2♠ if available.

There is some disagreement among 2/1 players as to:

(1) Does the 2♠ rebid always guarantee 3+♠, or could it be doubleton with an unsuitable hand for bidding 2NT?
(2) What exactly is a jump to 3♠? Does it show more/less strength? More trumps? (note that Ken's treatment, where 3♠ is a splinter is definitely non-standard, although probably a good idea in a serious partnership)

The consensus is the 4♠ is a "picture bid" showing good clubs and spade support, but no side suit controls.

After 1♠-2♣-2X-2♠, the standard continuation is to "pattern out." So opener bids 2NT with a semi-balanced hand (something like 5242) or 3X with a 5-5, or 3♠ with a 6-4, or shows a three card club suit, etc. Then responder can bid 3♠ to demand a cuebid (or cuebid himself). This pattern information is actually quite useful at times; many of us argue that it is more useful than the extra space for cuebidding (Ken obviously disagrees, and prefers to start cuebids directly over 2♠).

[Fluffy]

If partner bids 4♠ over my 2♠ I would quickly pass, we have 30 balanced or maybe 30 with singleton opposite KJxx.

if he bids over 3♠ it looks closer, but I would still pass.

[jillybean]

I like this stuff, I think 1♠:2♣ 2♥:3♠ as a splinter supporting hearts makes a lot of sense. However I’m going around in circles with bidding problems. I think I know enough now to get to a reasonable contract most of the time but without a serious partnership, these complex agreements are futile. So, I’ll keep this in mind for when I do have a serious partnership but for now Im going to forget about bidding. My time would be better spent improving my play, learning to count and avoiding bids that are likely to cause confusion.

[Winstonm]

jillybean2, on Jan 25 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

I like this stuff, I think 1♠:2♣ 2♥:3♠ as a splinter supporting hearts makes a lot of sense. However I’m going around in circles with bidding problems. I think I know enough now to get to a reasonable contract most of the time but without a serious partnership, these complex agreements are futile. So, I’ll keep this in mind for when I do have a serious partnership but for now Im going to forget about bidding. My time would be better spent improving my play, learning to count and avoiding bids that are likely to cause confusion.

I would recommend Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table". I seem to remember in that book he said he had never put that high of premium on partnership - that the ability to stay focused on the problem at hand was the most valuable asset one could have.

[Gerben42]

I would really avoid playing 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♠ as splinter, it is way too dangerous if someone forgets, and very strange.

Instead, I prefer Belladonna's way and play the jump to 3M as showing two top honors in the trump suit (so 2♠ denies two top honors). There is still room for a serious 3NT after this.

4M is a picture bid, i.e. 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 4♠ is bid on something like:

♠ KJx
♥ xx
♦ xxx
♣ AKQxx

[mike777]

KISS

1s=2c
2h=3s

is so rare I would not worry about it.

2s I just play as slam try in spades......not as some kind of Hx raise or waiting bid.


4s as dead minimum with 3 card raise but others might get fancy and play it as some Picture bid.


1s=2c
2h=3h...slam try in hearts....If I am very short in spades, I will almost never be able to tell partner.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I like this stuff, I think 1♠:2♣ 2♥:3♠ as a splinter supporting hearts makes a lot of sense.

I would actually discourage this use. Not only is it easily screwed up and forgotten but it is usually not useful to uncover a non-fit in opener's long suit.

Short suit bids help most when they hit against a weak fragment holding: x versus xxx or maybe xxxx if enough trumps are held.

If I were to devise a general rule of slam bidding, I would made a bid of partner's suit always some kind of support/fit and never a small singleton/splinter. It simply makes more sense to me that if partner holds AKxxx then my Qx is more important for him to know about than is a simple x.

[kenrexford]

First, I don't get why 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♠ is the source of so much fear of forgetting if it is a splinter with heart support. If the jump never occurs, then that's a fairly strong indicator of a "strange bid," and hence a memory trigger. As one of the most frequent, if not the most frequent, meanings for a jump is "splinter," then that seems as easy as it gets. Forgetting other stuff? Sure. But this one? Wow.

As to follow-ups my way.

Here, I have a different style, non-main-stream, admittedly. I cue first.

After the 2♠ raise, Opener could:

2NT = trump denial cue (says nothing except that Opener has fewer than two of the top three honors in spades); this is a modification of Belladonna's idea (hinted at earlier). All other cues or other actions, therefore, promise two of the top three honors in trumps.

3♣ = (2/3 trumps)+one of the top three clubs(partner's suit)
3♦ = (2/3 trumps) but NOT one of the top three clubs(partner's suit), but WITH a diamond control(unbid suit)
3♥ = (2/3 trumps), NOT a club card, NOT a diamond control, but with two of the top three hearts(Opener's own suit)
3♠ = (2/3 trumps), no club card, no diamond card, hearts worse than 2/3
3NT = Picture (good trumps, no heart control, stiff in 4th suit -- diamonds -- two of top three of partner's suit, clubs); or other treatment is TO PLAY (suggestion). Note that latter looks like stiff club, two of top three diamonds, good trumps, great hearts, at least sort of, and hence an "inverted" other treatment hand.
4♣ = Picture (stiff club, good trumps, great hearts, no diamond control or shortness)
4♦ = Picture (stiff diamond, no club control or shortness, geart hearts, good trumps)
4♥ = Picture (no club control or shortness, no diamond control or shortness, good trumps, great hearts)
4♠ = either 6511 with good trumps/great hearts; or other treatment is simple TOTAL, EMBARASSING BUST with worse than (2 with the Queen) and probably should not have opened.

[mikeh]

Jb: please.. for your sake and the sake of your partners, do NOT follow Ken's advice. His posts are so out of mainstream... I am not saying that all of his ideas are silly... some of them are, imo, but some of them have some interesting and possibly useful content. BUT: they are not remotely close to standard. The idea that a jump to 3♠ in the auction 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♠ is a splinter in support of hearts sounds sexy... but it is NOT going to be understood that way by anyone other than Ken... unless you have specifically discussed it.

As for the original question, Adam nailed it: there are 2 schools of thought. My preference (no pun intended) is that responder's 2♠ is a preference.. not necessarily true support. 3♠ would be real support with significant extra values...a slam try.

Others, including a fine player with whom I am in the process of establishing a partnership, like the 'preference' to be real support.. which (in my mind) causes a real problem with, say, 2=3=3=5 and no diamond stopper.. what do I bid over 2♥? This is, I think, literally insoluble, but it arises infrequently and when it does, partner doesn't always bid 3N with xx (or Kx) in diamonds. In the meantime, this approach does mean that the partnership is assured of a real fit at the 2♠ level, while in my preferred style, the degree of fit is not established for another round.

As for the 3334 big hand you postulated in follow up.. if I had bid 3♠ over 2♥, to show a real fit with significant extras, then I have zero problem over partner's signoff... even thinking about another call is an overbid.

Now, that is not to say that we haven't missed slam... but if we have it is either because the cards lay very favourably (we missed a terrible contract that happened to make... let us bid well enough to always miss those) or partner failed to make a cue when partner should have made a cue.. and if we, as responder, start thinking that we have to overbid to guard against this, then we are going to be playing bad bridge.. while enabling partner to do likewise. Play 4♠ and, if this is a partner we care about... we may play with again, discuss later why you bid the way you did and suggest that partner consider cue-bidding in these auctions with anything other than a dead minimum.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jan 26 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

Jb: please.. for your sake and the sake of your partners, do NOT follow Ken's advice. His posts are so out of mainstream... I am not saying that all of his ideas are silly... some of them are, imo, but some of them have some interesting and possibly useful content. BUT: they are not remotely close to standard. The idea that a jump to 3♠ in the auction 1♠  2♣  2♥  3♠ is a splinter in support of hearts sounds sexy... but it is NOT going to be understood that way by anyone other than Ken... unless you have specifically discussed it.

JB: Please, for your sake and for the sake of your partners...specifically discuss this sequence and other 2/1 GF sequences.

Rather than simply go with Mike's advice, namely to allow yourself and your partners to play 2/1 some silly mainstream way, where bids are debated by people who do not discuss 2/1 GF in any reasonable way, where mainstream ends up meaning an emasculated system missing the vast majority of the benefit to establishing a GF so low, and where mainstream means a default of fast arrival and timely hesitations to supplement the guesswork, maybe actually take advantage of the system and agree on some basic principles.

I mean, sure. Do nothing I say without discussion. But, discuss these situations and auctions so that you can have intelligent sequences with your partner(s).

It makes a LOT more sense to discuss the matter and then either adopt Mike's theory of 2/1 bidding or my theory of 2/1 GF bidding or someone else's theory of 2/1 GF bidding, or your own reasoned theory, than to not discuss 2/1 GF theory and instead just learn what the mass of horribly inadequate bidders think to be normal 2/1 bidding.