[cyc0002002]

We are playing 2 over 1 game forcing
In this following sequence

1♥ - 1NT -
?

I got 6-4 in red suits(and not maximum)
When to 2♦ When to 2♥?

An addional question
Does it make difference if we play Precision

[mtvesuvius]

2♦ always imo.

Since partner will take preference with 2=3 or 2=2, 2♦ is better. Partner with 2=4 will pass, but often 4-4 fits play better than 6-2s... Maybe always is a strong word, but I suppose "almost always" may be better...

This post has been edited by mtvesuvius: 2009-May-08, 11:01

[Phil]

I'm pretty sure most around here will show the diamonds regardless of strength, unless the diamonds are lousy and the hearts are great.

My style is to show the hearts with a minimum and the diamonds with about an Ace more than a minimum.

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on May 8 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

My style is to show the hearts with a minimum and the diamonds with about an Ace more than a minimum.

Similar to me, except it's more like a queen and a half or a king.

[jdonn]

I base it more on suit quality and strength, and rebid 2♦ the (vast?) majority of the time.

[kfay]

Phil, on May 8 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

My style is to show the hearts with a minimum and the diamonds with about an Ace more than a minimum.

Agree with this.

But in practice it seems that I usually bid 2♦. My partners usually bid 2♥ anyway over this...

[cyc0002002]

how is it going In 1♥ - 1♠ - ?

[nick_s]

2♦ nearly always for me.

Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

[mtvesuvius]

cyc0002002, on May 8 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

how is it going In 1♥ - 1♠ - ?

Same thing for me... Unless 3640, then it's somewhat interesting...

[Phil]

nick_s, on May 8 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

2♦ nearly always for me.

Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

The argument against this is that we are poorly placed if pard does anything but give us a preference to 2♥.

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 8 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

nick_s, on May 8 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

2♦ nearly always for me.

Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

The argument against this is that we are poorly placed if pard does anything but give us a preference to 2♥.

Ummm.... not if he raises diamonds?

[1eyedjack]

The test that I tend to apply in this situation is: if responder has 1-3 in Hearts and Diamonds respectively, and is about to pass whichever rebid I make, would I prefer to be in 2H or 2D? Quality of suits tends to assume a priority then.

[Phil]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 04:06 PM, said:

Phil, on May 8 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

nick_s, on May 8 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

2♦ nearly always for me.

Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

The argument against this is that we are poorly placed if pard does anything but give us a preference to 2♥.

Ummm.... not if he raises diamonds?

?

If I rebid 2♥, he presumably would raise hearts with an invite and a doubleton, or bid 2N with less hearts.

If I rebid 2♦ and he raises to 3♦ do I guess to now show my six hearts?

What point are you trying to make?

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 8 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 04:06 PM, said:

Phil, on May 8 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

nick_s, on May 8 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

2♦ nearly always for me.

Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

The argument against this is that we are poorly placed if pard does anything but give us a preference to 2♥.

Ummm.... not if he raises diamonds?

?

If I rebid 2♥, he presumably would raise hearts with an invite and a doubleton, or bid 2N with less hearts.

If I rebid 2♦ and he raises to 3♦ do I guess to now show my six hearts?

What point are you trying to make?

My point is (obviously Phil??) that we are well placed if partner raises diamonds after we bid them, not poorly placed. Note that if partner is short in hearts he may be passing 2♥ but raising diamonds. He often doesn't just hold "an invite" no matter what we do. There are 10 counts, even 11 with a heart void, where a 2♥ rebid can be passed. It's entirely possible for partner to pass a 2♥ rebid with game on, and I have even seen it happen with slam if partner has a huge fit. That's why another factor to pay attention to is the faster our values are, in other words more aces, then the more likely to rebid diamonds we should be. Just imagine what can happen on a really good day.

Kxx x AQxxxx xxx
Ax Axxxxx KJxx x

[Tomi2]

nick_s, on May 8 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

2♦ nearly always for me.

Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

ich you then bid the other two suits you will tell your partner, that you hold total 13 cards.

I can't say when 2♦ or ♥ is right, I think I bid both of them about 50% of the times, depending on what my hand looks like. If I hold a hand that is an invite vs. a normal 1nt bid I bid 2♦ and raise partners preferance. then I even habe shwon 10 of my cards I very much like to bid 2♣ even on a doubleton to let 2♦ be 4+ anyway.

If i have fear missing a very thin 4H I bid 2H and hope p raises me.
If I have a hand where I think opps will ballance or so I bid 2H intending to bid 3D next turn
If my dias are good I bid 2D, if my hearts are good i try 2H
etc.

[mike777]

cyc0002002, on May 8 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

We are playing  2 over 1 game forcing
In this following sequence

1♥ - 1NT -
?

I got 6-4 in red suits(and not  maximum)
When to 2♦ When to 2♥?

An addional question
Does it make difference if we play Precision

A terrific everyday question, ty for posting it.

I guess I would rebid 2h with a minimum and 2d with extras.

Chalk this up to one more time I may lose the diamond suit in 2/1.

[rbforster]

A couple of comments -

1. sometimes you can open a heavy weak 2♥ with 6 good hearts and a bare minimum opener. If you can handle this ok (overlapping you min openers with your max preempts), this means that 1♥-1♠/NT-2♥ shows a little extra (which is nice since that auction can normally can have a pretty wide range by opener). This also means you can feel free to rebid your diamonds with a min 6-4, which is more descriptive.

cyc0002002, on May 8 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

how is it going In 1♥ - 1♠ - ?

2. The NT rebid on this auction is quite rare (12-14 bal typically 2533 or some 35(32)'s), so one option is to use the 1N rebid to show diamonds (3+, but almost always 4+). This frees up some space, as well as given your side a cheap 2♣ artificial force (in contrast to a 3♣ 4th suit bid over a natural 2♦ rebid by opener).

[Phil]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

My point is (obviously Phil??) that we are well placed if partner raises diamonds after we bid them, not poorly placed. Note that if partner is short in hearts he may be passing 2♥ but raising diamonds. He often doesn't just hold "an invite" no matter what we do. There are 10 counts, even 11 with a heart void, where a 2♥ rebid can be passed. It's entirely possible for partner to pass a 2♥ rebid with game on, and I have even seen it happen with slam if partner has a huge fit. That's why another factor to pay attention to is the faster our values are, in other words more aces, then the more likely to rebid diamonds we should be. Just imagine what can happen on a really good day.

Kxx x AQxxxx xxx
Ax Axxxxx KJxx x

Well Josh, you don't specifically mention how you are getting to this perfecto 21 point slam, but you make a good point. Your opening hand is very close to a 2♦ rebid for me too. I think in my early post I mentioned an Ace over a minimum, and with the primes, I'd bid 2♦ with perhaps the ♦Q (instead of the J) or the ♥JT.

By the way, your responding hand is very close to a 3♦ call over 1♥. Add the 10-9 to the suit and you and I are both bidding it.

And your responding hand sure doesn't fit 1♥ - 1N - 2♦ - 3♦, because it is a clear 2♠ call over 2♦.

Now I hope that you'll appreciate my point:

Kx, KJxxxx, KQxx, x

1♥ - 1N
2♦ - 3♦...

Does opener pass playing pard for:

A: Qxx x Axxxx QJxx

Or does opener trudge on with 3♥, hoping for:

B: Qxx Ax, Axxxx, xxx


If you say "3♥ always", then how does opener ever differentiate between:

Kx KJxxxx KQxx x

and

Ax KQxxxx KQxx x (important, since 3N is the spot with A and 6♦ with


2♦ shoots for a narrow target of 5♦ (or the bullseye of 6♦), with a minimum 6-4 opener (relevant, since that's the hand many of us are bidding 2♥ on) facing a 9-10 point response. 2♥ is more pragmatic and seeks sensible 6-2 4♥ contracts, and preserves our diamond partials along the way.

[andy_h]

I think Josh's point was that by rebidding 2♥ you can miss some games or better partials than had you rebid 2♦. His example hand was based on how (extreme) rebidding 2♥ may cause partner to pass when there's a better spot elsewhere (I mean, if we rebid 2♦ obviously responder is bidding 2♠ lol).

On your example hands Phil, hand B is worth a 2♠ imo with 2 red bullets. I think opener has a clear pass over 3♦ with an aceless hand given that partner has bypassed 2♠. Kx KJxxxx KQxx x and Ax KQxxxx KQxx x seems very different as the latter one seems like a way better hand given the A and KQ combos and would accept the invite.

I don't see how 2♦ is shooting for a (narrow?) target of 5♦ and how it can't get us to a good 4♥ on a 6-2 still. It lets responder judge his diamond fillers whereas if we had rebid 2♥, responder can't really know what random honours are good. So I think 2♦ has a huge target in finding better partials as well as the games that a rebid of 2♥ can also do.

[jdonn]

My example wasn't that extreme. Get rid of the Q and J of diamonds. How can I choose a rebid that could miss a slam with 18 combined! And I agree that responder would rebid 2♠ not 3♦ but the point is he would pass 2♥. It's not hard to construct auctions to slam, whether I would have them who knows but surely I would reach game.

I don't think 5♦ or diamond partscores are narrow targets btw. But ultimately it's a lot easier to get to hearts after 2♦ than diamonds after 2♥.

One last point is I don't see how the guess of whether to bid 3♥ after 1♥ 1NT 2♦ 3♦ is any different than the 'guess' of whether to bid 3♦ after 1♥ 1NT 2♥ 2NT or something. In neither case are we guaranteed a fit (granted it's very likely in the second case when partner bids 1NT instead of 1♠). I just don't see how you can claim a diamond raise leaves us poorly placed. With a very minimum hand you pass the 3♦ bid, otherwise you stretch to bid 3♥ at least secure in the knowledge you have a fit to fall back on.