[pooltuna]

Support with support if 2NT is a ♠LR that is the bid

[Echognome]

Clear 2♥ to me the way you have agreed it (and also the way I like to play it as well).

[mikeh]

'standard' methods are not even close to universal, as this thread shows. But my understanding of standard in a 2/1 context is that one either bids 2♠ as a wide-range single raise, with no constructive overtones, or one decides, a la pooltuna, that this is a limit raise. I tend to be conservative in my limit raises, so would prefer a single raise.

Fortunately, I wouldn't have that problem because, like most here, I have science available. My preferred method, which I don't get to play all the time, is xx=a 1N bid, 1N and up are transfers, with 2♥ being a semi-constructive or better single raise... which seems to me to fit this hand well.

[EricK]

Codo, on Jul 24 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

EricK, on Jul 24 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

we gain a few advantages over standard methods:
1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid
2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid
3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO
4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

This is nice, but does this compensate for the cases, where they found their fit on a lower level and especially for the cases where we need to enter the auction after
1♠ (X) pass (2♦)
pass (3♦)?

It does when we are strong because:
1. Normally the opps are too weak to raise to the 3 level. It's all very well saying they will bid there pre-emptively because of their fit and "the law", but it doesn't seem to happen in practice. Probably because LHO can't trust RHO's double to contain 4 of every suit, and RHO can't trust LHO's forced bid to be genuine.

2. Even in the rare cases where we have to enter at the 3 level, we are probably only worse off if:
a. We go down and
b. The opps would have let us play at the 2 level had we bid an immediate 2♠ and
c. We would have freely chosen to play at the 2 level had we bid immediately

[barryallen]

EricK, on Jul 24 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

This is a very non-standard view, but when you have a decent hand with spade support, I'm not sure it is always right to bid immediately over a double. Opponents are in a forcing situation with probably fewer, and possibly much fewer, than half the points. LHO might be sitting there dreading having to dredge up a bid on his hand (eg a 4333 yarborough!) and by bidding we just let him off the hook.

It is almost certain that we are going to play this hand in some number of spades whatever we do now. If we play that pass followed by showing spade support when the bidding comes back to us shows this sort of hand (reasonable hand, spade support, some desire to defend if opponents bid on) we gain a few advantages over standard methods:
1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid
2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid
3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO
4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

The big negative to this is that partner may have to make a decision based upon zero information. I would always bid 2♥ in this situation giving full clarity at the earliest opportunity, so partner can make any decision informed.

As for reversing the 2♥/2♠ meaning I am struggling with the logic in this situation. Surely better to put the natural block in immediately when the opposition may be unsure of their combined strength?

[EricK]

barryallen, on Jul 25 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

EricK, on Jul 24 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

This is a very non-standard view, but when you have a decent hand with spade support, I'm not sure it is always right to bid immediately over a double. Opponents are in a forcing situation with probably fewer, and possibly much fewer, than half the points. LHO might be sitting there dreading having to dredge up a bid on his hand (eg a 4333 yarborough!) and by bidding we just let him off the hook.

It is almost certain that we are going to play this hand in some number of spades whatever we do now. If we play that pass followed by showing spade support when the bidding comes back to us shows this sort of hand (reasonable hand, spade support, some desire to defend if opponents bid on) we gain a few advantages over standard methods:
1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid
2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid
3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO
4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

The big negative to this is that partner may have to make a decision based upon zero information. I would always bid 2♥ in this situation giving full clarity at the earliest opportunity, so partner can make any decision informed.

The trouble is that standard methods don't differentiate between offensive hands and defensive hands.

If you are going to support in exactly the same way on
♠xxx
♥QJx
♦Kx
♣QJxxx and

♠KJx
♥xxx
♦xx
♣AJxxx

partner is hardly in a great position to make a correct decision if LHO bids

Whereas passing on the first, intending to support later, and supporting immediately on the second, allows us to differentiate; which in turn allow us to make the correct final decision more often.

[barryallen]

EricK, on Jul 25 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

barryallen, on Jul 25 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

EricK, on Jul 24 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

This is a very non-standard view, but when you have a decent hand with spade support, I'm not sure it is always right to bid immediately over a double. Opponents are in a forcing situation with probably fewer, and possibly much fewer, than half the points. LHO might be sitting there dreading having to dredge up a bid on his hand (eg a 4333 yarborough!) and by bidding we just let him off the hook.

It is almost certain that we are going to play this hand in some number of spades whatever we do now. If we play that pass followed by showing spade support when the bidding comes back to us shows this sort of hand (reasonable hand, spade support, some desire to defend if opponents bid on) we gain a few advantages over standard methods:
1. We will have more distributional information when we play the hand because of LHO's enforced bid
2. We sometimes get to double them when RHO overcompetes by supporting LHO's enforced bid
3. We sometimes get to defend 1NTx by LHO
4. We sometimes even get to declare 1♠x

The big negative to this is that partner may have to make a decision based upon zero information. I would always bid 2♥ in this situation giving full clarity at the earliest opportunity, so partner can make any decision informed.

The trouble is that standard methods don't differentiate between offensive hands and defensive hands.

If you are going to support in exactly the same way on
♠xxx
♥QJx
♦Kx
♣QJxxx and

♠KJx
♥xxx
♦xx
♣AJxxx

partner is hardly in a great position to make a correct decision if LHO bids

Whereas passing on the first, intending to support later, and supporting immediately on the second, allows us to differentiate; which in turn allow us to make the correct final decision more often.

I fully agree that the concept of being able to describe a variety of shapes and points in support of partner is available. What I am questioning is whether it is wise to hide a strong raise to 2 of his suit and the ensuing problems it can subsequently cause? I just cannot see the logic standing up!

If pass showed that bid alone then there is no issue, but that is not what you are saying is it? You have no idea of partners strength and shape beyond a certain point, but you can give partner a very good idea of your hand for him to make any subsequent decisions with a degree of accuracy?

[the hog]

Missed this. As this is a "What do you play" question, I bid 2H which shows a better hand than a normal 2S raise.