[mikeh]

hanp, on Aug 19 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

Codo, on Aug 19 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

What really surprises  me is, that so many people are unable to reach club or diamond slams after a 2 NT rebid, but are easily finding their 5-3 diamond slams after 1♦ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ and avoid the 5-2 slam  on the same time. Amazing.

Do you also have a partner that keeps raising your overcalls to slam on a small doubleton?

I don't (and I like an entirely different set of rebids after what is, in standard methods, one of the more awkward sequences in 2/1) but I have come across the occasional partner who thinks Q10x is slam-suitable support for a rebid suit. In fact, I am one of them when the rest of the hand is slam suitable.

I think it silly to argue: 2N denies 5♦s and therefore one must rebid 2♦. And it is clear that the OP methods are NOT like that...if they were (and in my view that would be a very poor agreement to hold.....do we rebid 2♦ with AQx AQx xxxxx Qx?), this wouldn't be a problem.

I think it far more sensible to argue that when my suit is Kxxxx, if this is slam suitable, we need partner to make an encouraging voluntary noise in the suit, so I will limit my shape and strength via 2N.

Were I KQxxx in diamonds, with an appropriate weakening elsewhere, while preserving at least a stopper in each major, now I'd bid 2♦ rather than 2N. Even Jxx is slam suitable support if we have the side suits adequately handled.

[aguahombre]

Everyone seems to know "Hardy", and that is hard to do, since there were several Hardy publications --each with subtle changes to the style.

A very old variation of Hardy --- fortified by West Coast people who used it as a base --- has the 2NT rebid as a very specific hand (weak NT and exactly 4-4-3-2, in that order).

First priority was to support clubs.
Second was to bid 3D with five.
3rd was to bid a major with, say, 3-4-4-2.
extra strength came after Responder had subsided as to strain.

So, this hand would have rebid 3C ---allowing explorations for 3NT or proper strain to follow. Just introducing some history, not trying to recommend what we do.

[Codo]

hanp, on Aug 20 2010, 06:43 AM, said:

Codo, on Aug 19 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

What really surprises  me is, that so many people are unable to reach club or diamond slams after a 2 NT rebid, but are easily finding their 5-3 diamond slams after 1♦ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ and avoid the 5-2 slam  on the same time. Amazing.

Do you also have a partner that keeps raising your overcalls to slam on a small doubleton?

No but not even Ax opposite makes 6 diamond the contract of my choice.

I do not doubt that you can find out the support partner has for your suit, so can I.

But obviously this is impossible to some posters after a simple 2 NT rebid.

[peachy]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

Everyone seems to know "Hardy", and that is hard to do, since there were several Hardy publications --each with subtle changes to the style.

A very old variation of Hardy --- fortified by West Coast people who used it as a base --- has the 2NT rebid as a very specific hand (weak NT and exactly 4-4-3-2, in that order).

First priority was to support clubs.
Second was to bid 3D with five.
3rd was to bid a major with, say, 3-4-4-2.
extra strength came after Responder had subsided as to strain.

So, this hand would have rebid 3C ---allowing explorations for 3NT or proper strain to follow. Just introducing some history, not trying to recommend what we do.

Couldn't we all agree to play nice and stop quoting the "very old" versions of Hardy.

[aguahombre]

O.K. will just call it an old style of unknown origin ---just to keep things nice.

[Bbradley62]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

First priority was to support clubs.
Second was to bid 3D with five.

What would 2♦ be in that old variation?

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on Aug 21 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

First priority was to support clubs.
Second was to bid 3D with five.

What would 2♦ be in that old variation?

3d was a typo.