[jjsb]

hello there

despite our terrible bad match that i/we played yesterday on that "jec's match" (sorry for those watching lol ) there is few boards that i really want to share
ur seated in East

1) none vulnerable

ur holding
xx
Kx
Qxxx
Kxxxx

W N E S
3S P 4S
x P ?

2) all vulnerable
ur holding
xx
xx
AKQxxxx
xx

W N E S
P
1S 2C ?
if u double ur partner bid 2H , ur turn
if u bid 2D South bid 3C ur partner bid 3H , to u

now 2 theorical question
i believe there is a different vision (or at least i heard there is) in 2 over 1 fg about the basic start of auction 1M 2m.
where "i am" (and i think its mostly a french concept) we considere that other bid than repetition shows extra . and so repetition doesnt show 6 cards .
to make it clear
1S 2C
3C shows extra

1S 2D
2Nt also extra

1S 2D
3C also extra
etc
what do u think about all that ?

in that match i did have for exemple
KQ10xx
Kxx
void
A10xxx
on a 1S 2D i didnt want to rebid 3C (my D void scared me)

last one :
u hold
xx
Kxx
AKQxx
AQx

open 1D and on 1S u bid 2nt and ur partner "quant" u with 4nt
for me assuming that i have opened 1D i didnt have to bid 6D to show 5 , 5D w

[jjsb]

sorry i try again as its very confusing to read ..
1)

---

2)

---

if u bid 2D then its :

---

if u double then its :

---

(dont ask me why there is 3C in one case and not in another ... its what happened at the table ...

[paulg]

(1) Double with my regular partner as this only shows two places and does not guarantee hearts. With anyone else I'd bid 4NT to find our minor fit.

(2) Two diamonds. I would not give double any points in a bidding competition . Now I'd bid three spades, probably wishing I was bidding four diamonds.

[Fluffy]

double is completelly disallowed online paul, not sure if it would be a good idea face to face.

I would pass on first and bid 2♦+4♦

[paulg]

paulg, on 2012-October-14, 05:35, said:

<best call removed>(1) Double with my regular partner as this only shows two places and does not guarantee hearts. With anyone else I'd bid 4NT to find our minor fit.</best call removed>

I'll pass then

[awm]

(1) I would bid 4NT, asking partner to pick a minor. Passing could work out, but partner's double is takeout here and it seems likely enough to me that we can make five (or six!) of something to forgo the probably +300 defending.

(2) 2♦ now; with such a source of tricks it cannot be right to pass. Double shows hearts which I obviously don't have. I'd correct partner's 3♥ to 3♠.

On the theoretical questions, good players in the US agree that bidding a new suit at the three-level in a 2/1 sequence (the so-called "high reverse") shows extras, although most will do so with extra shape despite lacking extra points. Devaluing for the diamond void and rebidding 2♠ on your example hand seems pretty reasonable. However, I think most playing 2/1 GF would treat a 2NT rebid as possibly minimum with a suitable hand (not extras) and would consider raising partner's suit automatic when holding four-card support (so not really extras). The "French Style" does agree with the "SAYC Style" but typically 2/1 GF players feel more free to show their shape (rather than rebidding 2M to deny extras) at least here in the US.

On your last hand I think you have to accept the slam invite (AKQxx is too good) and you want to offer 6♦ along the way in case this is a better slam. I'd try 5♦ and then pass 6♦ from partner or bid 6NT otherwise at next turn.

[FrancesHinden]

(1) Double, responsive. No way does or should this promise hearts.
(2) The two auctions given are not consistent with each other. On the first I double, promising hearts, and partner can only bid 2H showing a minimum possibly with only three hearts, but if I bid 2D, showing diamonds, partner is suddenly prepared to introduce his hearts at the 3-level showing significant extra values? I would have bid 2D, and over partner's 3H (natural and game forcing) I would bid 4D.

Your last question, on 2/1 auctions, is simply a matter of agreements. Both styles are possible.

Sorry I read the first one as 3S x 4S ?

This post has been edited by FrancesHinden: 2012-October-16, 14:04

[awm]

paulg, on 2012-October-14, 05:35, said:

(1) Double with my regular partner as this only shows two places and does not guarantee hearts. With anyone else I'd bid 4NT to find our minor fit.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-14, 11:37, said:

(1) Double, responsive. No way does or should this promise hearts.

This must be some sort of British thing, but when your partner doubles and your RHO passes, you cannot then double. While I can understand that this might be named a "responsive double" (double in response to partner's double) the opponents have to actually make another bid (not pass) before your side can double a second time. I understand that people play differently on that side of the pond, but I think the laws of bridge remain the same.

[Codo]

1. 4 NT to show the minors

2. 3 ♠. I surely had raised spades before with a real fit and I do not want to go beyond 3 NT.

2 3 ♦ as this is the way to show a non forcing hand with just diamonds, isn't it?

[nigel_k]

1. Pass. I have no shortage or other reason to want to play at the five level.

2. 2♦. Would not consider double or anything else. I assume 2/1 GF is off in competition but even if 2♦ was GF I would still do it.

3. Depends on agreement. It's not just a French thing that a reverse requires extras. But it's less than what you need for a reverse after a 1/1. KQTxx Kxx - ATxxx has pretty good values, shape and intermediates and is actually quite a lot better than a minimum opening bid so I would bid 3♣. 2♠ is ok though.

4. I would definitely accept the invite. You can bid 6♦ in case partner prefers that, otherwise 6NT.

[MrAce]

awm, on 2012-October-14, 11:45, said:

This must be some sort of British thing, but when your partner doubles and your RHO passes, you cannot then double. While I can understand that this might be named a "responsive double" (double in response to partner's double) the opponents have to actually make another bid (not pass) before your side can double a second time. I understand that people play differently on that side of the pond, but I think the laws of bridge remain the same.

[rmnka447]

Hand #1 - If you believe the opposing bidding partner can't have more than 1 ♠ unless South has raised on 2. I'm bidding 5 ♣.

Hand #2 - 2 ♦ followed by 4 ♦.

As to the "theoretical" question, the view you suggest that a simple rebid of the major denies extras was the original conception of 2/1. I know Edgar Kaplan/Alfred Sheinwold certainly explained it that way back in their 1960 book "How to Play Winning Bridge" which laid out their Kaplan Sheinwold bidding system [2/1 with weak NTs]. Basically, they said that any new suit or NT bid should show extras.

As a practical refinement, you might want to consider one refinement/exception to that rule. The rebid of 2 ♥ after a 1 ♠ opener followed by a 2 m response does not necessarily show extras. That way you don't risk losing a 4-4 ♥ fit.

As for a raise of the 2/1 response, they suggested it showed at least 3 to an honor and 15+ in support of responder's suit.

So where you are is very close to the original 2/1 concept which is still a very good approach. By using a simple rebid to limit opener's hand, it starts to let the partnership assess the potential of the the hand very quickly -- both when it is used and it isn't used. It adheres to a principle of good bidding that someone has to start limiting their hand at some point in the auction.

I think what has happened over the years is that as 2/1 has become more mainstream, people have tried to adapt more "standard" bidding agreements into it. I'm not sure that has been as successful as they believe.

I think 2 ♠ is exactly right with the hand with a void in partner's 2/1 suit.

Finally, the hand where you rebid 2 NT and partner invites quantitatively with a 4 NT call. As long as you and partner are on the same page bidding, then any move over 4 NT should be viewed as an acceptance and a further description of your hand. So I'd believe 5 ♦ is fine with this hand.