[pescetom]

Mentoring a beginner in the I/B tournament, almost all in 4♥+2 here (I sneaked 4♠+3 on a clubs lead).
Not an easy hand to bid at any level, at least playing 2/1.
How would it have gone with your usual partner and opponents?

MP

---

[mw64ahw]

Indeed a tricky one

I have two potential approaches
1. playing transfers over 1♠-1N
2♣ would be
a) 5x4x limited
b) 5xx4 strong
c) 52x4 limited
d) 55xx invitational
Two issues
a) 1N is non-forcing opposite a balanced hand
b) a simple preference for 2♦ may be too weak
Now opener has space to show shape and after 4♥ the onus is on opener to move forward.

Edit: 1b playing a non transfer approach after 2♣, 2N shows 55 in the unbid suits, then 3 & 4♥ again with the onus on opener to make the slam try. This use of 2N is one of those benefits I find not playing a 2/1 game forcing approach.

2. 2♦ 5♥ 10+, or 6♥ 8-10
Given the shape I favour this approach despite the weak hcp. Again shape can be established, but here a slam move is more likely.

I doubt I'd end in ♠

[jillybean]

It would be ugly any way any normal player would bid it, next

[mike777]

Possible

1S-1NT
3NT-then. .

Maybe 6H?

I am biased seeing the hands

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2026-March-09, 19:10, said:

Possible

1S-1NT
3NT-then. .

Maybe 6H?

I am biased seeing the hands

I don't understand 3NT rather than 2NT?
After that, as East I might bid 3H and then pull 3NT to 4D, elicting 4H. I don't think I have the courage to Keycard over that. But with a partner I trust I might control bid 4S (yes, a singleton in his suit) hoping to hear 5D.


Of course we are biased seeing the hands.

[mike777]

3NT shows a bigger hand, solid spades.
Certainly not a perfect bid, thus the problem...

2NT is very passable.

I would add it does show good values outside of solid spades. With only a solid major we can open a "gambling" 3NT

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2026-March-10, 07:28, said:

3NT shows a bigger hand, solid spades.
Certainly not a perfect bid, thus the problem...

2NT is very passable.

I would add it does show good values outside of solid spades. With only a solid major we can open a "gambling" 3NT

My system designer is not a great fan of suit quality requirements or low frequency.
For us 3NT has to have the opening suit 6th as well as a hand strong enough to force to game.
But to each his own.

[mike777]

Yes, having that sixth spade is nicer.
Thus the problem, not a perfect bid

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-March-09, 18:26, said:

t would be ugly any way any normal player would bid it, next

I doubt many of our "normal" players went through 1NT semi-forcing with the hand of East.
1S - 3H
4H - P
Is neither ugly nor impractical, although I dislike it all the same.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing what I play:

1♠-1N
2N-4♦
4♥

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-March-10, 09:27, said:

I doubt many of our "normal" players went through 1NT semi-forcing with the hand of East.
1S - 3H
4H - P
Is neither ugly nor impractical, although I dislike it all the same.

I guess on a global basis, normal is quite different

[mikeh]

Tough hand for those who don’t play good methods…although in fairness nobody really knows how to bid freaks.

I’m lucky. In all my serious or semi serious partnerships the early rounds are trivial.

1S 1N…forcing. I love this hand because my wife and her partners have recently adopted 1N as semi forcing, putting some invitational hands through 2C. I’ve pointed out that this inevitably means bad results when opener passes and responder has a marked but weakish one or two suited.

1S 1N 2N. 2N is 17-19, usually 5332. 3N instead shows long strong spades, usually some 6322.

Over 2N, virtually every good player in NA ( if playing 2/1 and not using gazzilli over 1N) uses transfers here. Transfers are infinitely better than the two main NA alternatives of new minor or Wolff.

1S 1N 2N 3D 3H 4D 4H. End.

Responder has shown a goodish 5=5 in the reds and while west likes his hand, he needs (imo) a third card in a red suit to get excited, and East has no reason to think that slam is good and no safe way to find out.

As I said going in, nobody knows how to bid freaks. There are, as usual, some who have magic sequences when shown both hands.

[thepossum]

I would not have a clue. It is like a duel
West bidding spades, East bidding diamonds and hearts until someone picks a game
I had NS trying to interfere in clubs a bit
and ended up in 5 hearts

Without intereference the nearest attempt to an orderly auction was

1S-2H (I know I am bad but sometimes)
3NT-4D
4NT-5H
P
No guarantee what happens in a practice table happens at a real table

Here is a likely more reasonable 2/1 attempt if I am West

1S-1NT
3S-4S

If I am East I would probably bid 1NT under extreme duress, but I likely would have bid something first time round
I am hoping North interferes with 2C

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2026-March-10, 17:50, said:

1S 1N…forcing. I love this hand because my wife and her partners have recently adopted 1N as semi forcing, putting some invitational hands through 2C. I’ve pointed out that this inevitably means bad results when opener passes and responder has a marked but weakish one or two suited.

1S 1N 2N. 2N is 17-19, usually 5332. 3N instead shows long strong spades, usually some 6322.

I think this is uncharacteristically flawed analysis. I'm very happy to be playing a semiforcing NT, but on this deal it doesn't matter a single bit. With a semiforcing NT, opener passes the 1NT response only with specific weak hands. This is likely a worse contract than responder's strain when responder has a weak hand and a long suit, but on those deals the opponents tend to be in the auction and we frequently don't buy the contract at the 2-level. When it does happen, though, we lose. In return, the 1M-1NT; 2m sequence promises at least four cards in the minor suit, permitting raises and supporting better hand evaluation. I'd prefer it if you waited for a deal where it actually cost before emphasising this downside of the semiforcing notrump.
Personally I think putting some non-gameforcing hands in 2♣ is a much bigger concern. I've played this for a while and absolutely hated it. What's more, it goes contrary to one of the design aspects of the semiforcing NT: if your hand can't tolerate much beyond 1NT facing 12-14 balanced, respond SF 1NT. In my opinion, the whole point of having a F1NT or SF1NT in the first place is to enable GF 2/1 sequences and cope with the wider range of the catchall 1NT response - your wife's approach seems weaker to me.

mikeh, on 2026-March-10, 17:50, said:

Over 2N, virtually every good player in NA ( if playing 2/1 and not using gazzilli over 1N) uses transfers here. Transfers are infinitely better than the two main NA alternatives of new minor or Wolff.

This shows why I wouldn't be able to hack it in NA. I play natural here, having narrowly limited opener's shape and strength and having split out several of responder's possible hands through negative inference last round.

mikeh, on 2026-March-10, 17:50, said:

1S 1N 2N 3D 3H 4D 4H. End.

Responder has shown a goodish 5=5 in the reds and while west likes his hand, he needs (imo) a third card in a red suit to get excited, and East has no reason to think that slam is good and no safe way to find out.

As I said going in, nobody knows how to bid freaks. There are, as usual, some who have magic sequences when shown both hands.

In my methods I don't get as much room due to lack of a transfer, so 1♠-1NT; 2NT-3♥; 3NT-4♦; 4♥-P it is for me. Alternatively opener might decide to treat the hand as a two-suiter rather than balanced - I think this is not a good idea, but technically the shape is there - in which case we'd bid 1♠-1NT; 3♣-3♥; 3NT-4♥; P. On this sequence responder has no way to introduce the diamonds.