[mike777]

Learning 2/1. There seems to be a system glich in 2/1. Have read both Hardy books. Bidding goes 1s....1nt 2d.......your hand is XX, AJ9XX, AQXX, XX PER HARDY 3H=9-12(-) with 6h and 2h=5-9(-). Dislike bidding invite hand at 3 level with only 5h and 3d may lose h suit and 2nt has no club stopper.

[luke warm]

i realize ahead of time that some will disagree, but with the hand shown i'd bid a game forcing 2H over 1S...

[pclayton]

Raise to 3♦. With extras, pard will pattern out with 3♥.

By the way, I play a 2♦ rebid promises 4 - so this is easier for me.

[hrothgar]

Agree (In part) with PClayton:

The Polish response style over a forcing NT in which 2♦ promises 4+ cards and 2♣ could be made on a doubleton makes bidding much easier.

In the absence of such an agreement, you're probably forced to rebid 2N over 2m...

[inquiry]

Welcome to the BridgeBase Forum Mike. Hope you visit often.

The correct bid with this hand if you started 1NT on this hand is 1♠-1NT-2♦ is, imho, 2♠.

This is another reason why I use am artificial 2♣ to show a variety of hands, which would include this one. After my 2♣ bid, we will reach all games and not risk partner having to pass this 2♠ bid out of fear that I am "busted", or arrive in a relatively sound 5-2 spade fit whenever partner is very weak...

Ben

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Aug 31 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

The correct bid with this hand if you started 1NT on this hand is 1♠-1NT-2♦ is, imho, 2♠.

A 2♠ bid seem badly flawed...

Traditionally, bidding a forcing NT and then correcting to two of partner's major shows one of two hand types:

1. 3 card trump support, lacking sufficient strength for a constructive raise
2. 2 card trump support with approximately the right strengt for a constructive raise.

The hand in question is easily worth a limit raise and seems much too strong for a 2♠ rebid. How is partner suppose to make an intelligent decision if a 2♠ rebid could show anything from

♠ QT4
♥ 9852
♦63
♣K762

to the hand in question.

You have a hand that wants to invite 3N opposite a normal 2/1 opening.
Bid it as such...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Aug 31 2004, 10:29 AM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 31 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

The correct bid with this hand if you started 1NT on this hand is 1♠-1NT-2♦ is, imho, 2♠.

A 2♠ bid seem badly flawed...

Traditionally, bidding a forcing NT and then correcting to two of partner's major shows one of two hand types:

1. 3 card trump support, lacking sufficient strength for a constructive raise
2. 2 card trump support with approximately the right strengt for a constructive raise.

The hand in question is easily worth a limit raise and seems much too strong for a 2♠ rebid. How is partner suppose to make an intelligent decision if a 2♠ rebid could show anything from

♠ QT4
♥ 9852
♦63
♣K762

to the hand in question.

You have a hand that wants to invite 3N opposite a normal 2/1 opening.
Bid it as such...

Well, everything is badly flawed with this hand. This is one of the reasons I changed my 1NT responses...but that is another story.

This hand, as the original poster pointed out, is poison over the standard 2♦ response with MOST DEFINETELY does not have to be a four card suit.

2♥ = huge underbid
2nt with doubleton small club is inviting disaster
3♦ may bet you to an unhappy 4-3 fit at the three level
3♥ is right on strenght, but could be a horrible spot if partner is 5-1-4-3
2♠, like 2♥ is an underbid

So what this hand is, in effect, is exactly what the original poster summized, a flaw or hole in the system. In fact, my partners and I play a raise to 3♦ here as "weak, semi-preemptive" as we will not have a natural 2NT rebid available to us (we use 2NT as reverse Good/Bad after a 2♦ response).

The advantage of a 2♠ bid is, if partner has six spades, he will bid again. Why? He only rebids diamonds when holding six spades with a good hand. If he has five spades and five diamonds, he is likely to bid again too, unless very weak. So you stop in 2♠ only when he is 5-4 in his suits and not particularily strong, or 5-5 and very weak. In either case, 5♦ is too far away, and 3NT could be in trouble on club leads. So playing standard 2/1, as much as it pains me, I will stick with the 2♠ bid. This is what partner expects, so I will bid it.

Ben

[whereagles]

It is a "hole" in the system, indeed. One that Max Hardy carefully avoids digging into.

There's no easy way out of it, except playing some artificial scheme after 1S-1NT or making exceptions like 1S-2H forcing for one round, not to game.

In fact, I see more and more players steering away from 2/1 GF in many sequences. Some play 2/1 "game-forcing", with exceptions such as

1S 2H = this case. Hard to handle via a forcing NT

1D 2C = classic case that cannot be changed to GF without messing up the whole system

1M 2m
2x 3m = invitational, 6 card

1M 2m
2M 3M = picture bid. Good minor, mild support but NF

It is my opinion that the forcing 1NT is a good convention, but that the 2/1 should be left as just 1-round forcing.

[paulhar]

pclayton, on Aug 30 2004, 07:27 PM, said:

Raise to 3♦. With extras, pard will pattern out with 3♥.

By the way, I play a 2♦ rebid promises 4 - so this is easier for me.

I didn't respond last night because pclayton said it so well and I had nothing to add. But IMO this is a fine solution. My 2D shows 4 also, but if it did show 3, I would not fear playing 3D on a 4-3 because that would only happen if partner had a 5-3-3-2 minimum (not all that common) and the opponents haven't been too active with their 9-card club fit.

IMO, 3D gives us a better chance to get to 4H on a 5-3 than 2S does, as partner will pass 2S on a lot of hands that can make 4H (especially ones with weak spades.)

[paulg]

A more radical approach, used in Ambra and also by Bocchi-Duboin and Welland-Fallenius amongst others, is to reverse the 2♦ and 2♥ responses to 1♠.

This allows the 2♦ response to show invitational or better values in hearts.

p

[inquiry]

cardsharp, on Aug 31 2004, 01:55 PM, said:

A more radical approach, used in Ambra and also by Bocchi-Duboin and Welland-Fallenius amongst others, is to reverse the 2♦ and 2♥ responses to 1♠.

This allows the 2♦ response to show invitational or better values in hearts.

p

This is a fun treatment, but doesn't solve the problem over 2♥ (showing 3+ diamonds and denying 4♥. Now responder is in the same boat, but iwth pass replacing possbile 2♥ undid. All other bids unchanged, except now you lose the inference from 2♦=3♦, because partner could have passed 2♦ with weak preference for diamonds, but now must bid 3 to get out of an impossible heart contract.

Ben

[luke warm]

for zar point bidders, is responder's hand an opening hand? are there 26+ zar points? or are the adjustments to the hand cause it to be less than an opening hand (and, by implication, a game force 2/1 hand)?

[Flame]

luke warm, on Aug 31 2004, 06:19 PM, said:

for zar point bidders, is responder's hand an opening hand? are there 26+ zar points? or are the adjustments to the hand cause it to be less than an opening hand (and, by implication, a game force 2/1 hand)?

You can take points down for the misfit.
Anyway i dont think its relevant to the question asked here, if this hand is too good, then put a J instead of the Q.

[luke warm]

that's fine, but i was looking at the hand posted... and i knew it would be unpopular, but i'd still bid 2H playing 2/1

[Flame]

luke warm, on Sep 1 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

that's fine, but i was looking at the hand posted... and i knew it would be unpopular, but i'd still bid 2H playing 2/1

And that would be fine.
If a fit will be found your hand is worth game, if not you will still have a chance in 3nt.

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Aug 31 2004, 07:19 PM, said:

for zar point bidders, is responder's hand an opening hand? are there 26+ zar points? or are the adjustments to the hand cause it to be less than an opening hand (and, by implication, a game force 2/1 hand)?

xx AJxxx AQxx xx

PArtner opens 1S...

You have 11 hcp, 4 control points, 12 distributional points. This ads up to 27 ZAR points. I would open this hand in a flash.

However, as soon as your partner speaks, you start adding your fitting points. No points for fitting honors, and minus 3 points for one short in spade support. So this hand becomes worth only 25 points. So soft-pedal in standard 2/1 seems ok. If your parnter is a sound opener (any of those left?), you can bid 2H over 1S.. if not, nope.

As you know, my response with this hand would be 2C... this shows balanced 11+, or 5+ clubs and game forcing, or a constructive raise to 2S or 3 card raise to 3S (say good 8 to bad 12 hcp with three card support). My partner will bid 2S with all horrible opening bids (except those with four hearts). So if parnter bids 2S, I would pass. IF partner bids 2H, I would force to 4H, if partner bids 2D (showing at least some game strategy versus a hand with 3 card support and 10/11 points, I would force to game (because he has shown sufficient extra to make it worth while to try).

Had a similar hand not too long ago, bidding went
1S-2C
2D-2N (balanced good 10+)
3H-4H (3H denied four, since didn't bid 2H over 2C, 4H got us back into 5-3 fit)
All pass

The other way to do this, is to start all game force bids 2C and allow 2H to show constructive hands like this, and 1NT be weaker....

Ben

[mike777]

Thanks for all the great and interesting replies. I enjoy reading them. I thought I had read or heard of most conventions and/treatments but many new ideas here for me.

I always wondered what the delirious obsession over 2/1 was all about. With the many fixes needed such as Bart, meckstroth adjunct and other patches needed to make it work. Now I see many who play system have many more fixes including many experts who have many exceptions to 2/1 game forcing.

If so many play 2/1 game forcing but not really game forcing why not just play old Standard American where 2/1 is very often game forcing just not 100% allowing some limit approach bidding.

Listed here are many examples where invented 2club bids are used. So much for just bidding your hand. Have not even touched on the many other problems such as bidding 16-19 unbalanced hands or inablity for responder to play 1nt natural at MP.

I fail to see the great advantage 2/1 gives one over say....standard american bidding with a more limit approach style or a strong club system.

Again thank you all who took time to respond and I very much enjoyed your input.

[luke warm]

there are hands that are tough to bid regardless of the system one uses... as ben said above, the hand given is an opening hand but may still not be strong enough for a 2/1 reply (though i'd still do it)... however, it is on the cusp so he made a good point

for a system to be considered better or worse than another depends mainly on ones philosophy or temperment... i've found 2/1 to be very playable, especially with a weak nt... if it's not for you, so be it... the 2C bid ben spoke of isn't a part of 2/1... however, polish club isn't a part of precision... both are improvements(?) made to the original systems... bridge will always be like that, i hope... someone will find what appears to be a hole in the theory of a system, and attempt to plug it... i hope they never stop

[pclayton]

mike777, on Sep 2 2004, 10:37 AM, said:

Thanks for all the great and interesting replies. I enjoy reading them. I thought I had read or heard of most conventions and/treatments but many new ideas here for me.

I always wondered what the delirious obsession over 2/1 was all about. With the many fixes needed such as Bart, meckstroth adjunct and other patches needed to make it work. Now I see many who play system have many more fixes including many experts who have many exceptions to 2/1 game forcing.

If so many play 2/1 game forcing but not really game forcing why not just play old Standard American where 2/1 is very often game forcing just not 100% allowing some limit approach bidding.

Listed here are many examples where invented 2club bids are used. So much for just bidding your hand. Have not even touched on the many other problems such as bidding 16-19 unbalanced hands or inablity for responder to play 1nt natural at MP.

I fail to see the great advantage 2/1 gives one over say....standard american bidding with a more limit approach style or a strong club system.

Again thank you all who took time to respond and I very much enjoyed your input.

Well, the subject hand isn't exactly a banner ad for SAYC either:

1♠ - 2♥
2♠

OK - even the most die hard sayc users say we're still in a force through 2N.

Onward:

2N - No stop in ♣'s; yuck
3♦ - Game forcing; yuck
3♠ - Pard's 2♠ could be 5; yuck.

[EricK]

This is simply another hand which demonstrates the difficulties which may arise if you open 1M on a balanced hand.

If partner's 2m rebid can be guaranteed to have 4 cards then you have an easy raise of 2♦ or an easy 2NT over 2♣.

Note that the Polish club style of sometimes rebidding 2♣ on a 2 card suit helps in this case, but doesn't help if responder has ♠xx ♥AQxxx ♦xx ♣AJxx.

If you include 5332 balanced hands in with 1m opening and rebid 1NT unless partner bids your major you will reach the correct level much more easily, the correct game pretty much all the time, and the correct part score much more often. The only downside is missing the occasional part score in a 5-3 major suit.

"Balanced hands should be bid as balanced hands."

Eric