[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on May 2 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 2 2010, 04:00 PM, said:

You see, you are slowly coming round to the conclusion that lower-level rebids after a 2/1 should be artificial... just a step further and you'll see that it's optimal to play 1S - 2D - 2H as the artificial catch-all as the lowest rebid... nearly there...

Obv you should just play step 1 as the catchall in 2/1 auctions, that's a no brainer. Doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion.

In fact I think jdonn and I used to play that many years ago. I've never played it in a serious partnership though.

Since nobody will play it with me I stick to trying to improve upon "natural" while keeping it as unartificial as possible.

This is the easiest way to handle 2/1. I taught a few of my students this way as well. Actually I got this idea that the level +1 shows minimum by opener about 6 years ago.
In this context, 3C to show 4 isn't very bad either, cause we use 2NT to show 6S( or 2S to show 6H extra). So 3C must show 5-4 or 5-5, which is certainly playable. One problem of 3C shows 5 is that it's not easy for responder to raise to 4C if it doesn't show extra. Often, with 5-3 or 5-4 clubs, no extra, 3NT can still play well.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I would rebid 3♣ because that does not seem completely wrong, only possible bad judgment (which often means insufficient codification).
This being said, if 1N should be strong and a 2♥ opening should cover the minimum 5332 with five spades and perhaps a few unpleasant and uncommon hand types, you might decide that 2N by opener over 1♠ 2♦ shows clubs, which would allow responder to merely complete the transfer when he doesn't feel like saying anything more useful. Another idea would be to use a multi and open 2♠ to show a minimum opening with six spades and rebid 2♠ to show a hand which lacks definition, but at least isn't a minimum with six spades. Maybe that's just me, but I don't understand why we're supposed to open 1♠ as often as 1♥.

[Fluffy]

dburn, on Apr 30 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

MarkDean, on Apr 29 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

I would bid 3♣.  If partner bids anything but 3NT, I will bid 4♦ and think I am well placed.  If partner bids 3NT...well, let's hope partner does not do that to me.

Very well. Partner bids 3♥, and you bid a "well-placed" 4♦. This was the sequence actually followed at the table, but I was not feeling quite as smug about it as I might have done. For example, might I not bid the same way with:

♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

not if you bid it this fast!


I agree with first post from Frances, 3♣ and then 4♦ if partner doesn't bid 3NT. If he does I think passing is right.

As a MP player, I avoid going past 3NT at all cost when it might still be the right spot, I'd never bid 4♦ with 2 cards.