[rduran1216]

---

Whats the plan?

Spoiler: if you bid 4C, partner bids 4H, what now?

[paulg]

4♣ to see if partner shows diamond shortage. Interestingly it is probably easier if he denies shortage, since we can now bid 5NT as grand slam force.

I think we have debated previously the difference between partner's 3♥ and an immediate 4♥ in a 2/1 system. In my view, if partner has a minimum hand with no minor suit control, then partner should have bid 4♥ immediately. So bidding 3♥ without a diamond control suggests extras or a club control. Either of these is sufficient to make the grand slam a fair option if we have the hearts covered.

If partner bids 4♦, then I'll bid 5♣ and see what happens. If partner does not show a spade control I'll try GSF again.

Hands with a void in partner's suit are rarely easy.

[Fluffy]

4♣ with no agreements, with agreements one has to know the meaning of 3NT to decide.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

" Hands with a void in partner's suit are rarely easy. "

Generally, this is true... but not when Hts are agreed as trump.

Opener is ready too go key card with no 2 quick losers in a side suit:

4S! = RKC or

4NT! = Voidwood, excluding the Sp Ace

[rduran1216]

how is 4S keycard?

[MrAce]

I am not a fast arrival fan, but i think jumping to 4♠ here should show a picture hand

1♠-2♥
3♥-4♠ =4522 with no 1st or 2nd round control in unbid suits. With all others i can start with 3♠

At least thats how we play.

Back to this hand, it is really tuff to investigate everything at this point, especially when void is pd's suit. How much do we like if pd is not short in ♦ ? Do we like xxx or Jxx ♦? Does pd have 4 or 3 cards ♥ ? That 4th trump here is very important.

I wish i had the software Mikeh has, to generate hands that pd opens 1♠ and has a ♥ raise and how many of them we make grand. At this point i would probably bid whatever is our serious slam bid start point and then if pd doesnt take the responsibility of going himself i wouldn't be so optimistic about grand and end up playing 6 only.

My worries are pd's longest suit being ♠ and i expect a lot of wasted hcps, and i am not sure how many ♥ he has.

[Hanoi5]

4♣ now, and over 4♥, 5♥. I'm not sure what 4♠ or 5♦ could mean, I suppose 4♠ is better (if it doesn't deny the ♦ cue-bid, which I suppose it doesn't) but there may be misunderstandings.

[mike777]

tough hand as others have said with a void in pards suit.

4c over 4d or 4h by pard I can bid 4nt showing the spade void.(4s) over 4d or 4h would be rkc in h.

[mikeh]

This is a tough hand since opener's holdings are so ill-defined. It would help to know, for example, what kinds of hands he'd consider suitable for a splinter? I would expect something like AKxxx AQxx xxx x to have bid 4♣.

We have to be aware that his hearts may be weak, since 2♥ shows 5+ length.

I see no way of stopping below the 5-level, and very much doubt that we will be able to let him out below slam.

4♣ for now. Over 4♥, I make a spade cuebid...in my preferred methods, 4N would be the cue, with 4♠ as keycard.....I don't have an immediate kickback available to me over 3♥, since I usually play that 4♠ now would be a minimum 4=5=2=2 hand with no minor controls. 3♠ would be a slam move with both majors.

So 4♣ then 4N, hoping to hear 5♣, and then I'd bid 5♦ and respect a 5♥ signoff.....with a good partner who has heard me make 3 slam tries, including 2 after he showed a minimum, I think I should be passing 5♥: KQxxx Axx xx Kx makes slam too rich for my blood...indeed, the main risk of my sequence is that he may feel he should bid slam with that hand after I cue spades. But I think that he should deduce why I didn't keycard despite being able to cue all the suits.

[gnasher]

I don't see why anyone would want to bid voidwood. Opposite ♥AQ, six might be dreadful - AQxxx AQx xxx xx - or seven might be excellent - AKxxx AQxx xx xx.

To bid this hand well, we need to be able to show a diamond suit, so that partner can evaluate holdings like Qx, xx and xxx sensibly. This is a weakness of two-over-one game force - even sophisticated versions of it. Because 3♥ is unlimited, that means we need 3NT to distinguish betwen good and bad slam tries. Hence 4♣ and 4♦ have to be cue-bids. If 3♥ were limited, we could use 3NT to initiate cue-bidding, and use 4♦ to show a suit.

[Edited to correct rather critical typo]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-December-21, 11:58

[ggwhiz]

Very interesting hand for a methods check and lots of variety here.

My minimum 4-5-2-2 hands bid 2nt on the first round.

On a highly natural bent, I would bid 4♣ next and follow with 5♦ over 4♥, raising a 5♥ signoff to 6♥ or cue 6♦ on the way.

Anybody for a gang-cuebid? They were explained to me once but my eyes glazed over before I understood.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2010-December-21, 11:01, said:

Because 3♥ is limited,

I guess you intended to write "Because 3♥ is unlimited"?

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2010-December-21, 11:22, said:

I guess you intended to write "Because 3♥ is unlimited"?

Yes, that's what I meant.

[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2010-December-21, 11:01, said:

This is a weakness of two-over-one game force - even sophisticated versions of it. Because 3♥ is unlimited, that means we need 3NT to distinguish betwen good and bad slam tries. Hence 4♣ and 4♦ have to be cue-bids. If 3♥ were limited, we could use 3NT to initiate cue-bidding, and use 4♦ to show a suit.

This is quite interesting. Opposite limited raises we use splinters and 3NT (3♠, if hearts are trumps) as a general slam try, typically without a splinter.
Do you have good experiences with showing a side suit instead?

Sample sequences:
1NT-2♥-3♠-4♣ splinter or suit (3NT would be a general try)
1♠-3♦ (bergen limit raise) -4♣ splinter or suit.

[han]

With cherdano I played after 2C - 2D - 2S - 3S that 3NT initiated cuebidding and 4C/4D/4H were side suits. I don't remember it coming up in real life so can't help you there.

After 1NT - 2H I superaccept only with 2NT, so that partner can both splinter (by bidding 4C/4D/4H immediately) or show a slam try with a side suit (by bidding 3H first). Maybe you'd say, that's not the point and that I'm avoiding the question. I would reply that I think both tries are very useful and if possible I try to have both. Which I'd prefer depends mostly on the auction. After 1S - 2H I think that responder is more likely to have a minor side suit than to have minor suit shortness.

[gnasher]

Quote

Do you have good experiences with showing a side suit instead?

I think so, but I can't think of any specific real-life hands that demonstrate that it's better than showing shortages. I suspect that on many hands either method will work.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2010-December-21, 11:01, said:

To bid this hand well, we need to be able to show a diamond suit, so that partner can evaluate holdings like Qx, xx and xxx sensibly. This is a weakness of two-over-one game force - even sophisticated versions of it. Because 3♥ is unlimited, that means we need 3NT to distinguish betwen good and bad slam tries. Hence 4♣ and 4♦ have to be cue-bids. If 3♥ were limited, we could use 3NT to initiate cue-bidding, and use 4♦ to show a suit.

[Edited to correct rather critical typo]

I will reveal/confirm more of my ignorance: say 2♥ was not gf, but merely F1. Assume we are talking about two UK experts who do not play together on a regular basis, and don't share partnerships in common...iow they are playing the UK equivalent of Bridge World Standard or 2/1 GF.

How do they continue effectively with the various heart raises that opener may hold?

While it is easy to criticize 2/1 and the method certainly has flaws, it is unclear to me that any method in which the 2♥ response is even wider in range than it is in 2/1 can be handled by 'normal' methods any better than it is in 2/1. I am not saying it can't be: I am hoping to learn something interesting.

[FrancesHinden]

The point is that, unless you play some sort of methods then in 2/1 opener has given responder no information about the strength of their hand in the auction 1S - 2H - 3H: opener can have anything from a subminimum to a huge hand, and responder can have anything from a game force to a slam force. This is an acknowledged problem with 2/1, that neither hand ever gets to limit itself.

By contrast, the Acol sequence starting 1S - 2H - 3H is actually better for this specific sequence, because while responder's hand is wide range, opener is now very limited: a minimum opening bid, usually with only 3-card heart support (most hands with 4 hearts will just bid game and get on with it unless really horrible). If responder does anything other than pass or bid 4H he's now shown a slam try opposite a minimum. This gives him the chance to use 3NT to distinguish e.g. between balanced slam tries and long suit trial bids, because he doesn't need a serious/frivolous 3NT bid: moving at all must be serious as opener is limited.

When I play 2/1 I play a load of artificial stuff after 1S - 2H in order to sort out opener's shape and strength.
Mind you, when I play Acol style responses to 1S, I also play a load of artificial stuff after 1S - 2H to sort out opener's shape and strength when opener is rather stronger.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-December-21, 16:39, said:

The point is that, unless you play some sort of methods then in 2/1 opener has given responder no information about the strength of their hand in the auction 1S - 2H - 3H: opener can have anything from a subminimum to a huge hand, and responder can have anything from a game force to a slam force. This is an acknowledged problem with 2/1, that neither hand ever gets to limit itself.

By contrast, the Acol sequence starting 1S - 2H - 3H is actually better for this specific sequence, because while responder's hand is wide range, opener is now very limited: a minimum opening bid, usually with only 3-card heart support (most hands with 4 hearts will just bid game and get on with it unless really horrible). If responder does anything other than pass or bid 4H he's now shown a slam try opposite a minimum. This gives him the chance to use 3NT to distinguish e.g. between balanced slam tries and long suit trial bids, because he doesn't need a serious/frivolous 3NT bid: moving at all must be serious as opener is limited.

I don't get it: 1S - 2H - 3H appears, if I read you correctly, to be non-forcing. I can see that this narrowly defines opener's hand and this may be useful when responder has a hand that otherwise had mild slam interest.

But the corollary seems to be that opener is truly screwed (as is his partner) when he has substantial extras. Absent artificiality in response to 2♥ (and all artificiality comes with a cost...you lose or at least complicate the natural meaning of the calls devoted to artificialty), how can opener distinguish between the 5=4=2=2 hands just a tad too strong for the nf 3♥ and the 16-18 count 5=4=2=2 hands with strong slam interest?

So your style gains when responder has significant extras but not enough to look for slam opposite a horrible opener, while 2/1 gains whenever opener has any extras at all....by preserving an entire level of bidding space (not to mention keeping available a virtually cost-free call of 3N as artificial...this is an artificiality that carries with it almost no intrinsic downside...how often are we going to want to play 3N?).

My point is that those who knock 2/1 as a basic approach never seem to me to offer alternatives that lack similar and usually just as bad or worse difficulties. But that may be my chauvinism showing.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2010-December-21, 17:16, said:

I don't get it: 1S - 2H - 3H appears, if I read you correctly, to be non-forcing. I can see that this narrowly defines opener's hand and this may be useful when responder has a hand that otherwise had mild slam interest.

But the corollary seems to be that opener is truly screwed (as is his partner) when he has substantial extras. Absent artificiality in response to 2♥ (and all artificiality comes with a cost...you lose or at least complicate the natural meaning of the calls devoted to artificialty), how can opener distinguish between the 5=4=2=2 hands just a tad too strong for the nf 3♥ and the 16-18 count 5=4=2=2 hands with strong slam interest?

So your style gains when responder has significant extras but not enough to look for slam opposite a horrible opener, while 2/1 gains whenever opener has any extras at all....by preserving an entire level of bidding space (not to mention keeping available a virtually cost-free call of 3N as artificial...this is an artificiality that carries with it almost no intrinsic downside...how often are we going to want to play 3N?).

My point is that those who knock 2/1 as a basic approach never seem to me to offer alternatives that lack similar and usually just as bad or worse difficulties. But that may be my chauvinism showing.

I wasn't knocking 2/1 as a basic approach . All I said was " This is a weakness of 2/1".

I play 1♠-2♥ as game-forcing in several partnerships, so I have exactly the problem I described earlier in this thread. I find it worthwhile to identify weaknesses in my methods so that I can do something about them. And I find it useful to mention such weaknesses in forums like this, in case somebody has something helpful to suggest.