[jillybean]

sorry, can't fix the title!

---

2/1 2♣/1M gf clubs or balanced

Your bid

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2023-December-01, 18:59, said:

sorry, can't fix the title!

---

2/1 2♣/1M gf clubs or balanced

Your bid

Either 1 spade or 2NT but I keep being told off for 2NT. I don't like an artificial gf like 2C
I like descriptive bidding - simple approach

[akwoo]

I'm bidding 1 spade. It is awkward after a 2 diamond rebid, but in some of my partnerships I play that a 2S response (or a 2N response if 2S is a heart raise) shows 5+ spades and 3 hearts - this means that when I bid 3 clubs as 4th suit forcing after 2 diamonds, I am only looking for one thing (even though partner doesn't know which), and my subsequent 4 heart bid will confirm a 3 card heart raise with exactly 4 spades and extra strength.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-December-01, 18:59, said:

2/1 2♣/1M gf clubs or balanced

Your bid

The important consideration is how well you can handle auctions that start with 1H-1S. It's easy if partner bids 1NT, but other sequences are murkier (think about what you might do over a 2D or 2S rebid from partner). If you don't bid 1S, you might miss out on a 4-4 fit, but much of the time the auction will flow better if you start with 2C. Then you can simply bid hearts to show your 3-card support and game-forcing hand, and partner will be able to cooperate with any slam try you choose to make.

So I would recommend 2C unless you have confidence in your auctions over 1H-1S.

[jillybean]

Partners next bid is 2♥ after either response.

---

---

[sfi]

What does 1H-2C; 2H show? I'm suspect I'm bidding 3H no matter what, but it's worth knowing.

[jillybean]

2♥ should show 6 hearts

[mw64ahw]

I'm not showing the ♠s; opener can do that if it is their 2nd bid.
So it's 1♥-2♣- X-3♥ as slamish where X describes partners hand further.

I play Kaplan Inversion so with 5♠ GI/GF I use the forcing 1♠. If partner has ♠ this goes via 2♦ and if not I know their 2nd suit or ask for it if ♦/balanced and force with 2♠.

[thepossum]

2NT
I have no idea at this stage because that would have been my first bid. Support, flat and strong hand

[mikeh]

Forty years ago this would be a wtp 1S

The people started realizing what the problem was.

1H 1S 2D. Or 1H 1S 2H

There are almost no continuations after this start where responder can describe his hand…primary heart support and some slam interest. Responder can’t bid 2H over 2D…non forcing. 3H is invitational to game, not slam. 3C is the usual punt but things get messy over virtually anything opener does.

Thus, when playing 2/1 GF, 2C eliminates almost all problems, especially if the partnership has agreed on this style

Personally, I think it a poor system choice for 1H 2C 2H to promise 6 hearts…say you are xxx AKJxx xxx Ax. You really want to be declarer in 3N rather than having the lead come around to partner?

But that doesn’t matter on this hand. Over 2H, responder bids 3H, showing extra values (with a minimum, bid 4H).

[DavidKok]

I strongly prefer 2♣ on hands like this (very strong with support, especially as it is balanced). If partner has spades we will find out, regardless I intend to support hearts next. On 1♥-1♠ there are too many auctions where I cannot both force to game cheaply and show my support on the next round, and we will likely end up quite high before I have managed to do both. Even conventions over 1♥-1♠ don't help all that much.

So really I'm just supporting what mikeh said.

mikeh, on 2023-December-02, 01:51, said:

Personally, I think it a poor system choice for 1H 2C 2H to promise 6 hearts…say you are xxx AKJxx xxx Ax. You really want to be declarer in 3N rather than having the lead come around to partner?

This is a good hand for 2♥ as a punt, but there are also problems in that style. Personally I think that 'shape first' 2/1 has a better tradeoff between effectiveness and complexity, 2M as a punt creates several difficult problems on the next round that even experienced pairs have no good way to sort out. Of course 'everything artificial' is even better, but much more complicated.

[jillybean]

The 2♥ rebid is an important area to discuss with one of my other partners. Here is shows 6 but I have played it, and like it as promising no more than a flat hand, 5 cards.

Here's my auction, Perhaps some of the 1♠ bidders can come up with a better auction before I post the full hand?

---

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would go with a 1♠ response, I am not familar with the follow up to 2♣, and if
I cant make a direct game forcing raise setting heart as trump, e.g. via 2NT, than I try to stay low.
Even if agreed, that 2NT showed 4 card support, I would make the bid, but if you cant bring yourself
to do it, that is ok.

After 2♥ you know two things

#1 you have 9 card fit
#2 the combined strength is at most 32HCP, ..., with a 6 card suit and 16HCP partner should
make the jump.

I would now bid 5♥, I play this as quatitative, but this is not a common meaning.
4NT is useless, you have the controls, what you need is a positive signal from partner, that he
has not opened his usual crap.

The problem with 4♥ is, that it is not 100% clear, that you had primary support fo begin
with, and it is also not clear, that you are expressing slam interest.
You could agree that 3C is some kind of 3rd suit forcing, but it will get messy after that.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-December-02, 07:37, said:

The 2♥ rebid is an important area to discuss with one of my other partners. Here is shows 6 but I have played it, and like it as promising no more than a flat hand, 5 cards.

Here's my auction, Perhaps some of the 1♠ bidders can come up with a better auction before I post the full hand?

---

The problem is exactly what I suggested. Your 4H bid shows a minimum game-going hand. In no way does it show extras. It can’t…3H is non-forcing.

Your hand is far too good for that. Bidding 5H instead is,imo, extraordinarily bad. You are looking at so many aces and kings..you have 7 controls which is far more than the typical 17 count will hold, so you can expect partner to not be thrilled with her hand. Plus it’s such a crude weapon…..how on earth is partner to cooperate?

The normal ‘solution’, having made a 1S response, is to fake a 3C bid.

You hope for something like a 3S or 3N bid over which 4H shows a hand that was too strong to bid 4H last time. Unfortunately this, again, leaves partner poorly placed. If partner bids 3H, now in theory 4D should be a cue, agreeing hearts, but it could be misunderstood and, in any event, doesn’t show a 4333 control rich 17 count.

But 3C followed by 4H at least shows slam interest.

[jillybean]

I'm North, more will be revealed in time.

[jillybean]

---

2♣* is the only response I will make holding Souths cards.
As for the continuations, how about the Schuler shift, showing a 6+ card major, 2♥ is a balanced hand with 5♥ or an unbalanced minimum with 5♥
After 1♥:2♣ 2♥ you have the same auction with south raising hearts on the second round but now South has a little more information.

[DavidKok]

I'm quite fond of the Schuler Shift. It is simple and reasonably effective.

2/1 styles, in particular the 2M rebid, is a topic that comes up with some regularity. On the one hand I think it would be nice to discuss the options in more detail. On the other hand I think that plenty has been written on the topic in the past already, some of it by me even. They say a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject, so maybe I shouldn't start on the differences in 2/1 styles again.

On the actual hand the slam is so-so, hinging on the onside ace of diamonds and no extreme breaks in the side suits. In the long run it is fine not to find slams like this.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-December-02, 11:12, said:

---

2♣* is the only response I will make holding Souths cards.
As for the continuations, how about the Schuler shift, showing a 6+ card major, 2♥ is a balanced hand with 5♥ or an unbalanced minimum with 5♥
After 1♥:2♣ 2♥ you have the same auction with south raising hearts on the second round but now South has a little more information.

I’m not a fan of the Schuler shift. While it’s fine if we belong in hearts, it wrong sides 3N when we don’t.

I’m currently playing something probably just as theoretically flawed (obviously I don’t know an unflawed method!) in that 1M 2C 2D is artificial and shows a five card major…2M promises 6+. This can make finding diamonds difficult (but not impossible…responder can bid 2S or 2N and elicit a diamond bid on occasion, but there’s no doubt this is inefficient for diamonds).

We also play 2M as 10-13, 6 card suit. The main benefit is that 1M then rebidding 2M shows 14+ with a six card suit, making slam bidding somewhat easier, as well as improving 1M 1x 3M sequences. 3M is now 17-18, or a great 16. But you don’t need this approach to gain benefit from the 2D bid after 1M 2C.

Btw, I’d not reach slam on these hands. Yes, I see it makes most of the time. At mps, it’s probably cold. At imps, versus a strong defender, I’d expect to go down quite often. Why?

4N should not be based on any suit off two top tricks. Thus east knows that south has second round diamond control. If it’s a stiff, then unless west has a trick somewhere, slam is making. But if it’s the king, then there’s a high probability that slam makes unless west has the diamond queen. I know for a fact that I’d at the very least consider a low diamond at trick one…not at mps where the overtrick could cost several mps for a low percentage shot at a top, but definitely at imps.

I’ve personally underled an ace against a slam four times…always when dummy has announced a control either by keycarding or by jumping to slam in some auction. Success? 3-0-1. Three sets of an otherwise cold slam and one break-even where the ace didn’t go away. I’ve seen it at my table, as dummy, about half a dozen times….twice my partner, as declarer, successfully complimented the opening leader by playing the King! Partners like that are to be cherished😀

[AL78]

I am not familiar with 2/1 but after 1♥ - 1♠; 2♥, could South not cue 4♣ and start a cue bidding sequence? North bids 4♥ denying a diamond control, South makes another nudge with 4♠, North bids 5♣ now South can cue 5♦, North signs off in 5♥, South either passes or judges slam is likely on a finesse (surely North would have bid slam with controls in diamonds and spades) and punts it.