[shugart24]

Bidding goes 1H -1S -2C - ? For us we can go fast and slow 3NT to deny or show a Diamond stop at this point. SO what meaning would/could a fast and slow Diamond bid mean ?

1H-1S -2C -2D (fast)
1H-1S-2C -2NT -3C -3D (slow)
1H-2S -2C -3D ( fast as well)

[DavidKok]

What questions are you trying to solve on this auction? You have a lot of bidding space and only limited targets, so I think practically anything should work.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-16, 07:55, said:

What questions are you trying to solve on this auction? You have a lot of bidding space and only limited targets, so I think practically anything should work.

true, I can try and create something, but hasn't this bidding sequence already been invented, tested, and vetted? Am I correct in thinking, we are dealing with two mis-fit hands when going down either of the 3 paths ?

[helene_t]

The first sequence is FSF and doesn't show anything in particular other than some GF hand that can't punt or splinter. It neither shows nor denies a diamond stopper.

The second one is not FSF. The 2NT bid is quite descriptive and allows opener to place the contract, 3♣ is now to play and responder will normally pass it. I think 3♦ is a 4-2-6-1 or maybe seven diamonds, i.e. to play.

The 3rd one can be played as natural, nonforcing (most pairs would play it as 5-5). But some play it as a splinter, agreeing clubs.

[DavidKok]

The standard structure here that I think is very common is 4SGF:

• 2♦: Game forcing, asks for further clarification.
  
• 2♥: False preference, to play.
  
• 2♠: NF natural, the complementary part of the range of 1♥-2♠.
  
• 2NT: NF natural invitational, approximately 10-11 without a fit.
  
• 3♣: NF natural invitational, approximately 10-11 with 4(+) clubs.
  
• 3♦: GF splinter for clubs (some people instead prefer this to show 4♠, 6(+)♦, 9-11 HCP, NF).
  
• 3♥: - (If your 1♠ may contain invitational with hearts, this is it.)
  
• 3♠: Slam interest, sets spades as trumps.
  
• 3NT: To play.
  
• 4♣: - (some people play a gadget here, I would recommend against it. If you are slammish with clubs it is almost always better to start with 2♦).
  
• 4♦: -
  
• 4♥: - (To play)

From your description you are instead playing 2♦ as invitational+, and it contains the natural 2NT rebid, freeing up 2NT (and up) for a transfer structure or the likes and putting more emphasis on stoppers. I think it is a good idea to compare where you win, where you lose and what you are trying to achieve on this start. Personally I think being able to find out which major suit to play (either partner might have extra length in either major) or whether to sign off in 3NT, being invite for game, and retaining slow sequences for slam investigation is good. If you are looking for different properties you may want a different approach.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-16, 08:32, said:

The standard structure here that I think is very common is 4SGF:

• 2♦: Game forcing, asks for further clarification.
  
• 2♥: False preference, to play.
  
• 2♠: NF natural, the complementary part of the range of 1♥-2♠.
  
• 2NT: NF natural invitational, approximately 10-11 without a fit.
  
• 3♣: NF natural invitational, approximately 10-11 with 4(+) clubs.
  
• 3♦: GF splinter for clubs (some people instead prefer this to show 4♠, 6(+)♦, 9-11 HCP, NF).
  
• 3♥: - (If your 1♠ may contain invitational with hearts, this is it.)
  
• 3♠: Slam interest, sets spades as trumps.
  
• 3NT: To play.
  
• 4♣: - (some people play a gadget here, I would recommend against it. If you are slammish with clubs it is almost always better to start with 2♦).
  
• 4♦: -
  
• 4♥: - (To play)

From your description you are instead playing 2♦ as invitational+, and it contains the natural 2NT rebid, freeing up 2NT (and up) for a transfer structure or the likes and putting more emphasis on stoppers. I think it is a good idea to compare where you win, where you lose and what you are trying to achieve on this start. Personally I think being able to find out which major suit to play (either partner might have extra length in either major) or whether to sign off in 3NT, being invite for game, and retaining slow sequences for slam investigation is good. If you are looking for different properties you may want a different approach.

Thanks David and Helen....


I'm not knowing what to do with the two fast and slow Diamond bids, so you may be correct that 2D is some kind of inquiry and possibly invitational +.
We are playing that if responder wants to invite in any of the 3 known suits, he will first bid 2NT over the 2C bid which is a transfer to 3C and then - invite.
If Responder wants to force game in any of the 3 known suits, he will bid one of them at the 3 level which then begins a series of asking questions.

So it could make sense for the 2D bid to be a further inquiry into the openers shape ..eg. does he have a spade fragment

Then I suppose in the bidding sequence, 1H-1S-2D -3C, the 3C would have the same function, but probably game forcing values

[awm]

shugart24, on 2024-June-16, 08:53, said:

So it could make sense for the 2D bid to be a further inquiry into the openers shape ..eg. does he have a spade fragment

Then I suppose in the bidding sequence, 1H-1S-2D -3C, the 3C would have the same function, but probably game forcing values

This is the reason I like to play 1♥-1♠-1NT = diamonds. It gives you a cheap fourth suit (2♣) that you can use to explore or distinguish strength.

[foobar]

One option to consider might be the Meckwell treatment of 1H - 1S. They play 1H - 2S as a weak bid with less than invitational strength (ostensibly 6+), which means that sequences like 1H - 1S - 1N/2x - 2S are forcing, even in competition.

If you like this approach, you may want to consider how it gels with the awm's 1H - 1S - 1N (diamonds) suggestion.

[straube]

foobar, on 2024-June-17, 11:17, said:

One option to consider might be the Meckwell treatment of 1H - 1S. They play 1H - 2S as a weak bid with less than invitational strength (ostensibly 6+), which means that sequences like 1H - 1S - 1N/2x - 2S are forcing, even in competition.

If you like this approach, you may want to consider how it gels with the awm's 1H - 1S - 1N (diamonds) suggestion.

I thought they used to play 1H-2S as GI 6S and 1H-1N, 2L-2S as weak 6S

That fit with their invitational jump shift approach.

[johnu]

foobar, on 2024-June-17, 11:17, said:

One option to consider might be the Meckwell treatment of 1H - 1S. They play 1H - 2S as a weak bid with less than invitational strength (ostensibly 6+), which means that sequences like 1H - 1S - 1N/2x - 2S are forcing, even in competition.

Responder's jump to 2♠, AKA weak jump shifts.

[foobar]

straube, on 2024-June-17, 12:09, said:

I thought they used to play 1H-2S as GI 6S and 1H-1N, 2L-2S as weak 6S

That fit with their invitational jump shift approach.

They might have gone back and forth, but per Dan Neill (djneill), it seems like 1H - 1S - <blah> - 2S is indeed GF. BTW, the latest bidding challenge features a hand that could have benefited from this treatment:

---

Opposite 2=6=2=3 with a single ♦ stopper, 3N was likely down after the marked ♦ lead, but 4♠ was much better. The 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ (GF) auction would have easily found the superior contract.