[Gerben42]

Hi, in Fred's article "Improving 2/1 GF" he describes a 2NT response to 1♠ showing a GF balanced hand (min. GF or very strong). The question is how to continue after this as it takes quite a lot of space.

Here is a hand we had during partnership bidding:

---

Using this method you start:

1♠ - 2NT
3♠

How to continue? Is 3NT a suggestion to play now and 4♣ cuebid?

What about situations like

1♠ - 2NT
3♥ - 4♥

how can responder destinguish between useful and not so useful hands with support? Even more important: between support for ♥ and or ♠?

[Stephen Tu]

Gerben42, on Aug 17 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

1♠ - 2NT
3♠

How to continue? Is 3NT a suggestion to play now and 4♣ cuebid?

Yes.

Quote

1♠ - 2NT
3♥ - 4♥

how can responder destinguish between useful and not so useful hands with support? Even more important: between support for ♥ and or ♠?

spade support - bid 3♠ over 3♥ to agree spades first, cue bid (or not) later.
heart support - 4♥ = min, 4[C]/4[D] = heart support, cue, max.

[kenrexford]

Regardless of what 2NT shows, Responder does much better initiating this hand with a 2♣ response, IMO. Why? With a minimum that can be bid easily using simple cuebidding, aim toward that technique. With three critical cards, Responder should use an auction that allows him to show these three cards, that Opener might make decisions.

Here is my recommended auction:

1♠-P-2♣ (preparing to later support spades, I like being able to bid in a suit that I have two top honors in -- it helps later) - P-

2♠-P-3♠ (setting trumps; partner will expect something from me in clubs)-P-

3NT (Serious 3NT; I have a 5-loser hand; more importantly, I need to hear about clubs)-P-

4♣ (Cooperative cue; I have two top club honors -- the 2♣ call prepared me for this)-P-

4♦ (great -- clubs are well-stopped; diamonds are controlled)-P-

4♥ (partner bid 3NT as Serious, so my 4♥ bid is real, not LTTC)

This auction allows Responder to show what type of minimum he has, namely where his values are. This auction is not difficult to predict when Responder elected a prepared 2♣ call.

BTW, because of this auction and the principles in this auction, I would bid 2♣ first with the same hand, but only three clubs and a third diamond.

[awm]

Probably a good general rule is that when I have shown a balanced hand, then my introducing a new suit is a cuebid in support of the last suit bid. Correcting to an already-bid suit at the lowest level shows a preference. So:

1♠ - 2NT
3♠...

Any four-level call is a cuebid for spades. 3NT suggests a contract, which would imply positional cards in the side suits and only two spades (or even one spade if 1444 is a possible 2NT call). Bidding 4♠ would show a poor hand for a potential spade slam.

1♠ - 2NT
3♥...

Bidding 3♠ would be preference, showing three spades and at most three hearts. Four of a minor is a cuebid for hearts. 3NT suggests 2-3 in the majors and good minor suit holdings. 4♥ is a signoff with a bad hand for slam (likely four hearts but slow minor suit cards).

This sort of agreement can also be useful in other auctions, for example:

1NT - 2♥ (transfer)
2♠ - 3♥ (game force)....

Now 3♠ is preference, 3NT suggests a contract, four-minor is a cuebid for hearts, and 4♥ is a signoff with a bad hand for a heart slam.

[mike777]

edit

It is a 27 hcp perfect fit hand with no voids, I bet many people will have trouble.

[cherdano]

Of course I agree with all Adam said.

On the given hand, I would suggest a self-splinter with 4♦ by opener - of course a partnership should decide how strong a hand you need for that. After 4♦, responder will drive to slam I would think.

Arend

[whereagles]

If you insist in playing 1M-2NT as an absolute game-force, then Martel-Stansby J2NT variant is just about the only thing out there that makes sense. All other schemes, including standard, bergen, etc are so badly designed they're bound to generate an arguing every 2 times they're used.

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Aug 17 2006, 03:16 PM, said:

<snipY
What about situations like

1♠ - 2NT
3♥ - 4♥

how can responder destinguish between useful and not so useful hands with support? Even more important: between support for ♥ and or ♠?
<snip>

This is fairly simple.

3NT is to play, denying
primary spade support.

Not useful support bid game
direct.

3S, shows primary support,
maybe it is possible to
switch the meaning of 3Sand
3NT.

New suits at the 4 level are cues
for openers 2nd suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

After having re-read Gitelman's idea, It dawns upon me that the objections I have had for the 1M-P-3NT auction are repeated here, but at least a level lower.

The apparent reasoning for this call is to ensure that a two-level minor call is "legitimate," meaning offering a source of tricks. However, this specific example provided in this post illustrates rather well my thoughts on this subject.

A "balanced hand" analysis assumes, IMO, a balanced hand from partner. What I mean is that a balanced hand still often contains weaknesses and strength, suit-by-suit. These honor patterns are what is relevant for an unbalanced partner.

To restate. If Opener is truly balanced, perhaps HCP alone will dictate the level. If, however, partner has shape, then the location of the high cards from Responder will be critical. In that case, the question is not really as to the "balanced" nature of the pips, but rather as to the balance of the high cards.

The hand provided has a notable balance as to shape. However, it is unbalanced as to honors. The critical cards opposite a potentially unbalanced partner's hand are distributed: ♠ .5 ♥ 1.5 ♦ 0 ♣ 2. Initiating a sequence with a "balanced" call frustrates the unbalanced-hand partner who will expect something more like ♠ .5 ♥ 1.5 ♦ 1.5 ♣ 1, perhaps.

This explains why I would bid 2♣ on 3433 pattern with Jxx-AJxx-xxx-AKx. I am, opposite an unbalanced partner, "honor unbalanced."

The apparent goal is to enable a minor call to establish a trick source when Responder later raises the spades. This seems to unnaturally early place captaincy upon Opener. If Responder has that trick source, a useful cue by Opener will allow Responder to assess the value of that trick source. It seems that this entire theory places too much authority with Opener.

Give Responder a different ♠Jxx ♥ AJxx ♦ x ♣ AKxxx, and Opener the less distributional and better-fitting ♠ AKQxx ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ Qxx. As you can see, Responder will be able to elicit the club information necessary to assess the best-likely contract. Opener need not know that clubs are a trick source, because Responder knows this.

The other side of this concept is that Opener, if pip-balanced but honor-unbalanced, should be able to bid 2♦ after 2♣ with that hand, and this works well. Thus, Opener with ♠ AKQxx ♥ xxx ♦ KQx ♣ xx has a "balanced" hand from pip perspective, but unbalanced from honor-card perspective. In many test runs with actual deals and generator deals, the auctions proceed better if Opener, after a 2♣ call, can bid 2♦.

Thus, in summary, I can see merits to a 2NT call as GF and "balanced," but only if balanced as to pips and as to honors. The 3NT call more frequently used seems more problematic unless precisely balanced as to pips and honors, with slow honors abounding (KJx, QJx, etc.).

I'm sure I'll catch Hell for questioning Gitelman's thesis, and perhaps for my sanity.

[mike777]

"This explains why I would bid 2♣ on 3433 pattern with Jxx-AJxx-xxx-AKx. I am, opposite an unbalanced partner, "honor unbalanced."


Wow is bidding 2clubs after partner's 1s opening pretty standard? This is not close to a game force for me unless playing Roth Stone style.

[glen]

Playing 2NT as GF balanced is certainly an improvement over normal 2/1 GF methods. However there is not enough bidding space for opener to properly unwind unbalanced hands and big hands over the 2NT response. That said, most hands will have no problems in getting to the best spot.

I believe it is better to play the 2♣ response to 1♥/1♠ as either GF balanced or GF ♣s. There are various structures possible after this, some involving complex relays. If one is aiming for simplicity combined with effectiveness, one could try:

After 1♥/1♠- 2♣;-? (note M=opener’s major)

2♦: fewer than 4 in other major, not 6+ in M with extras. After 2♦:
---2♥: GF with ♣s.
---2♠: GF with 3+ in M and ♣s.
---2NT: GF balanced.
--- 3X: GF with ♣s and very distributional.

2♥: 4 or longer in other major, not 6+ in M with extras. After 2♥:
---2♠: GF with ♣s.
---2NT: GF balanced.
--- 3X: GF with ♣s and very distributional.

2♠: 6 or longer in M, extras.
---2NT: GF balanced.
--- 3X: GF with ♣s.

The concept is to use 2♣ as a steppingstone on the way to bidding 2NT with GF balanced, to give opener more bidding space to unwind hands.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Aug 19 2006, 09:44 AM, said:

"This explains why I would bid 2♣ on 3433 pattern with Jxx-AJxx-xxx-AKx. I am, opposite an unbalanced partner, "honor unbalanced."


Wow is bidding 2clubs after partner's 1s opening pretty standard? This is not close to a game force for me unless playing Roth Stone style.

I am having trouble with this objection, as I myself open rather trashy 1♠'s on occasion.

This hand has 13 HCP's, not all that important perhaps. However, it features five controls and a fit for the major. Even if 3NT may fail opposite the ugliest piece of trash 1♠ opening available, how wide must the 1NT forcing response be to NOT bid 2♣ here?

If your LIA is unbelievably L on the IA, then add a Queen to the hearts, perhaps, and the principle is the same.

[mike777]

" how wide must the 1NT forcing response be to NOT bid 2♣ here?"


To include most 13 hcp hands, esp this one.

If you add a Queen and now I can rebid 4s showing a minimum 14-15 hcp and 3 spades, no problem.

1s=2c
2d=4s
?

Jxx...AJxx....xxx....AKQ

[kenrexford]

This seems to miss the entire concept of fit-dependency. 14-15 HCP's, but where?