[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

1S-1N
2D-?

---

As game is still within reach, we run into the same old 2/1 problem of how to continue. Partner will bid a 3-card suit here with a minimum 5233 as we play 1N as absolute force.

What now?

[pbleighton]

2S.

Peter

[hrothgar]

2NT seems obvious

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Apr 29 2007, 11:08 AM, said:

2S.

Peter

Although this does indeed keep the auction alive, it also offers the best chance to play 2S in a 5/1 fit.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

2NT seems obvious

I believe most play 2N as more in the 10-12 range, so this hand, especially with the singleton spade, seems a bit light.

Obviously, though, 2N is one alternative solution.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 29 2007, 10:50 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S-1N
2D-?

---

As game is still within reach, we run into the same old 2/1 problem of how to continue.  Partner will bid a 3-card suit here with a minimum 5233 as we play 1N as absolute force.

What now?

I would rebid 2s if partner may have only 3D in your style.


I would expect partner to rebid 2clubs with any 5233 shape.
This is what BART is for.

As for now.
I can live with pass or 2S. I lean towards pass, if we have a 7 card fit and partner did not j/s.

[awm]

I'd pass. This is what Gazilli is for. Without such a convention, I prefer to take the percentage action and hope for the best. If partner is very maximum we could easily miss a game, but bidding 2♠ is going to get us -100 or -200 pretty frequently versus the rare missed game. I suppose if I was more fond of 3NT on 23 hcp misfits I could try 2NT (and I know some people who seem to love those sorts of 3NTs).

Partner having a 3-card diamond suit is possible but quite rare, whereas a 5-card (only) spade suit is very common. If partner has 6 spades, at least he will have 4 diamonds also (okay this also depends on style).

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2007, 11:56 AM, said:

I've always thought it was right to pass with this hand type and none of my experiences have convinced me otherwise. Sure I might miss a game but so far this is a misfit hand and any bid I make is a distortion (2N is a pretty big overbid and 2S could just correct from a decent spot to a silly spot). Any debate will boil down to this:

2S: I am keeping the auction open for partner, he may have as much as 18 HCP but I don't want to get him too excited. He will bid again with a 16-18 hand type.

2N: Well I'm kind of screwed, I do have some stoppers and nothing else appeals, this aims at a game and doesnt lead to a ridiculous contract or a missed game with 26 HCP. Sure I may get to a 23 or 24 HCP game, but sometimes those make too.

2D: In the long run I believe this is the percentage action even though we will sometimes miss a game, we will compensate for that by playing a reasonable partscore and going plus far more often than anyone else.

This is such a difficult area of 2/1 due to the wide range of opener's hand, and it becomes harder still at imps with its premium of games and slams.

I happen to agree with your assessment that long range pass probably works best, as it is unlikely to be a 3/3 fit unless partner is 5332 exactly.

However, there is another bid available although not the popular choice, I'm sure, and that is 3D. I don't think this is as silly as it first appears as the chances of it being horribly wrong is fairly small while it keeps open game possibilities.

I am not familiar with Gazilli, so it may be an improvement - but like everything, there are ripples from Gazilli that would effect other sequences and I don't know if that trade off is worth it.

[Fluffy]

Isn't 3♦ as strong as 2NT?, I don't see it has any advantage, high level ♦ contrracts don't rate to play very well.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Apr 29 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

2NT seems obvious

I believe most play 2N as more in the 10-12 range, so this hand, especially with the singleton spade, seems a bit light.

Unlike many people, I don't open on crap when I play 2/1 game force. You severely overload the forcing NT and the frequency of hands like this one increase to an unacceptable level.

Accordingly, for me most 12 counts are a Game Force opposite an opening bid. The only exceptions would be "quacky" balanced hands. I agree that this hand is a bit on the light side, but I certainly prefer 2NT to either 2♠ or 3♦. Pass could work well, especially if 2♦ promises 4+ pieces. However, I prefer 2N.

[jdonn]

2♠ and 3♦ are pretty ridiculous, since if you are going to keep the auction alive the slight overbid of 2NT seems clear rather than totally misrepresenting your hand, or going for a 5-1 or 3-3 fit.

I guess I'll bid 2NT, it's just a guess between that and pass and either is right on different days. I think it's only a mild overbid so no big deal.

[whereagles]

I'll be ridiculous and bid 2♠ anyway.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Although this does indeed keep the auction alive, it also offers the best chance to play 2S in a 5/1 fit.

As passing offers the best chance to play in a 4-3 or (occasionally) 3-3 fit.

If you're not going to bid 2NT (and I won't, a 9 count with a stiff in pd's primary suit doesn't do it for me), it's very close between 2S and pass. Playing in 2S, the 5th spade will score 62% of the time. Playing in 2D, it will almost never score. I therefore have a slight preference for 2S.

If 2D promised 4 I would pass.

Peter

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 29 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

2NT seems obvious

I believe most play 2N as more in the 10-12 range, so this hand, especially with the singleton spade, seems a bit light.

Unlike many people, I don't open on crap when I play 2/1 game force. You severely overload the forcing NT and the frequency of hands like this one increase to an unacceptable level.

Accordingly, for me most 12 counts are a Game Force opposite an opening bid. The only exceptions would be "quacky" balanced hands. I agree that this hand is a bit on the light side, but I certainly prefer 2NT to either 2♠ or 3♦. Pass could work well, especially if 2♦ promises 4+ pieces. However, I prefer 2N.

I agree completely with your assessment that when playing 2/1 one must up the opening standards to compromise for the increased ineffectiveness of the 1N apparatus. I, too, would count virtually all 12's as worth a GF.

I do not critisize pass, 2N, or 3D, as each has merits and faults. In this hand valuation plays a role.

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Apr 29 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

Quote

Although this does indeed keep the auction alive, it also offers the best chance to play 2S in a 5/1 fit.

As passing offers the best chance to play in a 4-3 or (occasionally) 3-3 fit.

If you're not going to bid 2NT (and I won't, a 9 count with a stiff in pd's primary suit doesn't do it for me), it's very close between 2S and pass. Playing in 2S, the 5th spade will score 62% of the time. Playing in 2D, it will almost never score. I therefore have a slight preference for 2S.

If 2D promised 4 I would pass.

Peter

Good point. However, remember that unless partner is precisely 5332, a 3/3 diamond fit is impossible, and without a trump lead a 3/3 at the 2-level can score a lot of tricks on cross-ruff (although I wouldn't build my bidding system around finding 3/3's. )

[Winstonm]

Quote

2♠ and 3♦ are pretty ridiculous, since if you are going to keep the auction alive the slight overbid of 2NT seems clear rather than totally misrepresenting your hand, or going for a 5-1 or 3-3 fit.

Seeing how at the table I opted for 3D, I should feel pretty ridiculous - but I don't.

The likelihood of precisely a 3/3 diamond fit is extremely remote and probably not all that different than the chances of having a 5/3 fit. The hand has a ruffing value and the secondary diamonds cards of QJ9 would rate to go up in value (although this is not a secure as a freely bid 2D) and a quick-catching card in the club ace.
Surely the hand is more suitable to suit play than NT play; however, because of the good spots in clubs and hearts it would also be suitable for NT if partner moves again over 3D.

All in all, if I had it to do over again, I'd pass.

[mikeh]

This problem is an excellent advertisement for the common approach that 2♦ promises 4cards: that 2♣ could be a doubleton. Whether you play Gazilli (which I don't, and which I wasn't aware applied here) or Bart, which I do play, or just seat-of-your-pants bridge, compressing 2♣ offers a net gain compared to making both minors 3+. It makes a bad situation re 2♣ slightly worse, while making a bad situation re 2♦ far better.

On the given hand, I'd probably make the misbid of 2N at least some of the time, but I am certain that pass is the best call.....

[helene_t]

This is very difficult and is the reason why Danny Kleinman in his "The notrump zone" argues that playing 1N forcing is a case for playing a weak 1NT opening.

I think I'd pass.

[jdonn]

I still haven't heard any great objections to 2NT. If we can figure the excellent spots somewhat cancel out having a singleton spade and thus go strictly on a pointcount basis, it's an overbid by a point. What is so terrible about this, as compared to missing games any time partner is maximum or trying to play in ridiculous non-fits? Passing is ok, it's just a gamble that 1-partner is minimum, and 2-partner doesn't have 3 diamonds. But at least under those condititions it would clearly work well. 3♦ seems to be depending on partner to be 5-5 (they WILL lead a trump by the way), and I can't even imagine how 2♠ could work well.

And how often people whine about forcing notrumps too, I don't mind it at all. For every time this situation happens (and if we guess to do the right thing it's not a loss anyway), there is a time responder is 1345 and gets to pass the 2♣ rebid, or 2632 and gets to rebid 2♥ over 2♣, which are both cases 'standard' would have you playing in 1NT. It works worse probably a little more often than it works better, maybe 60-40, but not nearly to the extent its detractors would have people believe.