[pescetom]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-10, 07:12, said:

This fits with my thinking that 2/1 is built for game/slam bidding so you accept that part score bidding will not be as accurate . 1nt forcing is integral to 2/1 so to change it to semi-forcing alters the entire structure of other bids. I think this is a mistake . If you want to be able to bid non-forcing 1nt, don’t play 2/1.

It's a legitimate viewpoint, but I think it has become a minority one. Even the conservative Bridge World Standard now says that a one-notrump response is semiforcing (in it's system where 2/1 is game forcing).

[DavidKok]

I play 2/1 with nonforcing 6-10(11) NT and 'multiplex 2♣'. I think it's very reasonable, and not much better or worse than semiforcing 1NT. I know a number of experienced players have been looking into using 2♣ in 2/1 as entirely artificial (compared to the current 'clubs or balanced or a strong hand with a fit'), possibly even initiating a relay sequence, so from that point of view overloading 2♣ is not that crazy.

[Winstonm]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-10, 10:18, said:

I play 2/1 with nonforcing 6-10(11) NT and 'multiplex 2♣'. I think it's very reasonable, and not much better or worse than semiforcing 1NT. I know a number of experienced players have been looking into using 2♣ in 2/1 as entirely artificial (compared to the current 'clubs or balanced or a strong hand with a fit'), possibly even initiating a relay sequence, so from that point of view overloading 2♣ is not that crazy.

You can overload 2C or overload 1N - there are only so many spaces available for bids and too many hands to fit them all. Something's gotta give.

[jillybean]

nige1, on 2021-August-10, 02:49, said:

As the cards lie, 3N works better than 6♦; but luckier views (as suggested by other commentators) get you to the excellent 6♣ or 6N. [/hv]

One pair bid 6♦, the others were in 3 or 5 ♦, 3nt. No one found the club or NT slam.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-10, 07:12, said:

Justin Lall convinced me that it is ok to rebid nt with a singleton. The only opening scheme I ever used was the 2D opening in Sontag/Weichsel version of Precision.

I personally think it a mistake to create alterations to your basic bidding structure to handle low frequency hands. This fits with my thinking that 2/1 is built for game/slam bidding so you accept that part score bidding will not be as accurate . 1nt forcing is integral to 2/1 so to change it to semi-forcing alters the entire structure of other bids. I think this is a mistake . If you want to be able to bid non-forcing 1nt, don’t play 2/1.

I may be wrong, but as I recall the rebid notrump with a stiff debate was after 1x 1y, where he advocated rebidding 1N if in range…say 1354 1D 1S 1N.

I like the style but neither of my two serious partnerships partners will play it.

I don’t think he was discussing a 2N rebid. The considerations are markedly different. After 1N, the auction may be over, plus we have very narrowly defined our strength, if not our shape. After a 2/1 game force response, we’re not worried about part scores: we’re about strain, right-siding (far more important in game or slam than in partials), and game/slam.

As for how we’d bid it, I think it very close between 1D 2C 2D and 1D 2C 2H

The combined honours in my long suits, each headed by the ace, persuade me that this is just enough to bid a descriptive 2H. I’m influenced by the fact that we open virtually all 11 counts, so this is easily a king value more than a minimum. Swap a red Jack for a small spade, so we have Jx AQxx AQJxx xx, and I think we’re just on the other side of the decision…but it’s very close either way.

Now I think responder needs to grab notrump…not necessarily committing to notrump but protecting the spade King. Slam is definitely in the offing, and the advantage of 2/1 is that 2N is forcing….and (importantly) will allow opener to pattern out….imagine seeing a 3C rebid over 2N. Or 3D for that matter, showing a 6-4 red hand, over which we have an easy keycard.

As it happens, opener raises 2N to 3N.

Now responder has problems. His hand is far stronger than a good 16 count. I think 4D for now.

Then 4H by opener. We don’t have kickback available anymore….one good metarule is that anyone who offered to play in 3N cannot ever ask for keycards.I think you’ll find it difficult to construct hands/auctions where that rule lets you down.

So I think that in real life, north is going to have to guess….he can’t find out how good opener’s diamonds are. Opener might have, say, Qxx AKQx Axxxx x and bid the same way, although arguably opener should not cue on this auction, below game,with poor diamonds, given the context.

On a lucky day I’d jump to 6N over 4H. On an unlucky day, I bid 4N



If opener rebid 2D, which I happily play as ‘could be 4’, responder bids 3D anyway. He’s not looking for a diamond contract…he’s looking for 6N, with diamonds as a fallback.

This fetches 3H, and now I can jump to 4N, quantitative, or cue 3S…which I would NOT do.

3S is either no spade stopper (xx Kx Kxxx AKJxx?) or the spade ace, hoping opener can bid 3Nwith Qx, Qxx etc or intending to pull 3N, thus revealing 3S as a cuebid.

If I jumped to 4N…..I think that opener, who hasn’t shown anything by way of extras, is on the cusp of 6N or pass.


Obviously, since I’ve seen both hands, I’d always get to 6N by north🤪

Oh, btw, playing 1N as semi-forcing is perfectly ok in a 2/1 context. Opener only passes with minimum 5332 hands and even if responder intended a 3 card limit raise, 1N will usually be fine….and indeed will quite often yield a plus when 3M was failing. In addition, some pairs lump the 3 card limit raise into 2C….I don’t much like this since it requires some artificiality to work things out, but some very good players use it.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2021-August-10, 13:39, said:

I may be wrong, but as I recall the rebid notrump with a stiff debate was after 1x 1y, where he advocated rebidding 1N if in range…say 1354 1D 1S 1N.

I like the style but neither of my two serious partnerships partners will play it.

I don't think he was discussing a 2N rebid. The considerations are markedly different. After 1N, the auction may be over, plus we have very narrowly defined our strength, if not our shape. After a 2/1 game force response, we're not worried about part scores: we're about strain, right-siding (far more important in game or slam than in partials), and game/slam.

As for how we'd bid it, I think it very close between 1D 2C 2D and 1D 2C 2H

The combined honours in my long suits, each headed by the ace, persuade me that this is just enough to bid a descriptive 2H. I'm influenced by the fact that we open virtually all 11 counts, so this is easily a king value more than a minimum. Swap a red Jack for a small spade, so we have Jx AQxx AQJxx xx, and I think we're just on the other side of the decision…but it's very close either way.

Now I think responder needs to grab notrump…not necessarily committing to notrump but protecting the spade King. Slam is definitely in the offing, and the advantage of 2/1 is that 2N is forcing….and (importantly) will allow opener to pattern out….imagine seeing a 3C rebid over 2N. Or 3D for that matter, showing a 6-4 red hand, over which we have an easy keycard.

As it happens, opener raises 2N to 3N.

Now responder has problems. His hand is far stronger than a good 16 count. I think 4D for now.

Then 4H by opener. We don't have kickback available anymore….one good metarule is that anyone who offered to play in 3N cannot ever ask for keycards.I think you'll find it difficult to construct hands/auctions where that rule lets you down.

So I think that in real life, north is going to have to guess….he can't find out how good opener's diamonds are. Opener might have, say, Qxx AKQx Axxxx x and bid the same way, although arguably opener should not cue on this auction, below game,with poor diamonds, given the context.

On a lucky day I'd jump to 6N over 4H. On an unlucky day, I bid 4N



If opener rebid 2D, which I happily play as 'could be 4', responder bids 3D anyway. He's not looking for a diamond contract…he's looking for 6N, with diamonds as a fallback.

This fetches 3H, and now I can jump to 4N, quantitative, or cue 3S…which I would NOT do.

3S is either no spade stopper (xx Kx Kxxx AKJxx?) or the spade ace, hoping opener can bid 3Nwith Qx, Qxx etc or intending to pull 3N, thus revealing 3S as a cuebid.

If I jumped to 4N…..I think that opener, who hasn't shown anything by way of extras, is on the cusp of 6N or pass.


Obviously, since I've seen both hands, I'd always get to 6N by north🤪

Oh, btw, playing 1N as semi-forcing is perfectly ok in a 2/1 context. Opener only passes with minimum 5332 hands and even if responder intended a 3 card limit raise, 1N will usually be fine….and indeed will quite often yield a plus when 3M was failing. In addition, some pairs lump the 3 card limit raise into 2C….I don't much like this since it requires some artificiality to work things out, but some very good players use it.

You're right that Justin advocated the 1N rebid at the 1-level but the argument I think is valid with other hands - not all but some.

As for 1NT semi-forcing, it can certainly be played that way. As with everything in bidding, there is trade-off. I long ago decided to incorporate some game-forcing hands into the 1NT response, so I cannot allow a pass, even by a minimum opening; however, if I am a passed hand, I think then it is OK to play semi-forcing NT.

[DavidKok]

With a passed hand there is not much need for semiforcing - 2/1 simply shows a NF 10-11 hand or so, and 1NT is weaker and NF. You just need to figure out how to treat your invitational raises of a major. Some like Drury, some like 2NT, some like 3M.

[Winstonm]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-10, 16:23, said:

With a passed hand there is not much need for semiforcing - 2/1 simply shows a NF 10-11 hand or so, and 1NT is weaker and NF. You just need to figure out how to treat your invitational raises of a major. Some like Drury, some like 2NT, some like 3M.

The issue with passed hand semi-forcing nt is not responder’s bid but opener not having to find a bid when 5332.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-August-10, 13:39, said:

The combined honours in my long suits, each headed by the ace, persuade me that this is just enough to bid a descriptive 2H. I’m influenced by the fact that we open virtually all 11 counts, so this is easily a king value more than a minimum. Swap a red Jack for a small spade, so we have Jx AQxx AQJxx xx, and I think we’re just on the other side of the decision…but it’s very close either way.

I have solid red suits, each headed by the Ace but I can almost discount the spade Jx and I have a singleton in partner's suit, this tipped my decision to the 2D side. I also open virtually all 11 counts, and would like to open some 10 counts if my partner were more tolerant. When deciding if I have sufficient to ‘reverse’ after a 2/1, I want a good, working, 15 count, I haven’t adjusted this to match my light openings, perhaps I should.

mikeh, on 2021-August-10, 13:39, said:

Then 4H by opener. We don’t have kickback available anymore….one good metarule is that anyone who offered to play in 3N cannot ever ask for keycards.I think you’ll find it difficult to construct hands/auctions where that rule lets you down.

I like this.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-10, 16:20, said:

You're right that Justin advocated the 1N rebid at the 1-level but the argument I think is valid with other hands - not all but some.

As for 1NT semi-forcing, it can certainly be played that way. As with everything in bidding, there is trade-off. I long ago decided to incorporate some game-forcing hands into the 1NT response, so I cannot allow a pass, even by a minimum opening; however, if I am a passed hand, I think then it is OK to play semi-forcing NT.

There is an enormous difference between 1x 1Y 1N, and 1Y 2X 2N.

They are entirely different auctions.

After a 1N rebid, responder has lots of ways to bid. He can pass. He can bid 2Y, to play, he can use whatever version of new minor, he can bid 2N, natural or (for me) artificial. He can jumpshift, or jump rebid. Every good pair has a myriad of well-defined bids available and a lot of bidding space

After 1Y 2X 2N, there’s far less space available, especially if 3N may be the end destination. There’s no room for artificiality….at least, I’ve never heard of any equivalent of new minor, and of course we’re committed to game, which is a universe away from the 1N rebid auctions, where 1N often ends the auction.

I mentioned right siding. While right siding 1N can be helpful, if we’re in 1N, the opps have a lot of hcp, and we’re often losing the lead at least once, and often more times than that, before getting our 7 tricks. So we wrong side it…maybe we take 7 tricks rather than 8. Not a big deal at imps…most good pairs design their methods for imps rather than mps. Imps are where the great majority of important titles are won, and where, for pros, most of the clients can win their ever so important masterpoints.

But in game a single trick is more likely to be fatal, and of course in slam it is often critical to get the correct hand on play. Also, we have far more power available, so if we can avoid a killing lead, by right siding the contract, the opps may never get in to make the killing switch.

Plus there’s so little room to identify shape if 2N can conceal a stiff in partner’s good suit. AKQxxx opposite xx is a good (68.5% no loser) suit but AKQxxx opposite x is a terrible (35.5% no loser) source of tricks for slam

Justin is, alas, no longer with us but I very much doubt that he’d agree that one can routinely, if ever, rebid 2N with a stiff in responder’s suit.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2021-August-10, 21:02, said:

There is an enormous difference between 1x 1Y 1N, and 1Y 2X 2N.

They are entirely different auctions.

After a 1N rebid, responder has lots of ways to bid. He can pass. He can bid 2Y, to play, he can use whatever version of new minor, he can bid 2N, natural or (for me) artificial. He can jumpshift, or jump rebid. Every good pair has a myriad of well-defined bids available and a lot of bidding space

After 1Y 2X 2N, there's far less space available, especially if 3N may be the end destination. There's no room for artificiality….at least, I've never heard of any equivalent of new minor, and of course we're committed to game, which is a universe away from the 1N rebid auctions, where 1N often ends the auction.

I mentioned right siding. While right siding 1N can be helpful, if we're in 1N, the opps have a lot of hcp, and we're often losing the lead at least once, and often more times than that, before getting our 7 tricks. So we wrong side it…maybe we take 7 tricks rather than 8. Not a big deal at imps…most good pairs design their methods for imps rather than mps. Imps are where the great majority of important titles are won, and where, for pros, most of the clients can win their ever so important masterpoints.

But in game a single trick is more likely to be fatal, and of course in slam it is often critical to get the correct hand on play. Also, we have far more power available, so if we can avoid a killing lead, by right siding the contract, the opps may never get in to make the killing switch.

Plus there's so little room to identify shape if 2N can conceal a stiff in partner's good suit. AKQxxx opposite xx is a good (68.5% no loser) suit but AKQxxx opposite x is a terrible (35.5% no loser) source of tricks for slam

Justin is, alas, no longer with us but I very much doubt that he'd agree that one can routinely, if ever, rebid 2N with a stiff in responder's suit.

I wouldn't recommend it as normal but I don't think it is all that bad when holding a singleton honor, especially. Really, how often does it even come up. The question originally concerned 4441 hands. How can I ever have a 2/1 problem other than 1D-2C with that holding? The problem then is what is the greater lie - opening a 4-card major, a fake reverse when 4-4, or a nt bid with a singletion?

There are no good answers - there is only a choice of which bad choice to make.



For my thinking, I would not open a 4-card major playing 2/1 and I want partner to respect that my reverses show shape and strength. That leaves me only with 2N when I am 4441 and the auction is precisely 1D-2C. That's my choice. Your mileage may vary.

[Gilithin]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-10, 07:12, said:

Justin Lall convinced me that it is ok to rebid nt with a singleton.

So you rebid 2NT with the entire range? Or you rebid 2NT with 11-14 + 18+ and 3NT with 15-17? If the former, how do you unwind the unwieldy range when Responder might have slam interest? If the latter (assuming from your comment that 3NT is not a picture bid promising precisely 4441) how do you recover the major fit?

[Winstonm]

Gilithin, on 2021-August-10, 21:37, said:

So you rebid 2NT with the entire range? Or you rebid 2NT with 11-14 + 18+ and 3NT with 15-17? If the former, how do you unwind the unwieldy range when Responder might have slam interest? If the latter (assuming from your comment that 3NT is not a picture bid promising precisely 4441) how do you recover the major fit?

The only time it can come up is when I am precisely 4441 and open 1D and partner bids 2C. My choices to solve my rebid problems are: A) open a 4-card major B) rebid a 4-card suit C) bid 2nt. I choose C.

This is a low frequency auction so I believe this is a simple way to handle the problem without wasting time or memory cells.

PS: it just occurred to me that the 4441 hand could be opened 1C as partners never believe club bids are clubs anyway. 🤨

For strong 4441 hands (16-24) I prefer the 2D structure in Power Precision which frees 2H to be used as Flannery.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-August-10, 20:14, said:

I have solid red suits, each headed by the Ace but I can almost discount the spade Jx and I have a singleton in partner's suit, this tipped my decision to the 2D side. I also open virtually all 11 counts, and would like to open some 10 counts if my partner were more tolerant. When deciding if I have sufficient to ‘reverse’ after a 2/1, I want a good, working, 15 count, I haven’t adjusted this to match my light openings, perhaps I should.


I like this.

It’s a question of style and evaluation. As I think you know, I don’t try to render or express my evaluation of a hand using a single number…other than looking at adding up my hcp in a balanced hand, and even there I use tweaks that I express as ‘good’ or ‘soft’ or I like’ or ‘horrible’ as modifers

I like combined honours. I think this is a ‘nice’ 14 count, and I generally bid on the aggressive side, in close decisions, with ‘nice’ hands or hands i ‘like’, while tending to being conservative on hands I do not like, even when most metrics may lead others to think differently.

I think this is close, so would not argue that 2D was a ‘terrible’ call, nor that 2H is ‘obvious’.