Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If responder is interested in playing in spades (say he has four or five spades and only three hearts), would he not respond 1 or 2 (2 is fit showing, promising 5+ good spades and 3+ hearts and invitational values)?

Sure 1 response by a PH is not 100% forcing, but if opener passes with a sub-minimum and spade support, that should be OK.
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP said “2/1 GF” system, so that presumes 3 level JS are invitational (that is even BW standard nowadays) unless some mention to the contrary is made.
OP didn't mention that 1NT response is forcing, but that is
presumed also, otherwise he should have said otherwise.

Alternative is to play 2/1 followed by rebid of same suit as invitational as in Mike Lawrence's old “2/1 GF Workbook”. But I think even ML switched to invitational 3 level JS some time ago.

If this hand is supposed to start with 1NT in their methods, OP should have so stated, and then indicated how an invitational hand with a 7 card heart suit is supposed to be later described. Perhaps the plan is to *jump* to 3 later (but of course that leads to complications if opener rebids e.g. 2).
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West hand is too strong to start with 1NT (forcing).
Should instead bid immediate invitational 3. The 7th heart fully compensates for any HCP deficiency.

Still, over West's belated 2, East with 15 working HCPs, a mild fit, good spades, and a possible ruffing value might have raised to 3 in case his partner is at the top of his bid.

So, I generously vote for “mostly West” (instead of 100% West).
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The conditions of this problem specified playing 2/1 GF.
Your suggestion is not 2/1 GF as you start with a 2 response with an invitational hand with 6 diamonds.
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An immediate 2 should be GF with slam interest (as would be 2NT, 3m, or 3).
So this hand should start with an artificial 2 to see how partner reacts.
In a real partnership, there would be specific agreements as to how responder should rebid in reply to this 2 (2 would show a minimum 3 card Drury raise with no shortness), but the given conditions suggest that not too much can be inferred from partner's 2 rebid.

Clearly, this hand is worth another move since game has play opposite e.g. xx-KTxx-Axxx-xxx and that is well short of a Drury response in my view. Continuing with 2, a natural “help suit” game try seems like the most descriptive option.
If partner merely returns to 3, I think I will give up.
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming 2NT is natural, this seems like the best move. Why punish partner for an enterprising light and shapely balancing double by leaping to a no-play 3NT. He should recognize that this invitational 2NT shows a good hand (like this one) and accept with anything resembling an opening bid.

Of course, if 2NT is Lebensohl, then there is little choice but to bid 3 showing values. I think on this auction “values” should be defined as game-invitational in context, hence more than the “usual” 8-11 typically shown by a 3m bid in a Lebensohl context (e.g. after partner doubles a weak 2).
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural and invitational, 6+ card suit.
Almost necessary to play this with 2/1 GF as otherwise can't distinguish 3 strength ranges of single minor suited hands:
(a) weak (1NT forcing, then rebid your minor)
(b) invitational (direct jump to 3 of minor)
© gf+ (start with GF 2m)

It seems important for e.g. 1-1N-2-3 to be unambiguously weak.
Also, this style frees up some other sequences, e.g.:
1-1N-2-3/3
I use these as very strong (5+ card) raises of responder's
minor (when more than one such bid available, as in above example, bid suit with values)
Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't your partner bid 3 over your 3 rebid? This shows his shape as well as honor locations and allows you to continue with 3NT if you have clubs stopped (as well as other options if you don't).
Oct. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to imagine a more “textbook” hand for 1-1-3.
A 3NT rebid is poor as that should deliver a stiff heart–that is a crucial requirement for that rebid.
Oct. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On this hand, I like 1 much better than 2, but still chose PASS over either.
Oct. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I voted with the majority, but I did not find that choice quite as obvious as the lop-sided vote suggests.

I considered it fairly close for South to overcall 3 on the theory that over opponent's pre-empt, the one who is short in their suit must “strain” to act. Here, with only 7 HCPs, the strain required is large. However, the “short in their suit” is also extreme (void) and the 7 HCPs are in a 6 card suit headed by the AK.
In the end, I decided I would probably not overcall 3 as partner would likely expect more and we might get too high.
But I don't think 3 is outlandish, particularly at matchpoints.
Sept. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 in either case
Sept. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The simulation referenced is flawed as you are failing to consider opener may easily have 6 spades in a hand too strong for a 2 rebid with a suit not good enough for a 3 jump rebid. I do not find such hands to be all that rare.
Further, opener with that shape or more mundane with only 5 spades can be up to 18 HCPs. A jump shift rebid is 100% GF and therefore should not be made with fewer than 19 HCPs unless holding “big” shape (e.g. with 5-5, might jump shift with a bit less than 19, although this may risk getting overboard on a misfit).
Sept. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I have been told by several very good players that they would never pass partner's 1m opening with a stiff in partner's suit, even with a Yarborough. As to what they would do with a doubleton and a very weak hand, I'm not 100% sure.
Sept. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I am trying to say is that playing forcing 1NT responses allows opener to plan some “3 step” sequences to show various difficult to bid strong hands. To be able to use these sequences, opener more or less counts on responder *not to pass* opener's 2m rebid (after 1M-1N-2m) unless responder's hand is *very* extreme in terms of having sub-minimum HCP strength, *and* a misfit for opener's major (i.e. a stiff or void), *and* extreme length (5+) in opener's possibly only 3 card (or even doubleton in some cases) minor.

So in my view, if responder has tolerance for opener's major (i.e. a doubleton) and true responding values (i.e. 6+ HCPs), he does not pass opener's 2m rebid. With such a hand, he typically takes a false preference back to 2M in order to give opener another chance to complete his hand description. At matchpoints, this will often result in a more lucrative contract than 2m even when opener does not have a “3-step” hand and merely passes 2M.

Kit also makes the point that after 1M-1N-2m, responder's raise to 3m is a “courtesy” raise, i.e. does not promise true game invitational strength, but merely shows 5+ card support and, perhaps 8 points. Thus the raise to 3m is another alternative (to passing), although I doubt if I would choose this option (over 2M) when holding a doubleton in the major. Also, I do think the minimum for the 3m raise is higher than for a 2M “false preference” even given that the raise to 3m is defined as a “courtesy raise” rather than as a true game invite.
Sept. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is very basic. Responder should preference back to opener's major. Opener may well have a 17 or 18 point hand with a 6 card major not suitable for a 3M jump rebid (which requires a very strong suit that can play opposite a stiff).
He is over there praying for a 2M preference so he knows that hand is not a big misfit.
It's a real hot button for me to be passed in 2m when partner has a doubleton in my major. Passing virtually guarantees 0 or 1 in my major.
I suppose if responder had a truly horrible hand (like a 4 or 5 count) and dredged up a 1N response, he might be forgiven for passing 2m with 5 card support, but this would be a “view” and a very rare exception.
Sept. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think “responsive” is almost a matter of logic here.
Modern responder's do not pass partner's 1 without a few clubs, even when very weak. So if responder has a few clubs (I'd expect 3 at least) and opener has 6+, it is unlikely that advancer has a sufficient club stack (and strength) to be doubling 2 for penalties opposite a mere 1 balance.
Sept. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,
You are correct that the method I describe does not allow responder with 5=3 or 3=5 majors to check for possible 5=3 fits in both majors. As you say, he would generally just transfer to his 5 card major (after which, it would be possible to miss a 5=3 fit in the other major).
Sept. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was a big defender of 1NT being *forcing* by an UPH.
By a PH, I'm more indifferent. Treating it as forcing does allow for various unbalanced responding hands that had no bid initially. On the other hand, opener may be “light” (less than a full opener) in 3rd/4th, making the option of passing 1NT more attractive.

With my actual partners, we play “semi-forcing” BPH, with which I am OK, but would not object to playing it forcing.
So perhaps I should have voted for “no preference” instead of semi-forcing.
Sept. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think declarer's bidding is all that unreasonable.
Sure, I suppose he could have bid slowly and shown both suits, but that gives away info and will only rarely lead to a superior alternative contract.
Sept. 25, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top