[ArcLight]

Please answer this using the 2/1 methods advocated by Mike Lawrence, not Max Hardy. Please don't answer "in my own system ..."

1. Lawrence uses Strong Jump Shifts.

2. 1♦ - 2♣ is not a game force, just forcing to 2NT or 3 of a minor.

3. 1M - 2x is a 95% agme force but may stop in 4 of a minor if no fit is found and 3NT isn't playable

Scoring: IMP

---

1♠ - 2♦ (Would you ever bid 2♣ instead of 2♦?)
???

What should North bid? 2♠ or 3♦?


1♠ - 2♦
3♦ - ???

Do you look for NT or a ♦ game/slam?

[Gerben42]

Sorry I have not read either book. Perhaps someone can point out the differences between the two styles?

Point 1: I'd never bid 2♣ on this hand, prefer 2♦ by a mile.
Since you ask if 2♠ is an option with the North hand I guess 3♦ would show extra's (it does in my system, so might I be playing Lawrence style? ). I'd bid 3♦.

The question what to look for is also dependant on the scoring. At IMPs I'd look if we should play 5 or 6 ♦, at MP 3NT might be an option although the only way to get there at this point is by bidding it yourself, and I don't see that happening.

My auction:

1♠ - 2♦ - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4NT - 5♦ - Pass

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Oct 11 2005, 07:55 AM, said:

Sorry I have not read either book. Perhaps someone can point out the differences between the two styles?

Point 1: I'd never bid 2♣ on this hand, prefer 2♦ by a mile.
Since you ask if 2♠ is an option with the North hand I guess 3♦ would show extra's (it does in my system, so might I be playing Lawrence style? ). I'd bid 3♦.

The question what to look for is also dependant on the scoring. At IMPs I'd look if we should play 5 or 6 ♦, at MP 3NT might be an option although the only way to get there at this point is by bidding it yourself, and I don't see that happening.

My auction:

1♠ - 2♦ - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4NT - 5♦ - Pass

If I recall it correctly, the main difference:
according to Lawrence 2/1 force only to the
4 level, opposite to Hardy, where 2/1
is absolute game forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArcLight]

Here is another view by someone else:

1S 2D
2S 3C
4D 5D



"Opener ought to let this go because South could have bid 4H or 5C with slam interest. Bidding 3 Diamonds might be temptine. If he had the king of diamonds instead of xxxx, raising diamonds might be right. The Spade suit has good intermediates though"

[pclayton]

I'm thinking it should go in vanilla Lawrence 2/1: 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4♥ - 5♦.

Starting with South playing NSI and Kickback:

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4♥ - 4N - 5♦ - Pass

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 11 2005, 08:03 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Oct 11 2005, 07:55 AM, said:

Sorry I have not read either book. Perhaps someone can point out the differences between the two styles?

Point 1: I'd never bid 2♣ on this hand, prefer 2♦ by a mile.
Since you ask if 2♠ is an option with the North hand I guess 3♦ would show extra's (it does in my system, so might I be playing Lawrence style? ). I'd bid 3♦.

The question what to look for is also dependant on the scoring. At IMPs I'd look if we should play 5 or 6 ♦, at MP 3NT might be an option although the only way to get there at this point is by bidding it yourself, and I don't see that happening.

My auction:

1♠ - 2♦ - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4NT - 5♦ - Pass

If I recall it correctly, the main difference:
according to Lawrence 2/1 force only to the
4 level, opposite to Hardy, where 2/1
is absolute game forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

No this is very wrong.

Hardy plays 2/1 forcing to 3nt or 4 of some suit, Lawrence to 2nt or the 3 level only in many cases.

Hardy plays WJS, Lawrence Strong j/s, approach to forcing nt is different as are many raises.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Oct 11 2005, 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

What should North bid? 2♠ or 3♦?

That's close.
At MP, the 2♠ rebid "sounds" better, IMO, given the poor quality of opener's diamonds (albeit a 4 card raise can never be bad).

At teams/IMPS, probably delivering immediately the diamond fit can simplify a lot the look for a diamond suit slam.

Quote

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ - ???

Do you look for NT or a ♦ game/slam?

I look for slam.
My hand is well worth a distributional reverse, despite the spades misfit.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Oct 11 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

Here is another view by someone else:

1S  2D
2S  3C
4D  5D



"Opener ought to let this go because South could have bid 4H or 5C with slam interest.  Bidding 3 Diamonds might be temptine.  If he had the king of diamonds instead of xxxx, raising diamonds might be right.  The Spade suit has good intermediates though"

I like the rationale for bidding 2S ("bid where our strength is"), but I disagree with responder's signoff of 5D.

Responder should probe for slam trying to checkback for a heart control.

Of course you need to have a tool for that:

- you cannot bid 4S because that should be to play.

- that leaves the choice of 4H, 4NT and 5C to you to ask pard to bid the slam with H control.
Not using other fancy gadgets for minors slam bidding, I would say that responder should bid 5C, when opener should bid the slam if holding a heart control.

[Trpltrbl]

I have a fit, so I show it. If pd has doubleton ♠ we'll find out. But I like 3♦ bid.
I won't go looking for slam, yet.
I am void in pd opening suit and my hand isn't all that good, despite the 5-5.
And not crazy about 3 NT either, so I will just try for game and if pd encourages me, I will make a try.

GBB

[JSilver]

How about 1♠-2♦-2♠ (showiing a 6th and conserving space) 3♣-3♦-3♥ (0-3-5-5) 4♦, (nonforcing, realizing the spade honors are wasted) 5♦?

[luke warm]

well in my system... oh, sorry

i'd almost always bid 3D over 2D, we'd miss 3NT this hand tho...and at matchpoints i'm definitely thinking diamond slam cause i've already missed 3NT (and you know someone will be there)

[ArcLight]

Note: this is IMPS not MPs (scoring was mentioned in the original post)


In Lawrence style 2/1 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ does not promise 6 ♠. In denies being able to make another bid.


I think this is a tough hand to bid. Does anyone think its cut and dried?

[mike777]

ArcLight, on Oct 12 2005, 10:04 PM, said:

Note:  this is IMPS not MPs  (scoring was mentioned in the original post)


In Lawrence style 2/1  1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ does not promise 6 ♠.  In denies being able to make another bid.


I think this is a tough hand to bid.  Does anyone think its cut and dried?

I have no idea why we cannot just bid;
1s=2d=3d at IMPs.

Darn it if partner does not want me to raise his suits then stop bidding them!.
I think this hand is closer to a grand slam in D then rebidding some hazy 2s Lawrence style.

[JSilver]

ArcLight, on Oct 12 2005, 08:04 PM, said:

Note:  this is IMPS not MPs  (scoring was mentioned in the original post)


In Lawrence style 2/1  1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ does not promise 6 ♠.  In denies being able to make another bid.


I think this is a tough hand to bid.  Does anyone think its cut and dried?

OK, 2♠ doesn't promise 6. but when he later raises ♦, doesn't it imply 6?

[Gerben42]

Quote

OK,OK, 2♠ doesn't promise 6. but when he later raises ♦, doesn't it imply 6? 

No it implies not enough values to raise immediately

Great huh?

[kfgauss]

Gerben42, on Oct 13 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

Quote

OK,OK, 2♠ doesn't promise 6. but when he later raises ♦, doesn't it imply 6? 

No it implies not enough values to raise immediately

Great huh?

This may not be ideal, but it works surprisingly reasonably in practice, largely because after 1S-2D;2S-3C;3D-?, we can bid spades with 2 (whereas we can't after 1S-2D;3D).

Raising diamonds later needn't deny the values to raise immediately if you also have 6 spades or are otherwise worried about strain, I think (especially since the suit is diamonds and there are the various issues associated with not having enough room over 3D).

Andy

[JSilver]

At any rate, it seems to me that 2♠ makes for a smoother auction than 3♦. Keeping the auction at the 2-level gives partner room to bid out his shape. 3♦ will get partner thinking about slam but leave him with no clear way to proceed. 4♣ now seems ambiguous and gives up on 3NT.

[Chamaco]

Gerben42, on Oct 13 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

Quote

OK,OK, 2♠ doesn't promise 6. but when he later raises ♦, doesn't it imply 6? 

No it implies not enough values to raise immediately

Great huh?

I disagree.

In Mike Lawrence style, bidding 2S is a temporary catchall, can be:

1. a strong hand, even a reverse without the right shape for bidding past 2S.
In this case, it is often a hand with long spades whose texture is not worth a jump, or a strong 5332 without the right stoppers to bid 2NT/3NT.

2. a minimum hand

Once opener rebids 2S but later bypasses 3NT to bid 4D, he is showing a good hand, so he is excluding the *weak* part of the catchall 2S.

So he can either have a semibalanced reverse or, much more often, a 6+ card spade suit.
In any case, I expect opener to have a good, non minimum hand, and more often than not 6 cards in spades.

[flytoox]

While 2S doesnt promise extra, it doesnt deny extra either. I think this is a textbook 2S, whatever it shows, with or without extra. Your diamond is too lousy, your spade suit is worthy emphasis. After 2S, responder will bid 3C, and you can return to 3D. Now pd can bid 3H and now you can bid 3N. Of coz you can try 3N after 3C, but i dont think it is right to hide the fit forever.

[mike777]

flytoox, on Oct 14 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

While 2S doesnt promise extra, it doesnt deny extra either. I think this is a textbook 2S, whatever it shows, with or without extra. Your diamond is too lousy, your spade suit is worthy emphasis. After 2S, responder will bid 3C, and you can return to 3D. Now pd can bid 3H and now you can bid 3N. Of coz you can try 3N after 3C, but i dont think it is right to hide the fit forever.

Geez I really hate rebidding a nebulous 2s on this hand. Why not just bid 3d, we got 4 card support and ruffing values in clubs. Partner has made a game force bid yes? Seems we are not that far from a D slam where we ruff with small trumps in our hand and set up the spade suit for pitches.

Please note partner could hardly have a more minimum game force hand with a void in our first bid long suit.