Help
Decided to use the gitelman style 1H 2S, and 1S 3C as jacoby. I don't use bergen raises so jumps to 3 level in general invitational with 6+ cards. However with the 3C taken away for 1S 3C, is it best to have a) 1S 2C 2x 3C as this type of hand, and then 4C just forcing setting clubs, or b.) put this hand type in the 1N responses.
also while this on my mind, 1H 2C 2x 3C would be forcing, so what's the best way to play 4C?
thanks a lot. Dave
Page 1 of 1
2/1 query
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,341
- Joined: 2004-July-02
- Location:Millburn, New Jersey
- Interests:Rowing. Wargaming. Military history.
Posted 2006-September-22, 10:05
Dave,
If you use a 2♣ response to 1♠ as BOTH a GF AND a weak 6 card invitational hand, you may get burned on some auctions.
Pard will think you have more than you do and may bid too high.
Or if the opps compete (not unlikely since your side doesnt have 24+ HCP) pard may misjudge and penalty double them (making), or may bid on assuming you have more and go down.
If you use a 2♣ response to 1♠ as BOTH a GF AND a weak 6 card invitational hand, you may get burned on some auctions.
Pard will think you have more than you do and may bid too high.
Or if the opps compete (not unlikely since your side doesnt have 24+ HCP) pard may misjudge and penalty double them (making), or may bid on assuming you have more and go down.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,053
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2006-September-22, 10:29
Some versions of 2/1 GF have long used the rebid by responder of his own suit as showing an invitational hand. The sequence 1♦ 2♣ 2x 3♣ was the most commonly used, presumably because of the lack of a forcing notrump response.
But 1M 2♣ 2x 3♣ is also, in some versions of 2/1, non-forcing, invitational. This means that it is NOT forcing: you cannot have it both ways.
It is virtually impossible to simply put the invitational ♣ hand into the forcing NT response in an integrated fashion, since you have to cater to the weak hand with long ♣ as well. Thus with x xxx xx KQJxxxx, after 1♠ 1N 2♦ most would take 3♣ as 'to play', a weak bid with long ♣...typically a hand that is going to take very few tricks in declarer's suit(s) but a lot with its long suit as trump.
If you would bid 3♣ on this hand and an 11 count with 6 decent ♣s, opener is reduced to guessing what to do at his third bid.
If you play that 2♣ - 3♣ is invitational, then you are sort of stuck when you hold, say, 6 decent ♣'s and gf values. You respond 2♣ and then what?
Jumping to 4♣ over 2x is extremely committal: it bypasses 3N, which is often the best spot, and it consumes an entire round of bidding space without really helping you identify where to play. Thus it is usually used to connote solid ♣'s and slam interest: the type of hand on which old-fashioned players would have made a strong jump shift (but promising solid ♣ as well as a big hand).
So with Ax Qx xx AKQJxxx, after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ I'd bid 4♣ to set ♣ as trump while about to explore slam, grand slam options.
I usually play 2♣ as absolute gf, but that is in deference to the prevailing expert approach in my part of the world. Playing 2♣ - 3♣ as invitational is workable, so long as partner recognizes that your second bid, on gf hands, may be a distortion... you may have gf values, so cannot bid an otherwise descriptive 3♣, and you lack the hand required for 4♣. This means fudging a forcing 2N or a 4th suit, which is not technically 4sf, but in practice may be merely a forcing noise.
This type of problem is why no-one has yet devised the perfect system
As you will no doubt have already realized, there is no perfect answer. All bidding systems entail compromise: no method handles every hand-type. Thus, Fred's suggestions of using 2♠ and 3♣ as forcing major suit raises have upsides, especially with respect to preserving 2N as natural, but have downsides as well... as do Bergen raises.
Whatever 'solution' you fix upon should be based on your perception of relative cost/benefit and how well your solution meshes with the rest of your system. But do not say, on the one hand, that a bid is invitational, and then say that it is forcing.
But 1M 2♣ 2x 3♣ is also, in some versions of 2/1, non-forcing, invitational. This means that it is NOT forcing: you cannot have it both ways.
It is virtually impossible to simply put the invitational ♣ hand into the forcing NT response in an integrated fashion, since you have to cater to the weak hand with long ♣ as well. Thus with x xxx xx KQJxxxx, after 1♠ 1N 2♦ most would take 3♣ as 'to play', a weak bid with long ♣...typically a hand that is going to take very few tricks in declarer's suit(s) but a lot with its long suit as trump.
If you would bid 3♣ on this hand and an 11 count with 6 decent ♣s, opener is reduced to guessing what to do at his third bid.
If you play that 2♣ - 3♣ is invitational, then you are sort of stuck when you hold, say, 6 decent ♣'s and gf values. You respond 2♣ and then what?
Jumping to 4♣ over 2x is extremely committal: it bypasses 3N, which is often the best spot, and it consumes an entire round of bidding space without really helping you identify where to play. Thus it is usually used to connote solid ♣'s and slam interest: the type of hand on which old-fashioned players would have made a strong jump shift (but promising solid ♣ as well as a big hand).
So with Ax Qx xx AKQJxxx, after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ I'd bid 4♣ to set ♣ as trump while about to explore slam, grand slam options.
I usually play 2♣ as absolute gf, but that is in deference to the prevailing expert approach in my part of the world. Playing 2♣ - 3♣ as invitational is workable, so long as partner recognizes that your second bid, on gf hands, may be a distortion... you may have gf values, so cannot bid an otherwise descriptive 3♣, and you lack the hand required for 4♣. This means fudging a forcing 2N or a 4th suit, which is not technically 4sf, but in practice may be merely a forcing noise.
This type of problem is why no-one has yet devised the perfect system
As you will no doubt have already realized, there is no perfect answer. All bidding systems entail compromise: no method handles every hand-type. Thus, Fred's suggestions of using 2♠ and 3♣ as forcing major suit raises have upsides, especially with respect to preserving 2N as natural, but have downsides as well... as do Bergen raises.
Whatever 'solution' you fix upon should be based on your perception of relative cost/benefit and how well your solution meshes with the rest of your system. But do not say, on the one hand, that a bid is invitational, and then say that it is forcing.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#4
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 2006-January-23
Posted 2006-September-22, 11:12
Agree that 2C 3C as invitational, and 4C as forcing is not a good way to play it. Does anyone know how Fred copes with the 6+ invitational and clubs? It seems the only problem is with the 1S auction holding the 6+inv, using his structure as 1H 3C can still be 6+inv.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,908
- Joined: 2003-December-02
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rimini-Bologna (Italy)
- Interests:Chess, Bridge, Jazz, European Cinema, Motorbiking, Tango dancing
Posted 2006-September-23, 04:40
skilldave, on Sep 22 2006, 05:12 PM, said:
Agree that 2C 3C as invitational, and 4C as forcing is not a good way to play it. Does anyone know how Fred copes with the 6+ invitational and clubs? It seems the only problem is with the 1S auction holding the 6+inv, using his structure as 1H 3C can still be 6+inv.
One way to distinguish one suited minors with weak(ish) and invitational strength is to use a Puppet bid by responder's 2-level rebid in the forcing notrump sequences.
E.g.
1S:1NT*
2X:?
.....-next step(Puppet) followed by 3C = weak
.....- direct 3C = invitational
Fred Gitelman has mentioned playing a (much) more elaborated version of the same principle (with some exceptions of course)
Kokish has written a chapter about a scheme similar to Fred's in Granovetter's "For experts only" (I hope I am not confusing it with another book; please correct if I am wrong, the title was "Rediscovering the forcing NoTrump" ).
However, simply using the next free step (except a preference to opener's major) as Lebensohl-ish Puppet bid should be enough to solve most of these problems.
Whether the cure is worse than the evil, that's another matter, and who am I to say it ? :-)
"Bridge is like dance: technique's important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet !"
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2006-September-26, 08:28
We've trashed Bergen raises in my strong club partnership. Now we play:
1 major - 1N - SF (up to a balanced 12; tends to be somewhat balanced)
1 major - 3 minor - 6-9; 6 cards
1 major - 2♣ - either clubs (soft GF) or art limit raise with 3
1 major - 2N - raise with 4 trump; limit +
1 major - 2 red - soft gf
1 major - 1N - SF (up to a balanced 12; tends to be somewhat balanced)
1 major - 3 minor - 6-9; 6 cards
1 major - 2♣ - either clubs (soft GF) or art limit raise with 3
1 major - 2N - raise with 4 trump; limit +
1 major - 2 red - soft gf
"Phil" on BBO
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2006-September-26, 08:43
pclayton, on Sep 26 2006, 02:28 PM, said:
1 major - 2♣ - either clubs (soft GF) or art limit raise with 3
This is an interesting idea, even in the context of a 2/1 system. How do you play the follow-ups?
#8
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 553
- Joined: 2004-March-29
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
Posted 2006-September-27, 07:06
mikeh, on Sep 22 2006, 11:29 AM, said:
Some versions of 2/1 GF have long used the rebid by responder of his own suit as showing an invitational hand. The sequence 1♦ 2♣ 2x 3♣ was the most commonly used, presumably because of the lack of a forcing notrump response.
But 1M 2♣ 2x 3♣ is also, in some versions of 2/1, non-forcing, invitational. This means that it is NOT forcing: you cannot have it both ways.
It is virtually impossible to simply put the invitational ♣ hand into the forcing NT response in an integrated fashion, since you have to cater to the weak hand with long ♣ as well. Thus with x xxx xx KQJxxxx, after 1♠ 1N 2♦ most would take 3♣ as 'to play', a weak bid with long ♣...typically a hand that is going to take very few tricks in declarer's suit(s) but a lot with its long suit as trump.
If you would bid 3♣ on this hand and an 11 count with 6 decent ♣s, opener is reduced to guessing what to do at his third bid.
If you play that 2♣ - 3♣ is invitational, then you are sort of stuck when you hold, say, 6 decent ♣'s and gf values. You respond 2♣ and then what?
Jumping to 4♣ over 2x is extremely committal: it bypasses 3N, which is often the best spot, and it consumes an entire round of bidding space without really helping you identify where to play. Thus it is usually used to connote solid ♣'s and slam interest: the type of hand on which old-fashioned players would have made a strong jump shift (but promising solid ♣ as well as a big hand).
So with Ax Qx xx AKQJxxx, after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ I'd bid 4♣ to set ♣ as trump while about to explore slam, grand slam options.
I usually play 2♣ as absolute gf, but that is in deference to the prevailing expert approach in my part of the world. Playing 2♣ - 3♣ as invitational is workable, so long as partner recognizes that your second bid, on gf hands, may be a distortion... you may have gf values, so cannot bid an otherwise descriptive 3♣, and you lack the hand required for 4♣. This means fudging a forcing 2N or a 4th suit, which is not technically 4sf, but in practice may be merely a forcing noise.
This type of problem is why no-one has yet devised the perfect system
As you will no doubt have already realized, there is no perfect answer. All bidding systems entail compromise: no method handles every hand-type. Thus, Fred's suggestions of using 2♠ and 3♣ as forcing major suit raises have upsides, especially with respect to preserving 2N as natural, but have downsides as well... as do Bergen raises.
Whatever 'solution' you fix upon should be based on your perception of relative cost/benefit and how well your solution meshes with the rest of your system. But do not say, on the one hand, that a bid is invitational, and then say that it is forcing.
But 1M 2♣ 2x 3♣ is also, in some versions of 2/1, non-forcing, invitational. This means that it is NOT forcing: you cannot have it both ways.
It is virtually impossible to simply put the invitational ♣ hand into the forcing NT response in an integrated fashion, since you have to cater to the weak hand with long ♣ as well. Thus with x xxx xx KQJxxxx, after 1♠ 1N 2♦ most would take 3♣ as 'to play', a weak bid with long ♣...typically a hand that is going to take very few tricks in declarer's suit(s) but a lot with its long suit as trump.
If you would bid 3♣ on this hand and an 11 count with 6 decent ♣s, opener is reduced to guessing what to do at his third bid.
If you play that 2♣ - 3♣ is invitational, then you are sort of stuck when you hold, say, 6 decent ♣'s and gf values. You respond 2♣ and then what?
Jumping to 4♣ over 2x is extremely committal: it bypasses 3N, which is often the best spot, and it consumes an entire round of bidding space without really helping you identify where to play. Thus it is usually used to connote solid ♣'s and slam interest: the type of hand on which old-fashioned players would have made a strong jump shift (but promising solid ♣ as well as a big hand).
So with Ax Qx xx AKQJxxx, after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ I'd bid 4♣ to set ♣ as trump while about to explore slam, grand slam options.
I usually play 2♣ as absolute gf, but that is in deference to the prevailing expert approach in my part of the world. Playing 2♣ - 3♣ as invitational is workable, so long as partner recognizes that your second bid, on gf hands, may be a distortion... you may have gf values, so cannot bid an otherwise descriptive 3♣, and you lack the hand required for 4♣. This means fudging a forcing 2N or a 4th suit, which is not technically 4sf, but in practice may be merely a forcing noise.
This type of problem is why no-one has yet devised the perfect system
As you will no doubt have already realized, there is no perfect answer. All bidding systems entail compromise: no method handles every hand-type. Thus, Fred's suggestions of using 2♠ and 3♣ as forcing major suit raises have upsides, especially with respect to preserving 2N as natural, but have downsides as well... as do Bergen raises.
Whatever 'solution' you fix upon should be based on your perception of relative cost/benefit and how well your solution meshes with the rest of your system. But do not say, on the one hand, that a bid is invitational, and then say that it is forcing.
Isn't the solution here invitational jump shifts? An IJS is a 3minor response to a 1major opening showing 9-11 and a 6crd suit.
As a result the only invitational hands in the forcing 1nt response are the balanced and 3crd raise hands (*). The 2minor responses to a 1major opening are always GF, but 2♣ can be on a 3crd suit since the GF balanced hands are bid that way too.
Playing IJS you will have to give up Bergen Raises and play the 2nt response as invitational or better with a 4crd fit.
(*) To be complete I also have to mention that, after a 1♠ opening, I consider it a good thing to play a 2♦ response as an invitational+ transfer to hearts to keep these kind of hands out of your forcing 1nt. In fact you switch the meanings of the 2♦ and 2♥ responses, the 2♥ response now being GF with diamonds. The follow-ups require some work though.
Steven
Page 1 of 1