[olegeorge]

I'm curious of reactions anyone may have to Dan Romm's "The Best of Both Worlds - Part I" - column from the September, 2009 Bridge Bulletin.

Briefly summarizing the beginning of what Dan talked of in a modified 2/1 relating to response to a first/second seat 1♥/♠ opening bid:

1.) Besides Splinter bids 2♣ is the only (it's artificial) game force bid,
2.) 1NT and non-jump 2 level responses-natural, non-forcing, -10 pts - usually less than 3 card support in openers suit
3.) 2NT = 10/11 pts (could have 5 card major) - usually with less than 3 card support in openers suit
4.) JS = invitational bid with an excellent 5 card or a 6 card suit and fewer than 3 card support in openers suit
5.) Simple raises and limit raises (may have 3 card support) - unchanged from standard bidding.
6.) 1♠ over 1♥ is natural, non-forcing with fewer than 10 pts or 10-11 pts with a 4 card suit (use 4.above with 10-11 pts and 5 card suit)

In private correspondence Dan indicated to me that a suit like: KQxxx is Not strong enough for a JS (2NT response generally with an invitational response hand)

One would need to read Dan's full writing - to get to rebids, etc.

Amongst those who've read the article, could you please tell me what advantages and disadvantages you see with such modifications????

My sense is that his ideas may work very well at allowing 1NT and 2NT contracts with misfit hands opened in major suits and that responder's - 2/1 response (e.g. 2♣,♦,♥ (over 1♠) - with the possible exception of the latter - H over S response - don't generally give that much info - e.g. a 2♦ response over 1♠ - while denying a Jacoby 2NT response, otherwise says relatively little about one's distribution and diamond strength.

Obviously - there are weaknesses which I'm not fully seeing now.

Reactions ??????

[aguahombre]

I eagerly await the results of using it. He obviously thinks 2/1 is broken and wants to fix it. We have patched some holes in the old 2/1 and are happy with those small changes. Redefining every traditional 2/1 response means it is not 2/1. I hope he calls it something else.

[kenrexford]

This rough type of approach worked really well for some reason in the context of canape (pure, not tendency). I also think this is workable with natural sequences, sort of like the Golady-Toddler structure, depending on how well the bids offers coverage and the extent of follow-up. It would be pattern-completion intensive, I would imagine. If your thing is pattern, then this might be good stuff. My concern would be the overload on 2♣ and the unwind necessary, which would seem to result in a lot of one-diminesional structure missing some two-diminesional solutions. One-under calls gather more space for unwinds, when fits are found, and there might be enough room available, especially if there are some bleed-offs with alternative openings, whether one-level or two-level.

And "diminesional" is much different than "dimensional."

[Mbodell]

I personally really liked natural constructive non forcing 2 over 1 bids. I played them for a while in context of a relay system (bid+1 with all GF, all other bids nf) and that part of the system worked really well. We also used 3 level bids as something sort of similar in that they were non-fit bids (natural, invitational, and usually contained 0-1 of partners suits) which sounds a little similar to what you describe. This was also in the context of a limited openers/strong club system so the opening bid isn't an 11-21 style but more 10-15.

[mike777]

The most important point is if 2/1 bids are not game forcing it is NOT 2/1 system.
To call it modified 2/1 is just silly and misleading.

I cant wait for the next article called Modified Precision, one club is not forcing....

[blackshoe]

I once got taken to task (f2f) for writing "Modern American" in the "General Approach" box and then checking "2/1 forcing to game". "If you're playing 2/1, you have to write 2/1" I was told.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

I once got taken to task (f2f) for writing "Modern American" in the "General Approach" box and then checking "2/1 forcing to game". "If you're playing 2/1, you have to write 2/1" I was told.

OP does not commit all 2/1 bids to game. Thus, he would not check that box, or would state exceptions. Thus, he should not be taken to task for not calling it what it is not. Also a cornerstone of "2/1" is the forcing NT by an unpassed hand. OP does not have 1NT resp to 1M as forcing. To describe his methods as any kind of "2/1" would be misleading to someone glancing at his CC.

[awm]

Agree that these methods are not 2/1. The more interesting point may be whether these methods are good. I'm not impressed. Here are a number of weaknesses when compared to 2/1:

(1) It becomes very difficult to bid responder's game-forcing two-suiters. For example, if responder is 5-5 in hearts and a minor, regular 2/1 lets you bid 1♠-2♥-2♠/2NT-3m and pattern out. In these methods you will get 1♠-2♣-2♠/2NT-3♥ and you are well behind in showing shape.

(2) Responder cannot show a hand with a fit and a strong side suit. In regular 2/1 this hand type is easy (bid the side suit, then raise opener's major). But in these methods the only game force is 2♣, and you may see an auction starting 1♠-2♣-2♥ where responder must choose to show his fit (losing the strong minor) or show his side suit (but fit will often not be shown until four-level).

(3) You potentially reach some silly contracts when responder is balanced and invitational. For example, suppose that opener has a 5422 hand. The auction starts 1♠-2NT. Does opener bid his hearts? Note that 3♥ is non-forcing, so a hand that's accepting the the invite can't bid it. On the other hand, responder could easily be 2344 or 22(45) shape, so if you bid 3♥ on a minimum or 4♥ on a maximum you end up playing in a seven-card fit at the three or four level for no particular reason. Of course, if you pass or bid 3NT you could miss even a nine card heart fit since 2NT is the response with a 2533 invite (unless the hearts are amazingly strong). None of this is a problem in regular 2/1 where the auction goes 1♠-1NT(F)-2♥ and responder raises with a fit or bids 2NT without. This potentially also causes problems in slam bidding when opener has a big hand and responder is invitational.

(4) You can no longer distinguish between three and four card limit raises. You also have no "slow raise" of the major with less than constructive values. And being forced to respond 2♣ game forcing on hands with a big fit (no jacoby 2NT) can muddle some auctions especially if opponents interfere (more likely when you have a big fit than otherwise).

(5) Invitational two-suiters are simply unbiddable. For example, partner opens 1♠ and you hold a 1255 invite (usually 10-11 points opposite a "normal" opening range). If you jump shift in one of the minors you lose the other minor forever. Neither 2♦ nor 1NT is supposed to show a hand this good (and either could lead to a silly partial). And 2NT could be awful if opener passes it too (or if he bids 3♥ on a minimum 5-4, bleh). In regular 2/1 you can start with 1NT and find any nine-card minor fit that exists, or an eight-card club fit in many circumstances, or bid 2NT over opener's 2♥ rebid.

The main win from the approach in this article is the non-forcing 2/1 bids and 1NT. But the issues above are an awfully high price to pay. I don't think it's worth it. If I wanted to make a playable system out of this, I would consider adding a forcing or semi-forcing notrump (solves a lot of the invitational hand problems), using 2NT as a limit raise or better, installing some sort of relay structure after 1M-2♣, and using some of the freed-up 2/1 calls as transfers (for example 1♠-2♦ showing hearts and 1♠-2♥ showing a constructive-to-limit three card spade raise).

[fromageGB]

Adam gives a good summary of the negatives. I would add a followup (2b) comment that responder showing a game force 5 card suit then 3M agreement is a perfect starting point for cue bidding sequences. Not possible in the OP methods.

I don't see how you can call it 2/1, it is just standard with an artificial 2♣ response. Plenty of negatives, but the positives are very scant.

[gnasher]

I haven't seen the article. However, from experience of trying to do something similar myself, I'd be surprised if he's managed to devise a workable system that can be described in a couple of magazine articles. To make it work you seem to need an awful of system. The main problem is that as well as exchanging information about shape, you also need to establish whether there are any extra values.

To the weaknesses mentioned by Adam I would add:
(6) "Invitational with an excellent 5 card or a 6 card suit" covers far to wide a range of hands for a three-level response. Would all of these hands bid 1♠-3♦:
  xx Qxx AKJxxx xx
  Qx xxx KJ10xxx Ax
  xx Jxx AKQJx xxx.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-September-17, 02:26

[mike777]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

I haven't seen the article.  However, from experience of trying to do something similar myself, I'd be surprised if he's managed to devise a workable system that can be described in a couple of magazine articles.  To make it work you seem to need an awful of system.  The main problem is that as well as exchanging information about shape, you also need to establish whether there are any extra values.

To the weaknesses mentioned by Adam I would add:
(6) "Invitational with an excellent 5 card or a 6 card suit" covers far to wide a range of hands for a three-level response.  Would all of these hands bid 1♠-3♦:
  xx Qxx AKJxxx xx
  Qx xxx KJ10xxx Ax
  xx Jxx AKQJx xxx.

Those example hands would be tough for me in 2/1.

Perhaps that is just my style. BART would help a bit should pard rebid 2c. 1s=1nt=2c=etc.

[olegeorge]

Below - is a combination of Adam Meyerson's responses to Dan Romm's - writing - and Dan's (personal) response to Adam's statements. I'd be happy to hear Constructive Responses to either one's ideas. I find it Not Helpful to hear ridicule of Dan or his ideas - as opposed to dealing with Specifics in his ideas as Adam did. Thanks! George - Seattle.
---------------
Dan Romm - "Tell your panel to wait for the next issue where pros and cons are treated. As for the objections below:"

Adam - (1) It becomes very difficult to bid responder's game-forcing two-suiters. For example, if responder is 5-5 in hearts and a minor, regular 2/1 lets you bid 1♠-2♥-2♠/2NT-3m and pattern out. In these methods you will get 1♠-2♣-2♠/2NT-3♥ and you are well behind in showing shape.

Dan - (1) This disadvantage, noted in the upcoming issue, is offset by the fact that opener has more room to describe HIS hand. If Opener has a 2-suiter in the other two suits it is not important for responder to "pattern out". He need only bid his major and opener will raise with 3. If opener doesn't raise then it is unnecessary for responder to show his second suit (a minor) since NT is clearly the better spot. Also, many times responder will have MORE room, not less, to describe 2-suiters in my method. Example: opener has 5 S's and 4 or 5 D's. Responder is 5-5 in H's and C's. In 2/1 the auction goes 1S - 2H - 3D (now what? - does responder bid 4C?). In my method it goes 1S - 2C - 2D - 2H - 2NT and responder can bid 3C.

(2) Responder cannot show a hand with a fit and a strong side suit. In regular 2/1 this hand type is easy (bid the side suit, then raise opener's major). But in these methods the only game force is 2♣, and you may see an auction starting 1♠-2♣-2♥ where responder must choose to show his fit (losing the strong minor) or show his side suit (but fit will often not be shown until four-level).

(2) Irrelevant. If responder has slam aspirations with a strong side suit then HE not opener should become captain of the auction. He will be pleased that opener can usually start further describing his hand at the 2-level rather than the 3-level as in 2/1. Example: In 2/1 the auction goes, say, 1S - 2H - 3D - 3S whereas in my system it goes 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S. If proper Q-bidding methods are employed, my system will prove to be at least as effective as 2/1.

(3) You potentially reach some silly contracts when responder is balanced and invitational. For example, suppose that opener has a 5422 hand. The auction starts 1♠-2NT. Does opener bid his hearts? Note that 3♥ is non-forcing, so a hand that's accepting the the invite can't bid it. On the other hand, responder could easily be 2344 or 22(45) shape, so if you bid 3♥ on a minimum or 4♥ on a maximum you end up playing in a seven-card fit at the three or four level for no particular reason. Of course, if you pass or bid 3NT you could miss even a nine card heart fit since 2NT is the response with a 2533 invite (unless the hearts are amazingly strong). None of this is a problem in regular 2/1 where the auction goes 1♠-1NT(F)-2♥ and responder raises with a fit or bids 2NT without. This potentially also causes problems in slam bidding when opener has a big hand and responder is invitational.

(3) You are less likely to reach a silly contract that in 2/1. I point out difficulties with 2/1 when the auction goes 1S - 1NT in the upcoming article, so I will focus on the supposed shortcoming of my system mentioned by AWM. If opener is 5422 with a minimum, yes, he merely bids 3H (as said in the article). Many duplicate players are unwisely reluctant to play 4-3 major suit fits and are not experienced with them. When opener is 5422 and responder is 2344 the 4-3 fit is usually the best spot since responder's minor suit holdings should preclude immediate taps and the ability to set up opener's 5 card suit with one or no losers by ruffing in dummy is huge. What to do with 5422 and extras is also covered in the article and is further discussed in the next Bidding Lab.

(4) You can no longer distinguish between three and four card limit raises. You also have no "slow raise" of the major with less than constructive values. And being forced to respond 2♣ game forcing on hands with a big fit (no jacoby 2NT) can muddle some auctions especially if opponents interfere (more likely when you have a big fit than otherwise).

(4) What is the importance of distinguishing between 3 and 4 card LR's? How often does anyone base the decision on where to play the final contract on this relatively unimportant detail? I presume a "slow raise" means starting with 1NT and then raising. Aside from my introductory remarks at the beginning of this paragraph, isn't it much easier for O's to compete over 1NT than an immediate 3H or 3S (a concern expressed in the next sentence of AWM's (4)). As for competing over 2C, it is much more difficult, not to mention dangerous) to compete at ANY level when responder's shape is completely unknown rather than when he reveals his suit. The danger of competing over 2C (as well as 2NT) is again discussed in the next bidding lab, as is the inferiority of Jacoby 2NT).

(5) Invitational two-suiters are simply unbiddable. For example, partner opens 1♠ and you hold a 1255 invite (usually 10-11 points opposite a "normal" opening range). If you jump shift in one of the minors you lose the other minor forever. Neither 2♦ nor 1NT is supposed to show a hand this good (and either could lead to a silly partial). And 2NT could be awful if opener passes it too (or if he bids 3♥ on a minimum 5-4, bleh). In regular 2/1 you can start with 1NT and find any nine-card minor fit that exists, or an eight-card club fit in many circumstances, or bid 2NT over opener's 2♥ rebid.

(5) Can one seriously think that 1255 hands can be bid better in 2/1 than in my system? Example, in 2/1 it goes 1S - 1NT - 2H (or 2S). Then what? How does responder show both his suits? On these hands NT is usually the best spot (unless there is a 4-3 heart fit (see above) and in my method you can stop in 2NT.

The main win from the approach in this article is the non-forcing 2/1 bids and 1NT. But the issues above are an awfully high price to pay. I don't think it's worth it. If I wanted to make a playable system out of this, I would consider adding a forcing or semi-forcing notrump (solves a lot of the invitational hand problems), using 2NT as a limit raise or better, installing some sort of relay structure after 1M-2♣, and using some of the freed-up 2/1 calls as transfers (for example 1♠-2♦ showing hearts and 1♠-2♥ showing a constructive-to-limit three card spade raise).
--------------------
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit"

I have played 2/1 for more than 40 years (in fact, I had a hand in its original development) and have also been playing my new method for over a year. It has held up admirably and has proven to be better than 2/1 so far (very few "silly contracts" have been reached, As I say in my book, the only way to truly ascertain a method's effectiveness or lack thereof is by putting it to the test. I shared some of AWM's concerns at first, but am now satisfied that the new method (although certainly not perfect) is superior to 2/1.

P,s,. I am happy to respond to your questions or any of the panel's (feel free to give them my Email). Feedback is gratefully received, and I am sure to get some excellent ideas on how to improve the system.

(Dan Romm <rommbus@hotmail.com>)

All of what is above besides the opening - is statements you've made (Adam Meyerson) or that Dan Romm has made - in response. I think that the dialogue is helpful (at least for me.)

[awm]

To reply to these points:

(1) It's true that you are somewhat ahead of the game by bidding an artificial 2♣ when opener rebids 2♦. But suppose opener has the common 5332 hand. If your auction starts with 1♠-2♣-2NT and responder is 5-5 in two suits, then it becomes substantially more difficult to find your fits. There are also issues when responder has a six-card suit -- he knows there is a fit but opener doesn't. In regular 2/1 you might see 1♠-2♥-3♥-cuebid when opener has three card support or 1♠-2♥-2NT-3♥-cuebid when opener has doubleton. In this alternate method you will see 1♠-2♣-2NT-3♥, but now if opener has only doubleton he bids 3NT and you are substantially behind. Noting that the plan here seems to be "have opener describe as much as possible" you will be a lot better off using a more relay-oriented style where opener's 2♦ rebid is much more frequent than higher (and more space consuming) calls.

(2) Well these sorts of "picture bids" are one of the big wins of 2/1. Some honors are more valuable than others, particularly queens opposite long suits in partner's hand. In principle you can convey this information through a properly-compressed relay method, but what's proposed here is supposed to be fairly natural. To give an example of a particularly problematic sequence, say the auction starts 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠. Now you are cuebidding starting at the three level. In a natural 2/1 auction you might have had 1♠-2♥-3♣-3♠ and again you start at the three-level, but now opener knows that the heart queen is a working card whereas the diamond queen is probably unhelpful. This is certainly worth something when opener has to evaluate a borderline hand!

(3) If you really think that 5422 opposite 2344 plays better in 3♥ than in 2NT, more power to you. Perhaps we can run some double-dummy simulations or poll a larger set of expert players on this.

(4) The 3-card vs 4-card limit raise distinction is actually pretty useful. The idea is that a very minimum 5-5 hand normally offers play for game opposite the 4-card limit raise variety, whereas opposite the 3-card limit raise an early tap will often defeat the game. Another issue is that a 5-3 fit sometimes means you have a better game in the other major and in regular 2/1 you will see 1♠-1NT(F)-2♥-3♥ whereas here you will bid 1♠-3♠ and may miss the superior 4-4 or 5-4 heart contract. Finally, knowing about the nine-card fit can be important in slam bidding. Again, we could poll expert players or run some double-dummy sims to verify this.

(5) You earlier made the point with regard to your game-force auctions that opener is describing. The same point can be made here. Supposing that I'm 1255 and partner opens 1♠. In regular 2/1, I start with a forcing notrump and if partner bids a minor I can raise. This gives me the chance at a superior 5m game, and certainly allows me to play a great 3m partial when opener is minimum. If partner rebids 2♥, I can bid 2NT and play there when opener is minimum. This would seem to have the following effects.

5a: Opener has a four-card minor. My auction starts 1♠-1N(F)-2m-3m. Now we can stop at the three-level when opener is minimum, and can make an intelligent decision (i.e. based on heart controls and degree of fit) as to which game is best when opener is maximum. The alternate auction is 1♠-2NT(inv)-3m on a minimum, and you have to decide whether to raise (play at least 4m) or pass (could miss 5m if there's a ten-card fit for example). If opener has game values we're still waiting on the methods, but it seems unlikely that you can stop in 3NT when it's right while also avoiding 3NT when it's wrong.

5b: Opener has a four-card heart suit. My auction of 1♠-1NT(F)-2♥-2NT might miss a 5-3 minor fit to play 2NT. But the alternative 1♠-2NT-3♥ is simply horrible. You get your pick of a 4-2 heart fit, a 5-1 spade fit, 3NT on a 22-23 hcp misfit, or 4m on a 22-23 hcp misfit. And if opener has a 5♠-4♥ maximum, are we stopping in 3NT? Depends on these follow-ups that are still forthcoming.

5c: Opener has a 5(332) hand. My auction starts 1♠-1NT(F)-2m-3m and we find our 5-3 minor fit, with opener having the choice of passing or bidding on. Are we confident that 2NT is a better contract than a 5-3 minor fit at the three-level when the alternative auction is 1♠-2NT-Pass? Why so? Playing 5332 opposite 1255 in 3♦ has got to be better than playing 5422 opposite 2344 in 3♥.

[whereagles]

Standard 2/1 GF is not broken. It's only broken if you don't bother to go beyond the fast arrival principle.

[akhare]

Note that it's possible to construct a fairly symmetric relay over 1M - 2♣ (GF) that's pretty easy to remember:

2♦-four+ clubs or...four only diamonds
.........2♥ relays
..............2♠-four only diamonds -> follow SSL template at 3C+
..............2N-five clubs
..............3♣ Shapes with four clubs -> follows SSL template at 3C+
2♥-single-suited with six -> follow single suited template
2♠-balanced or five diamonds
..............3♣-5332 hands with major
..............3♦ 5+M/5+Ds -> follow long legged template below
2N-5-5+ in the majors -> follow long legged template below
3♣+: 4 of other major -> follow SSL template below


<----Short legged template (SSL)-->

3♣: Short legged, high short
3♦: 5422
3♥: 5431 (low short)
3♠: 6421 (low short)
3N: 73(21) (low short)
4♣: 7411 (low short)

<---Long legged template--->
3♦: High short
3♥: Even short
3♠: 5521 (low short)
3N: 6520 (low short)

<-----Single suited template--->

2N-no shortage
..........3D-6223 (two highest)
..........3H-6232
..........3S-6322 (two lowest)
..........3N-7222
3♣: High short -> follow template at 3♥+
3♦: Mid short -> follow template at 3♥+, up one step
3♥-6331 (low shortage shapes)
3♠-7231
3N-7321
4♣-7330

Astute readers will point out that the 5440 shape is missing, but it can be included if deemed really necessary.

[awm]

Another hand type to look at is the ones where the modified system makes a non-forcing 2/1 call. Given my previous points, this is going to have to be a pretty substantial winner to compensate for the inferior auctions on invitational hands. Certainly there are some potential wins here, but I think they are fewer than one might expect at first glance.

For example, suppose you have a hand where you would bid 1♠-2♥(weak, NF). In regular 2/1 your auction starts with 1♠-1NT(F). Now:

(1) If opener rebids two of a minor, you have a shot at finding a superior fit when responder has a 5♥-4m or 5♥-5m hand. This will often be a substantially better partscore than 2♥. When this fit doesn't materialize, you can bid 1♠-1NT(F)-2m-2♥ which shows the same hand type in any case. So the 2/1 bidders are actually ahead here.

(2) If opener rebids 2♥, then you're going to end up playing 3♥ or 4♥ in any case. But now you have the stronger hand declaring, which is probably worth a little bit in the long run. Again, the 2/1 bidders win.

(3) If opener rebids 2♠, then the modified methods win any time hearts is a better strain (and opener is passing 2♥). This will be the case fairly often, so the modified methods do win here.

(4) If opener rebids 2NT, then there may be some siding differences. For example, notrump is played from responder's hand in 2/1 and opener's hand in the modified method. However, usually the right strain will be hearts since responder has at least five and often six with opener being balanced. This will play from responder's hand in the modified style but can be played by opener in 2/1 using the popular treatment of transfers after the 2NT rebid. Probably the siding advantage in hearts (the more common contract) outweighs the siding disadvantage in notrump because of frequency. Again a mild win for 2/1.

(5) If opener jump shifts, then there may be some difficulties in the modified style depending on what exactly is forcing. For example, 1♠-2♥(NF)-3♣? If this is forcing then opener is kind of stuck with a 5035 hand (for example) but if it's NF then it becomes hard for opener to explore when he has a big hand.

(6) If opener is jump-rebidding spades, then the modified style wins any time you're better off in a heart contract. Again, this will be fairly often.

So it seems like the 1♠-2♥(NF) sequence wins fairly substantially over 2/1 when opener would rebid his spades (at the two or three level) -- but actually loses when opener would make any other rebid! The size of the win on the spade rebid is larger, but the frequency of the non spade rebid is much higher. In sum, it's not even clear to me that the new method is winning on these hands, much less that the frequency and magnitude of the wins justifies the many problems I've pointed out on the invitational sequences.

[whereagles]

Well, the 10-11 hcp hand with 5 hearts is a bad hand to bid with 2/1. This is where you'd prefer a F1 or NF 2/1. With usual 2/1 GF you have to bid it like

1♠ 1NT
2m 2NT

and hope opener can accept the invite and make a delayed 3-card heart raise on the way to 3NT. Either that or you overbid and bid 1♠ 2♥ anyway.

[gwnn]

akhare, on Sep 27 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

<----Short legged template (SSL)-->

3♣: Short legged, high short
3♦: 5422
3♥: 5431 (low short)
3♠: 6421 (low short)
3N: 73(21) (low short)
4♣: 7411 (low short)

You probably mean 3NT=7420 no?

[awm]

whereagles, on Sep 28 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

Well, the 10-11 hcp hand with 5 hearts is a bad hand to bid with 2/1. This is where you'd prefer a F1 or NF 2/1. With usual 2/1 GF you have to bid it like

1♠ 1NT
2m 2NT

and hope opener can accept the invite and make a delayed 3-card heart raise on the way to 3NT. Either that or you overbid and bid 1♠ 2♥ anyway.

I agree that the 10-11 hcp hand with 5♥ is a problem in 2/1. However, in Dan Romm's system the auction 1♠-2♥ is weak and not invitational. Basically his methods don't help with this problem and he will have to bid 1♠-2NT (natural invite) on the hand. This might actually be even worse than the admittedly ugly 2/1 auction since opener will bid 3m with 51(43) and 52(42) hands preventing you from playing 2NT, and will never show a 3-card heart suit on the way to raising to 3NT with 53(32) because a 3♥ rebid here would show four.

[mike777]

whereagles, on Sep 28 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

Well, the 10-11 hcp hand with 5 hearts is a bad hand to bid with 2/1. This is where you'd prefer a F1 or NF 2/1. With usual 2/1 GF you have to bid it like

1♠ 1NT
2m 2NT

and hope opener can accept the invite and make a delayed 3-card heart raise on the way to 3NT. Either that or you overbid and bid 1♠ 2♥ anyway.

BART may be able to help a bit with this hand type if:

1s=1nt
2c=etc..