[hanp]

2S is old fashioned and modern. In between some people bid 3D.

[mikeh]

The problem with bidding 3♦ on shape is not merely (or even) that you end up too high when opener has a minimum and responder a 13 count gf: after all....if you open shapely 10 or 11 counts and partner forces to game with 13 and no fit, you are in trouble whether you bid 3D or 2S....your method has already committed you to a likely minus score.

The problems actually arise in the context of slam bidding.

Take a typical responder hand of, say xx AKQxx Kxx A10x.

Partner opens 1S and rebids, over your 2H, 3D with both of:

AKQxx x AQJxx xx and A109xx x AQxxx Jx

How on earth is responder to bid accurately?

If your argument is that he bids 3N on both and opener has to show his extras by bidding beyond 3N on the strong hand, let's give responder x KQJxx Kx KQxxx. Any issue with a 2/1 on that?

And it can make finding a slam in opener's second suit problematic.

What, for example, is responder to bid over a wise range 3♦ with say x KQ10xx KJxx KQ10? This is a powerful hand in support of a 15+ hcp pointed two-suiter...imagine AJxxx x AQxxx Ax, but opposite KJxxx x Axxxx Ax, we can easily end up in the wrong spot if responder tries for slam. BTW, I didn't spend much time setting up hands....I just wanted to show some areas of ambiguity.

Thus the problem is that when opener's 3-level rebid is unconstrained as to strength, it preempts the bidding and leaves both partners guessing. Many 2/1 partnerships, who play this shape-showing style, languish in 3N when slams were available or end up too high when one of them adopts an optimistic view.

Now, if you are playing a limited opening style, it makes a great deal more sense to bid shape in priority to strength on opener's rebid in a 2/1 sequence.

[ONEferBRID]

mich-b, on Jul 7 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

It has been suggested that in the specific sequence :
1♠ - 2♥
3♦ -  ?

it is better to reverse 3♠ and 4♣, so that
3♠ = 4th suit forcing,
4♣ = 3♠s , good hand

This avoids the problem of using 4th suit forcing on the 4 level.

Interesting...
Just for my edification....
I'm assuming your 3S! ( '4th suit forcing').. is "asking" for a stop in the 4th suit ( Cl ) for 3NT ?

[ Because with Cl-stop(s), Responder could just bid 3NT ] .

[mike777]

two keys if you are going to play a style where you rebid 3d with this hand

1: 2/1=14+ not less
2: responder assumes opener has a minimum and bids such. Why? because opener almost always will have a minimum. Opener will strain to open 14-16 hands with offshape nt often.

This is basically barry crane's style.

---------------


fwiw I think if it starts:

1s=2h
3d=.....3s=slam try in spades......4c=slam try in D.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 7 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

two keys if you are going to play a style where you rebid 3d with this hand

1: 2/1=14+ not less
2: responder assumes opener has a minimum and bids such. Why? because opener almost always will have a minimum. Opener will strain to open 14-16 hands with offshape nt often.

This is basically barry crane's style.

---------------


fwiw I think if it starts:

1s=2h
3d=.....3s=slam try in spades......4c=slam try in D.

Barry Crane doesn't have a style....he's been very dead for a very long time...his death ranks right up there with the murder of Elwell as the most mysterious unsolved bridge puzzles of the 20th century.

But Barry will be rolling around in his grave (or his ashes will be swirling in a cloud somewhere) when you accuse him of playing anything resembling 2/1. I once read a description of his method and it ain't anything like what we talk about here when discussing 2/1.

[mike777]

I got to play against
Barry he did play a very aggressive style
I bet he still does, wherever his current game is

I lived in Studio city...his death is unsolved...

see here for a bit more:

http://www.blakjak.d...co.uk/crane.htm


http://www.blakjak.d...men2.htm#storis

[peachy]

helene_t, on Jul 7 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

jillybean, on Jul 7 2010, 04:58 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 6 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

I the really old days it was a 2♠. When Hardy's book came it became fashionable to bid 3♦. But now 2♠ is standard I believe.

I generally prefer not to play the 2♠ catch-all but I would like to make an exception for this specific situation where the fourth suit is at the 4-level. This would make it impossible to sort out both strain and level in some situation. Say responder bids 3♠ over 3♦. IMHO this can't promise 3-card support since it is the only waiting bid available for a hand with no clear direction and 3NT as a possible strain - 3♥ should show 6. So after 3♠ we still need to sort out strain. I am afraid we can't do that while at the same time sorting out the strength of at least one of the two hands.

Why is Hardy getting the blame again...
Hardy style is not to bid 3D unless values are sound 14+, or, the shape is 5-5 AND it is for some reason the best description to bid 3m.
Direct quote from the Hardy's Green Book [published in 2000]:
"Opener will tend not to use so much bidding space unless it is necessary in order to best describe the hand."

[gszeszycki]

left entirely out of this discussion (I don't know why) is the difference between
IMPS and MP. The minor suits are virtually assigned to oblivion below slam level
at MP and with any weakish distributional hand 3n is a way more desirable
contract than 5 of a minor. This position makes bidding 2s catch all with the weakish 2 suiter) very desirable at MP because it allows opener to show stronger (and therefore more likely to be slam worthy) hands immediately.

This position makes much less sense at IMPS where getting to the BEST SPOT (IE minor suits are back in the ballgame) is a ton more important than getting to 3n. Playing IMPS I would bid 3d with the weaker distributional hand (if p then bids 3n so be it) with the stronger 2 suiter I would bid 2s catch all 4d over 3n (realizing that 4n is then a sign off and a cue bid shows slam desire)

There are numerous problems created in 2/1 bidding when forcing responder to
rebid 2n with all manner of hand. Save the 2n rebids for hands that have extra
strength and/or no clear direction. Rebid 3n with most balanced or semi balanced
minimums.

[junyi_zhu]

Hanoi5, on Jul 7 2010, 03:26 AM, said:

You hold:

♠AT9xx
♥8
♦AQ87x
♣J9

1♠-2♥
???

Is 3♦ normal and wtp? Is 2♠ (catch-all) better?

This is a 2S bid. In my system, 2S shows minimum, 2NT shows 6 spade and 3 levels show extra.