[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-04, 05:52, said:

I have never heard of a natural system in which the 1NT response covers invitational hands.

What I wrote is basic 2/1 where 1♦ - 2♣ is GF, a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response. Noone mentioned a 15-17 NT either, 14-16 probably works best within this framework. The alternative I wrote is standard for 2/1 GF only over a major (writing 2/1 1s not enough to differentiate the two).

[32519]

 32519, on 2014-March-03, 21:29, said:

We're playing off Paul Thurston's "The Pocket Guide to 2/1."

 Zelandakh, on 2014-March-04, 05:37, said:

Can you look up the 1NT and 2♣ responses to a 1♦ opening and confirm you have them correct. As a general rule, either the 2♣ response is GF and 1NT covers some invitational hands, or the 1NT response is as described and 2♣ is lighter. This "mish-mash" of responses is the reason for the skepticism from the panel.

This is what the Pocket Guide says:

Responses to a 1♦ opening
1NT = 6-10 HCP, no 4-card major, no 5-card ♦ suit (and usually not even 4 good ♦. Not forcing.
2♣ = Natural, 100% game forcing, 4+ ♣, 12+ HCP. May have 4-card major if longer clubs.

Seems like the gem in the OP isn't covered in any way by the Pocket Guide in my posession?

[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-03, 21:36, said:

My suggestion is don't play 1♦-2♣ as GF, and perhaps consider artificial continuations as well.

If we do this we are not playing 2/1 anymore. Now the system would become a hybrid of 2/1 and Standard American or whatever.

[Zelandakh]

Not only this hand then. There is also no response for an invitational hand with long clubs and no 4 card major. I would suggest finding a more mainstream version of 2/1 to play.

[wank]

3d diamonds. invitational with diamonds. problem solved.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-March-04, 06:38, said:

What I wrote is basic 2/1 where 1♦ - 2♣ is GF, a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response.

Are you claiming that basic 2/1 GF uses a forcing NT response to a 1♦ opening?

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 06:42, said:

If we do this we are not playing 2/1 anymore. Now the system would become a hybrid of 2/1 and Standard American or whatever.

I would think that a published bridge author who portrays himself as a great designer of conventions could manage to choose the correct direct seat response to a 1 level opening bid. This is hardly rocket science.

[rhm]

 32519, on 2014-March-03, 12:03, said:

Was dealt this gem today:

---

Basic system is 2/1
4. 2NT shows 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit but otherwise balanced/semi-balanced, invitational

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 06:39, said:

Seems like the gem in the OP isn't covered in any way by the Pocket Guide in my posession?

Does your gem have 10-12 HCP?
Does it have no 4-card major nor a 5-card diamond suit?
Is it otherwise semi-balanced?
Is it invitational?

You may not like the 2NT response (neither do I) but why do you claim the hand is not covered?

Rainer Herrmann

[gordontd]

 ahydra, on 2014-March-04, 06:33, said:

I've never played it, but from what I've heard, 1NT covers all non-GF hands where you don't have a 1-level bid, and is forcing one round (or at least semi-forcing).

That's true in response to a major-suit opening, not 1♦ where the NT response is only a little wider in range than in standard.

[gordontd]

 32519, on 2014-March-03, 21:29, said:

How do you suggest we alter Paul Thurston's Pocket Guide to bid these sorts of hands?

If you played a short club opening, your diamond raises would only need to be four-card suits. In fact if you only ever open a three-card diamond suit with 4432, I think with a hand like this you should just raise with only four anyway.

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2014-March-04, 06:53, said:

Are you claiming that basic 2/1 GF uses a forcing NT response to a 1♦ opening?

If you read all the way to the end of the paragraph you will have your answer to this. Sometimes selective quoting is helpful for saving space but here it changes the nature of what was written.

[32519]

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 06:39, said:

Seems like the gem in the OP isn't covered in any way by the Pocket Guide in my posession?

 rhm, on 2014-March-04, 07:02, said:

Does your gem have 10-12 HCP?
Does it have no 4-card major nor a 5-card diamond suit?
Is it otherwise semi-balanced?
Is it invitational?

You may not like the 2NT response (neither do I) but why do you claim the hand is not covered?

Rainer Herrmann

 hrothgar, on 2014-March-04, 06:58, said:

I would think that a published bridge author who portrays himself as a great designer of conventions could manage to choose the correct direct seat response to a 1 level opening bid. This is hardly rocket science.

2NT is what I chose, lifted to 3NT by opener, going down 1.

[32519]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-March-04, 06:43, said:

Not only this hand then. There is also no response for an invitational hand with long clubs and no 4 card major. I would suggest finding a more mainstream version of 2/1 to play.

OK, give me the name of the author and book title of a more mainstream version of 2/1.

[WellSpyder]

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 10:04, said:

2NT is what I chose, lifted to 3NT by opener, going down 1.

Bad luck. But maybe not entirely a system problem. I guess we have all gone down 1 in 3NT before now.....

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 10:07, said:

OK, give me the name of the author and book title of a more mainstream version of 2/1.

As I recall the two main (US) writers are Hardy and Lawrence. BBO Advanced is also a form of 2/1 and available free.

[hrothgar]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-March-04, 10:20, said:

Bad luck. But maybe not entirely a system problem. I guess we have all gone down 1 in 3NT before now.....

Do you have the complete hand?

[rhm]

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 10:04, said:

2NT is what I chose, lifted to 3NT by opener, going down 1.

Are you looking for a bidding system , which will get you only to contracts you will be able to make at the table?
If yes, you are in for a big disappointment.

Rainer Herrmann

[jmcilkley]

Bridge is not a precise game! Your hand is worth 2c anyday! If your stem has no perfect bid then this is surely the least bad lie!

[Sadie3]

I play 2/1 and do not see the problem you have with this hand.

This hand is a 1D 2D (inverted raise to me.) The term, support with support comes to mind. Almost always I would bid 2NT with even a half stopper in the majors (3 to a Jack.) The only time my pards open 1D with less than 4 is with a 4432 hand and they will correct my bid to 2NT which I pass with this hand. In order to bid 1D 2C with 11 hcp, I specifically require a 6 card club suit which corrects the hand playing value to full strength. If pard corrects my 2C bid to 2NT I confidently raise him to 3NT with my nice 6 card source of tricks.

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2014-March-04, 11:18, said:

Do you have the complete hand?

---