[mike777]

Your rebid preference?

1D=2C
?

Void..AJxx...QJ98xx..KTx

2C=natural and game force

[jillybean]

I don't play 2♣ natural here but if I did, why wouldn't I raise clubs?

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2024-November-19, 07:53, said:

I don't play 2♣ natural here but if I did, why wouldn't I raise clubs?

Because you look for a non-minor game contract first?

[jdiana]

With 5+ diamonds, we always rebid 2♦ (unless rebidding 3♦ to show a solid suit with extra values).

[mycroft]

If you need to show extra diamond length, do that.
If you don't, "support partner with support".
If you have a heart game, partner will bid it next. But where are the spades? Partner unless 4=4=0=5 doesn't have hearts. Okay, maybe they didn't come in with the boss suit and lots of it because you have slam and they have 7 HCP between them; even so, "what, me worry?" It'll work out.
I certainly don't want to reverse, even in a GF auction, with this hand with support for partner. They will take me for a stronger hand than my overstrength preempt with a spade void. Partner bid 2♣ with a plan; I trust him.

[apollo1201]

With only 3 clubs I find it odd to raise straight away. Not because we might not have a fit but because partner will play me for 4cds and think we have 9 trumps and think things will be easie with this.

So 2D or 2S if it does not show extras

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2024-November-19, 07:14, said:

2C=natural and game force

apollo1201, on 2024-November-19, 10:23, said:

With only 3 clubs I find it odd to raise straight away. Not because we might not have a fit but because partner will play me for 4cds and think we have 9 trumps and think things will be easie with this.

2♣ is natural, why would partner expect 4 cards?

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2024-November-19, 07:53, said:

I don't play 2♣ natural here but if I did, why wouldn't I raise clubs?

Even if it is natural, a raise would show a fit, i.e. 4+, since 2C only promises 4+.
The question is, if 2H showes add. values, if no than 2H, otherwise 2D.
I would play 2H as showing add. values, hence 2D for me.

[mikeh]

I think some people just get in their own way. For example, JB says she plays 2C as artificial. Why? I’ve played it as an artificial gf relay but (a) such methods aren’t legal in ACBLand other than restricted events in which JB doesn’t play and (b) absent the edge of a (well designed) relay method I see zero benefit to hiding one’s shape as responder.

As for my answer to the OP:

If 2H didn’t show extras, I might well choose it, anticipating a reds bid by partner that would make my next bid very descriptive. Imagine either 2N or 2S by partner…now 3C shows 12 of my 13 cards.

Also, if he rebids 3C, I can splinter via 4S.

However, for me 2H shows at least modest extras, which I lack…my playing strength isn’t enough to overcome my lack of hcp.

So I rebid 2D. No way am I raising clubs, even if 2C promised 5+, which would not be standard. If I raise clubs, I can kiss any heart fit goodbye. Subsequent heart bids, after a 3C raise, are probes for notrump or tries for a club slam….there is literally no way for either partner to suggest hearts as trump.

Now, if he rebids clubs, I can raise, going by 3N will tell him I’m distributional. If he raises diamonds, I’ll bid 3H, ostensibly a notrump probe but I’ll pull 3N (he surely has a spade stop on this auction since he won’t have more than 3 spades and the opps would likely have been bidding with 10+ spades including all the top honours) to 4C.

[jillybean]

Crap, once again I have misread the auction. 1D 2C is natural in my system too
I do play 2C/1D is a 5, or more likely 6, so this is a raise for me.
Obviously something else I need to fix.

Why isn't 1D 2C 2H or 1D 2C 2D 2H also probes for NT?

(we've been here before)

[DavidKok]

2♥, does not show extras for me. If it does in your system I don't mind 2♦, but I'd rather not have this agreement.

1♦-2♣ is 5(+) for me. With 4(+)M and not 5(+)♣, bid that first. With 3(+)♦ we show the fit immediately, as my 1♦ is 5(+) or rare 1=4=4=4 or 4=4=4=1. By negative inference, with at most 3-3 in the majors and 2 diamonds, partner has 5(+) clubs.
I think it is common for 2♣ to be permissible on 3=3=3=4 (especially if 1♦ is commonly a 4-card suit), and permissible on a balanced GF hand even with a 4cM if 1♦ is 3(+), but this is not the style I play. It makes a lot of sense though, establishing the game force rather than the diamond fit.

For what it's worth, I think the American 'you have to rebid 2♦ to show an unbalanced hand' is a poor agreement. I don't really get why we are not bidding our shape. Even if 1♦ can be balanced, just rebid 2M showing 4M5(+)♦, 2NT showing bal, 2♦ showing 6(+) or 3♣ showing 4(+). In an analogous vein, show shape before stoppers.

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-19, 12:25, said:

For what it's worth, I think the American 'you have to rebid 2♦ to show an unbalanced hand' is a poor agreement. I don't really get why we are not bidding our shape.

I think the main idea is just that it preserves space, since we're in a game force, but I see your point.

[shyams]

I am bad at searching on BBF. I remember some years ago kenrexford had posted about how 1♦-2♣ is the most uncomfortable start in a 2/1 system.

His solution was for Opener's rebid to be a relay. If I recall, after 1♦-2♣, 2♦ showed 4-card ♥ + limited HCPs (i.e. not enough to reverse), 2♥ showed 4-card ♠ suit (limited HCP), 2♠ is balanced 12-14 (asking responder to bid 3NT if suitable), 2NT shows a club fit (i.e. 5+ ♦, 4+♣), 3♣ was a long diamond suit.

If anyone is good at searching, you might find his comment (If memory serves me well, he was replying to someone else's post --- he was not OP).

[nullve]

shyams, on 2024-November-19, 13:08, said:

I am bad at searching on BBF. I remember some years ago kenrexford had posted about how 1♦-2♣ is the most uncomfortable start in a 2/1 system.

His solution was for Opener's rebid to be a relay. If I recall, after 1♦-2♣, 2♦ showed 4-card ♥ + limited HCPs (i.e. not enough to reverse), 2♥ showed 4-card ♠ suit (limited HCP), 2♠ is balanced 12-14 (asking responder to bid 3NT if suitable), 2NT shows a club fit (i.e. 5+ ♦, 4+♣), 3♣ was a long diamond suit.

If anyone is good at searching, you might find his comment (If memory serves me well, he was replying to someone else's post --- he was not OP).

He mentions Golady 2♣ (invented by Colin Ward) in several threads.

[mw64ahw]

https://bridgewinner...-after-1d-2cgf/
https://www.firesides.ca/golady.htm
You can also play in a way similar to a Nebulous 2♣ over 1M

[Stephen Tu]

jillybean, on 2024-November-19, 11:51, said:

Crap, once again I have misread the auction. 1D 2C is natural in my system too
I do play 2C/1D is a 5, or more likely 6, so this is a raise for me.
Obviously something else I need to fix.

Why isn't 1D 2C 2H or 1D 2C 2D 2H also probes for NT?

Because of the scoring system. Major games outscore minor games, and take fewer tricks to make game. So uncovering major fits is high priority, and reaching minor suit games is usually last. If you are playing a natural style where GF x4x5+ always bids 1d-2c, you still need to find the heart fit. If you were doing some weird MAFIA style where 1d-2c denies a major, then you'd presumably alter your rebid strategy.

[jillybean]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-November-19, 13:53, said:

Because of the scoring system. Major games outscore minor games, and take fewer tricks to make game. So uncovering major fits is high priority, and reaching minor suit games is usually last. If you are playing a natural style where GF x4x5+ always bids 1d-2c, you still need to find the heart fit. If you were doing some weird MAFIA style where 1d-2c denies a major, then you'd presumably alter your rebid strategy.

So with 3343 you would bid 2nt, regardless of where your values were?

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-19, 12:25, said:

2♥, does not show extras for me. If it does in your system I don't mind 2♦, but I'd rather not have this agreement.

1♦-2♣ is 5(+) for me. With 4(+)M and not 5(+)♣, bid that first. With 3(+)♦ we show the fit immediately, as my 1♦ is 5(+) or rare 1=4=4=4 or 4=4=4=1. By negative inference, with at most 3-3 in the majors and 2 diamonds, partner has 5(+) clubs.
I think it is common for 2♣ to be permissible on 3=3=3=4 (especially if 1♦ is commonly a 4-card suit), and permissible on a balanced GF hand even with a 4cM if 1♦ is 3(+), but this is not the style I play. It makes a lot of sense though, establishing the game force rather than the diamond fit.

For what it's worth, I think the American 'you have to rebid 2♦ to show an unbalanced hand' is a poor agreement. I don't really get why we are not bidding our shape. Even if 1♦ can be balanced, just rebid 2M showing 4M5(+)♦, 2NT showing bal, 2♦ showing 6(+) or 3♣ showing 4(+). In an analogous vein, show shape before stoppers.

I have no idea whence you get that ‘the American ‘you have to rebid 2D to show an unbalanced hand’’. Now, many (including me) require some extras t bid 2M but I don’t know anyone who plays that all unbalanced hands have to rebid 2D. And what’s the reference to ‘American’ about? I’m very happy not to be American but equally happy to be North American, lol.

As for the rationale, it’s akin to the issues surrounding auctions such as 1S 2H 3C. Those who play forcing club methods can rebid 3C in thipose auctions without fear that partner will play them for a strong hand…they can afford to pattern out immediately without worrying that partner won’t yet know their approximate range of strength.

Standard based methods, involving 2/1 principles, have a conundrum. Perhaps the biggest theoretical problem for 2/1 is when both players have about an ace or king over their minimum. Neither is strong enough, by themselves, to be able to drive beyond game, especially with no fit yet established, yet 16 opposite 16 is often slam-suitable.

In 2\1 1S 2H 3D can cause problems for responder if he has no idea whether opener is some 5=1=3=4 11 count or maybe 5=2=5=1 16+. Can responder, with say Kxxx diamonds, assume that diamonds can be trump and that he can raise diamonds, eliminating 3N as a contract? Say responder holds x AJ109x Kxxx AJ9. Opposite KQ10xx Qx Axxx Qx let’s play 3N. Opposite Axxxx Kx AQxx Ax let’s play 6D. When opener could be weak, it’s dangerous to blow past the best game. But bidding 3N may endplay opener even when opener has extras….since no fit has been announced, and the auction suggests none exists, opener may pass 3N with slam suitable cards….unaware that responder has a useful hand.

This is very similar to 1D 2C 2D/2M. If 2M promises extras, then responder can happily explore for slam when he has extras and/or a good fit.

Also, we can never miss a major fit by rebidding 2D….responder will always bid 2M to pattern out.

Look at these two auctions

1D 2C 2D 2H 3H


1D 2C 2H 3H

On the first, we’ve found our fit and responder knows that opener is minimum.

On the second, we’ve found our fit and responder knows opener has extras.

Compare to ‘always bidding the major’

1D 2C 2H 3H. Yes, we’ve found our fit but responder has no clue as to opener’s range. Opener can cue to show extras but can’t cue with a minimum,even if it’s a pretty good minimum, because he had, at some point, to let partner know whether he’s say 15-18 or 11-14.

In my style, if I’ve rebid 2D then raised, I’ve limited my hand so I can now be aggressive with a shapely ‘good’ minimum without worrying that partner will think I have a good hand.

And so on.

In short, I think that those who disparage treatments they don’t play are often doing so out of ignorance…they dismiss it without understanding why some might play it.

In fairness, here I’ve stressed the advantages of my preferred style, but there have been hands on which I’d wished I could have made a shape rebid….I’ve had to rebid 2S on Jxxxx while holding AKJxx in a minor, as an example…1S 2H. Jxxxx x Qx AKJxx. One usually survives but being able to rebid 3C would often be better, if it didn’t promise a king or more extra.

I love bridge in part because we get these disagreements and I doubt anyone can ‘prove’ that they are ‘correct’….I just enjoy hearing why people disagree with me…that’s the best way to learn, imo. But someone saying ‘you’re wrong’ isn’t what I mean, lol.

[nullve]

https://www.bridgeba...-plain-vanilla/

[jillybean]

Thanks, I need to study that more. My excuse is that QJ98xx does not look like a 6 card suit.

My pard and I are bidding some hands at the moment,

---

Which of the 2 red suits are you bidding?