[CSGibson]

No opposition bidding, playing 2/1, what is the standard meaning of this sequence (ie, what does the 2 spade bidder have)?

1♥-1N*,
2♥-2♠

[SoTired]

"Impossible 2S"
I think the common definitions are:
When done over a 2H rebid, asks for best 3-card+ minor, probably for sign-off
When done over a 2m rebid shows a strong minor raise.

[the hog]

We play this as both minors and a stiff or void H.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure I get these limitations.

"Probably for sign-off." "Stiff or void in hearts."

Why?

What if the auction is:

1♥-P-1NT-P-
2♥-P-2♠-P-
something-P-3♥+ ?

In that event, Respnder has values.

I mean, how better to bid something like ♠x ♥Kx ♦Axxxx ♣Axxxx? Bid 2♠, and then after Opener picks a minor (presumably) bid whatever you and partner have agreed (or expect) as making sense (e.g., 3♥, 3♠, or 4♥, or a cue of some type)?

These are powerful hands.

Imagine some garbage Opener like ♠xx ♥AQJxxx ♦KQx ♣xx. Make the diamonds AQx, and Responder's x-Kx-Kxxxx-Axxxx looks just as nice. Heck -- give Responder 6-5, with a spade void, and 13 tricks looks very plausible.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jun 3 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

Minors is the common definition, though you could do a lot of different things with it.

This is how I've played it, but its usually one of those great bids you come up with after you need it.

[peachy]

Without any discussion, I would think it shows the minors with poor or no tolerance for hearts.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jun 4 2008, 04:07 AM, said:

I mean, how better to bid something like ♠x ♥Kx ♦Axxxx ♣Axxxx?

I would make a 2/1 on that hand. What is there about it that doesn't want to drive game?

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 4 2008, 03:27 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 4 2008, 04:07 AM, said:

I mean, how better to bid something like ♠x ♥Kx ♦Axxxx ♣Axxxx?

I would make a 2/1 on that hand. What is there about it that doesn't want to drive game?

Well, then make one of the minors Kxxxx. Or, make the heart Qx. Or both.

Surely you would not force game with x-Qx-Kxxxx-Axxxx. But, give partner xx-AKxxxx-AQx-xx.

Or, how about x-Kx-Qxxxx-Axxxx?

[jdonn]

Just to spur on the debate, the only other meaning I recall hearing of for this bid is a pumped up limit raise, like a 3 card limit raise that is now worth a game force and supposedly could find a miracle slam. Seems kind of useless to me, but I'm sure Ken can find an example where it would work brilliantly.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 4 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

Just to spur on the debate, the only other meaning I recall hearing of for this bid is a pumped up limit raise, like a 3 card limit raise that is now worth a game force and supposedly could find a miracle slam. Seems kind of useless to me, but I'm sure Ken can find an example where it would work brilliantly.

Easily.

They key is in running 12 tricks. If the hearts are solid enough (AKQ), that takes 9 HCP. If Opener has a stiff (6331), that suit is controlled for one loser. So, you need six more tricks. AK-AKQJ works. That's 17 HCP's. So, 26 HCP makes slam if well placed.

As Responder must have a four-card suit, per force, that (or those) is (are) the potential source(s) of running four side cards.

E.g.,

♠x ♥AQxxxx ♦Axx ♣KQx opposite
♠xxx ♥Kxx ♦Kxx ♣AJxx

That's tight, admittedly, but all can be better. What about a side 5-card suit? Now you can eliminate the need for the side King:

♠x ♥AQxxxx ♦Axx ♣Kxx opposite
♠xxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣AQJxx

Heck, the third heart might not be all that.

So, if 2♠ asked, say, for shortness, Opener would bid 2NT (short spade) with each. Responder could then show a focus side source, perhaps with a jump sometimes, perhaps with cuebidding some times.

Of course, one could esily blend these.

2♠ presumably asks for a minor. After the answer, something like:

P/3♣/3♦ = weak actions
3♥ = singleton ask (3♠=♠, 3N=other minor); after which 4Minor = 4-card trick source
3♠ = 1255 type, values
4minor = if same, empathetic splinter in spades with 5-card trick source; if other minor = empathetic splinter in this minor and 5-card trick source


Heck, this leaves out 3NT and 4♥...

[rbforster]

previous discussion of the impossible 2♠ over 2♥

There were several suggestions, but when I asked this question before I thought invitational with both minors (and no spade stopper) seemed like the best choice.

For those of you who play conventional minor jumps over 1♥ (like Bergen) and who want 1N(f)...3m to be weak minor signoffs, you can use this as a puppet to 2N to show an invite in a single minor (which you bid over 2N). This doesn't seem like a terribly useful treatment for most systems IMHO, but I guess it's better than both minors invitational if you don't have any other way to invite in a single minor.

[kenrexford]

I keep thinking about this situation, and I believe there to be many options that are superior to limited options.

For instance, one could easily handle all weak hands with one or both minors by simply having Opener "pick diamonds" by bidding 2NT. This would allow Responder to get out at 3♣, 3♦, or the better minor.

If Opener picked the better minor with a weak hand but bid 2NT with the "minor acceptance" hand, Responder could not handle club one-suiters but could handle weak minor two-suiters (bid 3♣ Pass/correct over 2NT) and weak diamonds-only (bid 3♦ over anything; pass over 3♦).

With either, 2♠ and then 3♥ could be some specific type of game try (minors, but stiff honor; minors and support but tweener; etc.) or even a start to a slam try. There are a number of slam layouts easily possible, always of the fit bid variety. 2♠...3♥(♠)+ could handle various fit bid layout slam tries. Note that the meaning of Opener's reply to 2♠ tailors the slam try sequences (or perhaps whether you continue on that route). (I started laughing realizing that some of these auctions would be quite easy, but that there would be a logical inclusion of a LTTC-like "Jack ask" bid.)

Heck -- if BART is worth learning, some sophistication here might be worthwhile. Thanks to jdonn for the idea.

[mike777]

Rob F, on Jun 5 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

previous discussion of the impossible 2♠ over 2♥

There were several suggestions, but when I asked this question before I thought invitational with both minors (and no spade stopper) seemed like the best choice.

For those of you who play conventional minor jumps over 1♥ (like Bergen) and who want 1N(f)...3m to be weak minor signoffs, you can use this as a puppet to 2N to show an invite in a single minor (which you bid over 2N). This doesn't seem like a terribly useful treatment for most systems IMHO, but I guess it's better than both minors invitational if you don't have any other way to invite in a single minor.

Yes for those of us who play Bergen combined with 2/1 100% game force you can play:
1h=1nt
2h=2s=puppet to 2nt and then rebid your long one suited minor hand that is invitational strength. Other option is to just rebid 2nt over 2h.

[rbforster]

mike777, on Jun 5 2008, 08:00 AM, said:

for those of us who play Bergen combined with 2/1 100% game force you can play:
1h=1nt
2h=2s=puppet to 2nt and then rebid your long one suited minor hand that is invitational strength. Other option is to just rebid 2nt over 2h.

Playing Bergen, wouldn't this work too in your situation, and maybe a little better?

1♥-1N-2♥-3m natural invite, 6+

1♥-1N-2♥-2♠ both minors invitational, weak with diamonds, weak with both minors, or Ken's favorite heart raise
1♥-1N-2♥-2♠-2N declines the invite; (P ok, 3♣ is p/c, 3♦ to play, 3♥ toy raise, etc)
1♥-1N-2♥-2♠-3m accepts the with better minor; (then 3♦ to play, 3♥ toy raise, 3♠ strong minor raise)

What do you think?

(I'm bias by playing a limited openers system most of the time where you don't really need a weak distributional signoff since then it's their hand and you could just pass initially and run if doubled.)

[kenrexford]

Rob F, on Jun 5 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

What do you think?

Something like that, yeah.

My "favorite" raise type might be a chosen definite fit bid type, but I think compounding options with specific fit jumps is possible.

[fromageGB]

Thanks for the interesting discussion, my partnerships did not have a bid for both minors but we do now!

We play Bergen, show a weak minor by forcing next step then bidding the minor, and play a single invitational minor by 2/1 and rebidding the suit. So now the impossible 2♠ is both minors, weak or invitational.

One question. How do you show both minors weak and invitational after a spade open?

[CSGibson]

fromageGB, on Jun 7 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

Thanks for the interesting discussion, my partnerships did not have a bid for both minors but we do now!

We play Bergen, show a weak minor by forcing next step then bidding the minor, and play a single invitational minor by 2/1 and rebidding the suit. So now the impossible 2♠ is both minors, weak or invitational.

One question. How do you show both minors weak and invitational after a spade open?

You hope they bid 2 hearts and then double.