[MrAce]

jillybean, on 2013-October-16, 23:36, said:

---

Top @ the club with a 60% game tonight, here's a hand partner and I did not agree on.

What is your bid?
What is your general approach after a forcing 1nt ?
I tend to bid the lowest suit I have tolerance for so with 5143 5233 I will bid clubs, the problem hand is 5242 and depending on suit quality I may still bid clubs.

I'd bid 3♣ now.

Of course if this shows a better hand than this in your methods then u have a tuff situation. As u know i play 1M-3m as invitational. This allows me to bid 2/1 response and rebidding my minor forcing, and with weak hands 1NT and then bidding my minor. 6 card suit is not the most desirable suit to make that bid, especially when i have xx in opener's first suit or xxx in second suit, but in hands like this i may do it with 6 cards, and i would do it on this hand.

[cherdano]

jillybean, on 2013-October-17, 10:09, said:

2♦ of course but perhaps your comment stands.

I presume waterman would let his comment stand, but that doesn't mean it's right. 2♦ is utterly normal, and clearly better in my view.

[jillybean]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-17, 10:37, said:

1♠ - 2♣;
2♦ - 2♥;
2♠ - P

Bridge is an easy game. All bids completely natural, with 2♣ denying even enough to invite.

Isn't 2♣ igame forcing for most of not all playing 2/1 ?

ArtK78, on 2013-October-17, 10:43, said:

Playing a standard forcing NT, opener could have a 3 card diamond suit. So passing 2♦ is out of the question.

As many have said, a 3♣ bid here, barring any special partnership agreement, is to play. Given the remaining choices of playing a known 5-1 spade fit at the 2 level or playing a 6-unknown club fit at the 3 level, I would go with 3♣.

This is an interesting problem given the additional informaiton Jilly gave us about opener's rebid. I don't know why you would want to rebid 2♣ on 5-2-4-2 shape, even if the club "suit" is stronger, but I take it as a given since Jilly said that is her partnership's agreement. The failure of opener to rebid 2♣ is a warning that bidding 3♣ will not be a good idea.

In my regular partnership, we have agreed that a 2♦ rebid promises 4, so a 2♣ rebid can be made on a doubleton on this auction (and possibly a singleton on the auction 1♥-1NT-2♣). Thus, I would be faced with a similar (but not identical) problem on this auction.

I still think that 3♣ is the right call. Opener, of course, would then bid 3♦, giving me a big headache of a choice between the pointed suits at the 3 level.

Yes, for my partnership the failure of opener to bid 2♣ is key here. I didn't say I wanted to rebid 2♣ on 5-2-4-2, I said it was a problem hand and that I may bid 2♣ depending on suit quality. I may also rescind that statement after thinking about it a bit more.

As for my partners rebid, I have no problem with either 2♦ or 2♠

[aguahombre]

cherdano, on 2013-October-17, 16:52, said:

I presume waterman would let his comment stand, but that doesn't mean it's right. 2♦ is utterly normal, and clearly better in my view.

I totally agree.

1-Comment stands
2-That doesn't mean it is right
3-2D would probably be the normal rebid.
4-2D is clearly better in your view and that of many others.

[Zelandakh]

jillybean, on 2013-October-17, 19:42, said:

Isn't 2♣ igame forcing for most of not all playing 2/1 ?

This is one of the "hidden" advantages of turning the 2/1 structure around and playing 1NT as a forcing relay and 2♣♦♥ as natural and non-forcing responses. My view is that the bidding philosophy of 2/1 is fundamentally flawed in that weak hands should start bidding suits as quickly as possible to find a playable spot while good hands can afford to go more slowly. That does not mean I think 2/1 is a bad system - all of the traditional and natural response structures have this property and 2/1 divides the responding hands up more efficiently than most. But I do like to encouarge players, and eventually regulators, to think about whether the existing frameworks are actually optimal.

If you want to avoid "ugly" bids on non-GF hands then 2/1 is the wrong system to be playing. It works primarily because the game and slam hands are important enough to offset the losses elsewhere, since most of the time you can get to a playable spot. Fred has written that anyone playing a F1NT will on occasion reach silly contracts, even experts, so it should not be a surprise when club players have difficulties with such hands.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-18, 03:33, said:

This is one of the "hidden" advantages of turning the 2/1 structure around and playing 1NT as a forcing relay and 2♣♦♥ as natural and non-forcing responses. My view is that the bidding philosophy of 2/1 is fundamentally flawed in that weak hands should start bidding suits as quickly as possible to find a playable spot while good hands can afford to go more slowly. That does not mean I think 2/1 is a bad system - all of the traditional and natural response structures have this property and 2/1 divides the responding hands up more efficiently than most. But I do like to encouarge players, and eventually regulators, to think about whether the existing frameworks are actually optimal.

If you want to avoid "ugly" bids on non-GF hands then 2/1 is the wrong system to be playing. It works primarily because the game and slam hands are important enough to offset the losses elsewhere, since most of the time you can get to a playable spot. Fred has written that anyone playing a F1NT will on occasion reach silly contracts, even experts, so it should not be a surprise when club players have difficulties with such hands.

The views of Zelandakh do not necessarily reflect the views of management.

Clearly, while Zelandakh's ideas may have merit, they are very non-standard, and they may not be ACBL legal. For example, I am not sure that playing 1NT as a forcing relay is legal in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-18, 04:05, said:

Clearly, while Zelandakh's ideas may have merit, they are very non-standard, and they may not be ACBL legal. For example, I am not sure that playing 1NT as a forcing relay is legal in the ACBL.

I am quite sure they are not, and Zel even stated such when he referred to regulators.

Meanwhile we 2/1r's have to cope with and perhaps adjust our bids and rebids for the pitfalls of the style to which Zel and LC allude. Just maybe the choice of opener's rebid here is one of those practical adjustments from experience on the wrong end of hands like this one. The opponents' silence means most likely we will be left alone to play a part-score, and the tradeoffs from attempting to find the perfect one in Diamonds might be too great, since it might break even with a Spade partial even if it happens -- and get us too high if it doesn't.

[ggwhiz]

jillybean, on 2013-October-17, 08:39, said:

Perhaps I should not be playing a forcing 1 nt. It seems misguided to be forcing to the 3 level opposite a limited opening, with a misfit on as little as 6-7 points.

Yes you should. Kaplan wrote that the big advantage to KS was when you did NOT open a weak notrump but you suffered some indignities when you did.

Forcing notrump is simlar with the occasional tough spot but many benefits. Besides, who knows if you are in a good spot after passing a non-forcing 1nt?

[mycroft]

Yes. 1NT "promising invitational or better values" is not legal on the GCC in the ACBL. There's a story behind that...(as there is behind many of the odd GCC regs, both ALLOWED and DISALLOWED).

Personally, I think it's time to revisit that, as the story is dead and buried :-) But the memory of the ACBL is long.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-October-21, 09:51, said:

Yes. 1NT "promising invitational or better values" is not legal on the GCC in the ACBL. There's a story behind that...(as there is behind many of the odd GCC regs, both ALLOWED and DISALLOWED).

Personally, I think it's time to revisit that, as the story is dead and buried :-) But the memory of the ACBL is long.

Same guy responsible for the Suction restrictions? Sounds like, but I hadn't heard about that one.

[fromageGB]

3♣ without thinking too much, playing your methods.

I play 1NT absolutely forcing, and surely if you do, this is "1NT as a forcing relay" is it not? But not if it implies an invitational+ hand.

My minor rebids are uglier than most, as my 1NT open excludes a 5 card major, so we only pass 2♦ with at least 4 in length more than spades. If your 1NT may include that, then I would prefer opener's 2♦ rebid to show 4, as ArtK78 said.