[jillybean]

..

 mikeh, on 2024-March-30, 17:38, said:

Rebidding diamonds over 2C is a very bad move.

You have a good suit but:

It’s not the main feature of your hand…not even close. The main features of your hand are (1) huge hcp, (2) potentially wonderful distributional strength and (3, partly overlapping with 2) a good four card side suit.

Bidding 2D leaves you guessing later, since you have lied to your partner and can’t now rely on the information you get from him. That’s one of the (several) downsides to masterminding.

Bidding 3D eliminates spades from play. Why can’t he have KQxx xx x AKxxxx?

Of course he’ll bid 3S over 3D but that DOES NOT show a possible trump suit…it says one of two things, the first being most likely: I’m looking for notrump…I have a spade stopper or two but nothing in hearts. The second, which I would not ever use but I’ve seen non-experts do this….I’m making an advance cuebid…if you bid 3N I’m pulling in search of a slam.

In neither case does it suggest playing in spades. Why? Because 3D denied a four card major in any logical method…wtf jump to the 3 level, concealing a primary feature of the hand?

After a normal, non-masterminding collaborative, partner-respecting 2S rebid, responder bids 3D and wild horses couldn’t keep me out of 6D and I’d be straining to try for 7. Whether we get there depends on partner but it’s very doable

1D 2C
2S 3D
3H 3S
4C 4H


At this point opener could simply bid the diamond grand!

The thread is a little disjointed, I would not bid 3D with this hand. My suggestion is 1D:2C 2D
we haven't lied to partner if we have agreed to bid 6 card diamond suit ahead of a 4cM after 1D:2C

1D 2C
2S 3D is a great auction with the hand North holds but if we move 4♦ to the club suit, will we not fall into the 3nt trap?

---

1D:2C
2D:2S
3S

When 2S was a NT probe and not a 4 card suit could responder bid 3nt with half a stopper, or 4m with 3226?

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-March-30, 19:14, said:

..

The thread is a little disjointed, I would not bid 3D with this hand. My suggestion is 1D:2C 2D
we haven't lied to partner if we have agreed to bid 6 card diamond suit ahead of a 4cM after 1D:2C

1D 2C
2S 3D is a great auction with the hand North holds but if we move 4♦ to the club suit, will we not fall into the 3nt trap?

---

1D:2C
2D:2S
3S

When 2S was a NT probe and not a 4 card suit could responder bid 3nt with half a stopper, or 4m with 3226?

After the (to me, weird) decision to rebid 2D, 2S by responder shows 4+S and longer clubs and whatever strength is required for a 2/1 2C bid. In no universe is it a notrump probe. The reason 3S would be a notrump probe after 1D 2C 3D is that opener denies a 4 card major with that 3D bid.

This shouldn’t be difficult. Bid shape! Ironically you used to quote me in a signature block…about the importance of bidding shape.

Here, you have a 6-4 with a trivial ability to bid 2S over 2C….to show 4 spades.

Btw, after 1D 2C 2D 3C, certainly a plausible auction given opener’s club void, 3S is indeed a ‘notrump probe’ as well…but this time because responder has denied a four card spade suit, so opener has no business bidding ‘shape’.

As for making responder 2=2=3=6, I don’t understand why this puts anyone on the notrump track, other than the obvious that south is looking for slam and it’s possible that north might eventually bid 6N rather than bidding or passing 6D.

Methods matter and I’m uncomfortable with proposing a non 2/1 GF auction….I’ve played 2/1 since about 1979, with a few years of forcing club in the late 80’s and early 90s. So I’m not sure what’s forcing at any particular point

I assume that 2C promised a rebid but I vaguely recall that some Acol bidders might say that 1D 2C 2D was passable (If so, I suspect that’s a very old fashioned and now minority position). I see tramticketbsays 2S would be a reverse, but I suspect he means only that it’s a gf, and needn’t be quite as strong as a ‘full reverse’. If so, then I’m happy with my earlier proposed sequence

My own preference has long been that, even in a 2/1 gf style, 2S by opener shows a little extra…say a king over a minimum, but I think increasingly experts are just bidding shape here, not hcp. But in a non 2/1 method, I do think 2S should show extras and be gf.

[DavidKok]

 mikeh, on 2024-March-30, 19:51, said:

This shouldn’t be difficult. Bid shape!

I couldn't agree more. On a 1♦-2♣ 2/1 GF start I prefer to play:

• 2♦: 6(+)♦, no 4cM.
  
• 2♥: 4(+)♥, 5(+)♦.
  
• 2♠: 4(+)♠, 5(+)♦.
  
• 2NT: Balanced (in my unbal dia obviously I use this for something else).
  
• 3♣: 4(+)♣, 5(+)♦.

With 4=4=4=1 you'll have to choose between 2♥ and 2NT as the smallest lie. If you open 1♦ with (41)=4=4 I'd raise partner's five card suit. Higher bids almost never come up so for me it'd be "does not exist", but if you really want to know I'll suggest

• 3♦: Self-sufficient diamonds, 7(+). No 4cM.
  
• 3♥: A splinter for clubs, usually 3=1=5=4.
  
• 3♠: A splinter for clubs, usually 1=3=5=4.
  
• 3NT: Does not exist.
  
• 4♣: Does not exist.

One of the bigger issues with playing 1♦-2♣ as less than GF is that we may very well want to stop in 2NT or even 2♦ when opener has a misfitting minimum. I think this is the main cause for the (in my opinion rather atrocious) set of rebids where 2♦ may be any minimum, or contains the balanced hands, or any other reason for not bidding our major suit on this start. The 1♦-2♣ start is a fragile part of most standard bidding systems, part of which I resolve by playing the unbalanced diamond, having 2♣ promise 5(+) clubs always (it's free!) and making the sequence 100% forcing to game. Relaxing any or all of these can make a mess of things, though on the example hand in this thread both sides have enough values to establish the game force quickly anyway.

 mikeh, on 2024-March-30, 19:51, said:

My own preference has long been that, even in a 2/1 gf style, 2S by opener shows a little extra…say a king over a minimum, but I think increasingly experts are just bidding shape here, not hcp. But in a non 2/1 method, I do think 2S should show extras and be gf.

I think the trend is in the opposite direction. At least here in the Netherlands people give me the stink eye for suggesting bidding shape after a 2/1 GF, and instead people use the 2-level rebid in the opening suit as a multi-way (wide range with extra length or 'any' minimum). Personally I think this is a worse style, in no small part because people don't discuss the continuations but also because I think it's simply less bang for your buck than showing shape. That being said this is a minority opinion here and usually my partners will refuse playing shape first even after the first dozen or so disasters.
To be fully clear, I think from good to bad the 2/1 styles rank:

• All rebids artificial, part of a highly optimised scheme.
  
• Shape first but with a number of swaps to make things more economical.
  
• "Shape first but keep it simple", or "Do not bypass 2-of-our-suit without extras but we have agreements on the followups" (tied for third).
  
• Do not bypass 2-of-our-suit without extras, wing it when it comes to continuations.

In my not-so-kind opinion a lot of strong local players are employing the last style, slapping '2/1 GF' onto their system card without ever looking into the details.

[nullve]

Unfortunately, "shape first" is also consistent with

1♦-2♣; ?:

2♦ = 5+ D
2♥+ = NAT, < 5 D

.

[DavidKok]

Even if you play a style where 1♦ is frequently 4 (or even occasionally 3), other than the 4x1 all those hands are balanced. You can and should just rebid 2NT with them, or some other dedicated bid to show a balanced hand. With that out of the way, your suggestion really is not compatible with attempting to bid shape.

[jillybean]

xxxx
broken

 mikeh, on 2024-March-30, 19:51, said:

After the (to me, weird) decision to rebid 2D, 2S by responder shows 4+S and longer clubs and whatever strength is required for a 2/1 2C bid. In no universe is it a notrump probe. The reason 3S would be a notrump probe after 1D 2C 3D is that opener denies a 4 card major with that 3D bid.

Ok, that got muddled with the 3D rebid senario

 mikeh, on 2024-March-30, 19:51, said:

This shouldn’t be difficult. Bid shape! Ironically you used to quote me in a signature block…about the importance of bidding shape.

Here, you have a 6-4 with a trivial ability to bid 2S over 2C….to show 4 spades.

Yes, perhaps I need to put that quote back in my signature.
When you say bid shape, won't a 2S rebid forever hide the 6 bagger? We would bid 2S on 4351, 4333, 4342. Or these go via 2nt and checkback?
My preference has been that a 'reverse' after a 2/1 auction promises a K more than minimum as you say but I have moved away from this in the last few years. Bidding shape seems to be mainstream.1,

 mikeh, on 2024-March-30, 19:51, said:

Btw, after 1D 2C 2D 3C, certainly a plausible auction given opener’s club void, 3S is indeed a ‘notrump probe’ as well…but this time because responder has denied a four card spade suit, so opener has no business bidding ‘shape’.

As for making responder 2=2=3=6, I don’t understand why this puts anyone on the notrump track, other than the obvious that south is looking for slam and it’s possible that north might eventually bid 6N rather than bidding or passing 6D.

Methods matter and I’m uncomfortable with proposing a non 2/1 GF auction….I’ve played 2/1 since about 1979, with a few years of forcing club in the late 80’s and early 90s. So I’m not sure what’s forcing at any particular point

I assume that 2C promised a rebid but I vaguely recall that some Acol bidders might say that 1D 2C 2D was passable (If so, I suspect that’s a very old fashioned and now minority position). I see tramticketbsays 2S would be a reverse, but I suspect he means only that it’s a gf, and needn’t be quite as strong as a ‘full reverse’. If so, then I’m happy with my earlier proposed sequence

My own preference has long been that, even in a 2/1 gf style, 2S by opener shows a little extra…say a king over a minimum, but I think increasingly experts are just bidding shape here, not hcp. But in a non 2/1 method, I do think 2S should show extras and be gf.

[nullve]

 DavidKok, on 2024-March-31, 05:39, said:

Even if you play a style where 1♦ is frequently 4 (or even occasionally 3), other than the 4x1 all those hands are balanced. You can and should just rebid 2NT with them, or some other dedicated bid to show a balanced hand. With that out of the way, your suggestion really is not compatible with attempting to bid shape.

It's not my suggestion (I hate it), it's for example basically what Max Hardy teaches in Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century:

Max Hardy said:

The first obligation of a one diamond opener after a game forcing two clubs response is to affirm or deny diamond length. Holding five or more diamonds, most hands will bid two diamonds to show that length.

As for always rebidding 2N with a balanced hand: Auctions then ending in 3N such as

1♦-2♣
2N-3N
P

are (much?) more leaky than the corresponding T-Walsh, Precision and even Hardy style auctions, and will therfore cost you a (substantial?) fraction of a trick on average.

[jillybean]

What do you mean by leaky?
"and (much?) more leaky than corresponding.."

[nullve]

 jillybean, on 2024-March-31, 08:39, said:

What do you mean by leaky?

That it causes an information leakage; that we give our opponents information that we would prefer to keep to ourselves.

 jillybean, on 2024-March-31, 08:39, said:

"and (much?) more leaky than corresponding.."

Compare the auction

1♦-2♣
2N-3N
P

in standard and Precision. In both systems Opener has shown a 3-point range (12-14 in standard, 11-13 in Precision) and a balanced hand. But in standard Opener has also shown either real diamonds or 4432 shape, information that could be useful to the defence. So the standard auction leaks more information.

[DavidKok]

Conditional on getting to 3NT we'd like to bid it without describing anything about our hand, but I'm positive this is not very useful on this auction. After 1♦-2♣ it is very unclear which strain and what level to bid to, and I think when the partnership struggles to get past 3NT on the example hands that is a bigger concern. You forgot to highlight my suggestion of using a different bid as a flag bid for balanced hands, which solves most of the problem. Incidentally I'm not convinced the Hardy style conceals more on balance as it fully describes the major suits by opener on the balanced hands.
I'm not aware of any versions of T-Walsh over a standard 1♦ opening, but I'd love to learn more about it.

[jillybean]

Coming back to this after the weekend festivities.

I play 1D:2C as GF, after this start my partner(s) prefer to show 6 diamonds rather than a 4cM. I guess they are reading Hardy not Hargreaves.
I keep coming back in this loop here on forums, with some good players telling me this isn't the best treatment. So far I have failed to convince anyone else.

This thread started as a whimsical topic on how difficult it was for new players to bid this hand with very few gadgets, not a good understanding of continuations of any sort. The majority fell into the 3nt trap, I'd like to think noone reading this would do the same.

I still don't understand how opener shows the 6 card diamond suit if she rebids 2M and partner has no fit. Perhaps we don't need to, I will keep reading.

[smerriman]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-01, 12:00, said:

I still don't understand how opener shows the 6 card diamond suit if she rebids 2M and partner has no fit. Perhaps we don't need to, I will keep reading.

Does rebidding diamonds on your third bid not work?

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-01, 12:00, said:

Coming back to this after the weekend festivities.

I play 1D:2C as GF, after this start my partner(s) prefer to show 6 diamonds rather than a 4cM. I guess they are reading Hardy not Hargreaves.
I keep coming back in this loop here on forums, with some good players telling me this isn't the best treatment. So far I have failed to convince anyone else.

This thread started as a whimsical topic on how difficult it was for new players to bid this hand with very few gadgets, not a good understanding of continuations of any sort. The majority fell into the 3nt trap, I'd like to think noone reading this would do the same.

I still don't understand how opener shows the 6 card diamond suit if she rebids 2M and partner has no fit. Perhaps we don't need to, I will keep reading.

It’s been more than 40 years since I read any version of Hardy’s book. Iirc, what he suggested was that ‘most’ hands with 5+ diamonds bid 2D over 2C. Most hands are minimum range and most hands with 5+ diamonds don’t have a 4 card major.

Indeed, I have for many years played that opening 1D then, over a 2C response (gf for me), 2M promised both 5+ diamonds, the major and about a king (or more) over a minimum opening bid. Not exactly how Hardy described it, iirc, because I prefer to bid 2D with even 4 diamonds if I lacked a club raise and was wide open in a major (so no 2N). In my main partnership, we play differently, but our whole system is a long way from anything Hardy even dreamed about, lol.

I am pretty sure that Hardy (who, I have to stress, was not a real theorist…he simply wrote up methods popularized by West Coast experts such as Walsh, Swanson, and maybe Soloway…and many others) would have been very much opposed to a diamond rebidding on this hand.

As for your repeated references to the notrump ‘trap’….you have a huge hand and, even though 2C wasn’t gf, you HAVE to be thinking of slam at your second bid. Not of driving to slam, but of trying to show significant interest.

By bidding 2S, you give partner a chance to show diamond support (over which your slam interest goes into warp drive, but still isn’t a slam force) and now no player with a pulse would settle for 3N…if things didn’t pan out, maybe 4N later, but never giving up at the 3 level!

As Merriman suggests (though perhaps the auction might not time out well) you can always bid diamonds again.

However, many sequences won’t permit that

1D 2C 2S 3C…..bidding 3D doesn’t show 6….you might be stuck with something like 4=2=5=2 no heart card. 3D tends to be 6 but doesn’t promise it. I’d bid 3D anyway…my 2S forced to game (in the Hardy or Acol styles or the 2/1 I play in one of my partnerships and with more casual partnerships) so I can bid 3D and then show extras next time (bidding say 4N over 3H, which would be a probe for 3N, denying a stopper…say Kx xx xxx AKQxxx)

[jillybean]

 smerriman, on 2024-April-01, 13:00, said:

Does rebidding diamonds on your third bid not work?

1♦:2♣
2♠:3♣
3♦

Could this be Kxxx,Qx,AKxxx,xx ?

[jillybean]

 DavidKok, on 2024-March-31, 01:36, said:

I couldn't agree more. On a 1♦-2♣ 2/1 GF start I prefer to play:

• 2♦: 6(+)♦, no 4cM.
  
• 2♥: 4(+)♥, 5(+)♦.
  
• 2♠: 4(+)♠, 5(+)♦.
  
• 2NT: Balanced (in my unbal dia obviously I use this for something else).
  
• 3♣: 4(+)♣, 5(+)♦.

 mikeh, on 2024-April-01, 14:05, said:

Indeed, I have for many years played that opening 1D then, over a 2C response (gf for me), 2M promised both 5+ diamonds, the major and about a king (or more) over a minimum opening bid. Not exactly how Hardy described it, iirc, because I prefer to bid 2D with even 4 diamonds if I lacked a club raise and was wide open in a major (so no 2N). In my main partnership, we play differently, but our whole system is a long way from anything Hardy even dreamed about, lol.

This may be this missing piece of the puzzle for me, if 2M promises 5+ diamonds.

Thanks

As for falling into the 3NT trap. I didn't play this hand but I am thinking slam when I pick the hand, I'm not stopping in 3nt opposite a partner who bids a 2/1.
(even if the 2/1 isn't strictly gf).

[jillybean]

 DavidKok, on 2024-March-31, 01:36, said:

To be fully clear, I think from good to bad the 2/1 styles rank:

• All rebids artificial, part of a highly optimised scheme.
  
• Shape first but with a number of swaps to make things more economical.
  
• "Shape first but keep it simple", or "Do not bypass 2-of-our-suit without extras but we have agreements on the followups" (tied for third).
  
• Do not bypass 2-of-our-suit without extras, wing it when it comes to continuations.

In my not-so-kind opinion a lot of strong local players are employing the last style, slapping '2/1 GF' onto their system card without ever looking into the details.

That is true for many styles and conventions, learn the first 2 bids and slap it on your card.
Players seem to love collecting Conventions, Master Points and those annoying fuzzy stickers for your convention card holder. I'm guilty of the first.

[jillybean]

1D:2C
2M 5+ diamonds and 4+ major
Then 2D becomes your catch all, a hand unsuitable to raise clubs or bid nt.

Playing transfers over 1C is anyone playing 1D,1H,1S as 5+ ?

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-02, 08:26, said:

1D:2C
2M 5+ diamonds and 4+ major
Then 2D becomes your catch all, a hand unsuitable to raise clubs or bid nt.

Playing transfers over 1C is anyone playing 1D,1H,1S as 5+ ?

Two points:

1. While I like 1D 2C 2D to be a default bid, not promising more than four+ diamonds, this is very much a minority view, so don’t spring it on partner without prior discussion….and, bridge players being what they usually are, you may find partner unreceptive

2. Many T-Walsh players use an ‘unbalanced’ 1D. For me, it’s only 4 if 4441 or on rare hands 3145/1345 or 0445 with clubs so bad that I can’t stand opening 1C and rebidding 2C should partner transfer into my short major.

Unbalanced usually means 5+ with side shortness or 6+. With 5422, five diamonds, we treat it as either balanced (1C) or unbalanced (1D) depending on honour location. With Hx in each doubleton we tend to open 1C. With xx in one or both doubletons, we tend to open 1D.

This means that our 1C opening can be 3=3=5=2….you need lots of discussion and probably some complex agreements in order to untangle this. We have a raft of agreements and still sometimes miss a good diamond contract (rarely a game or slam…this is much more a part score issue and since we build our methods exclusively for imps, it doesn’t often cost?..we may be +120 in 2N while cold for 130 in diamonds as an example…bad at mps, irrelevant at imps. We do have a lot of specialized agreements, without which I suspect the problems would be worse.

[DavidKok]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-02, 08:26, said:

1D:2C
2M 5+ diamonds and 4+ major
Then 2D becomes your catch all, a hand unsuitable to raise clubs or bid nt.

Playing transfers over 1C is anyone playing 1D,1H,1S as 5+ ?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, are you pairing this with a 100% unbalanced diamond (so also not 5♦332)? I assumed not, but if so some of my comments below are not relevant.

• On 1♦-2♣, why not simply 2NT = balanced, 2♦ = unbalanced no major (hence 6(+)♦, with 5♦4♣ raise the clubs)? Or if you really buy into the siding craze swap the two, 2♦ = balanced and 2NT = 6(+)♦ no major, or go full ham and reinvent some transfer rebids or w/e. I really don't get the desire to make 2♦ catchall and 2NT practically idle (sure, 18-19 balanced, but how often do you have that with partner having a 2/1 GF). I really want to show that I have a balanced hand when I have one, reaping maximum benefits from my notrump ladder. Also keep in mind that 2NT showing a balanced hand, possibly bypassing a major, will never lose a fit. With 4M5(+)♣ responder can simply bid their suit (naturally) at the 3-level.
  
• As for opening 1♣ on 4=4=4=1 - I personally don't really care much either way. I think it's worse than opening it 1♦. But if we start with, say 1♠ 5(+), 1♥ 5(+), 1♦ 5(+) unbal, 1♣ 'bal or unbal primary clubs', the only hands that are uncomfortable are 5♦332 and the 4x1's. By frequency they are uncommon, and I think it is fine to distribute them over the 1m openings as you please (or even sprinkle some in the 1M opening - they're just that infrequent). Personally I prefer opening 1♦ on 1=4=4=4 and 4=4=4=1, while opening 1♣ on 5♦332. But most of the time it won't matter.
  
• As always I think Dutch Doubleton has T-Walsh beat, but even setting that aside I don't think the main dividing line for 1♦ vs 1♣ should optimally be "do we have a fifth diamond?". Rather then (un)balanced nature of the hand is decisive on some hands with four or five diamonds, in my opinion.

[jillybean]

broke
I don't know, what started out as a fun post of other player's hands has turned into a complex rethink of my system and T-Walsh, which I've yet to make much progress on.

Unbalanced diamond, balanced club, weak nt - I have to understand more about this before I can comment and answer your question.

 mikeh, on 2024-April-02, 10:30, said:

1. While I like 1D 2C 2D to be a default bid, not promising more than four+ diamonds, this is very much a minority view, so don’t spring it on partner without prior discussion….and, bridge players being what they usually are, you may find partner unreceptive

If it makes sense, unpopular doesn't put me off at all. Many years ago when I did convince my partner to play the 2C/1M gf clubs or balanced treatment I picked up here, players at the VBC would roll their eyes, smile and look sympathetically towards my partner.