[pclayton]

MP's playing basic 2/1 with a pickup partner. Pard opens 1♥ as dealer at all Vul and RHO passes:

♠JT8x ♥x ♦AQ7xxx ♣xx

[mike777]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2006, 02:00 PM, said:

MP's playing basic 2/1 with a pickup partner. Pard opens 1♥ as dealer at all Vul and RHO passes:

♠JT8x ♥x ♦AQ7xxx ♣xx

1s wtp?

Would make the same bid even if you add the K of D or take away the A of D .

[MickyB]

The problem is coping with a 2♣ rebid...I'm going to go with 1NT given that we are playing 5 card majors, would go with 1♠ if we were playing 4cM.

[awm]

Well, there is an obvious problem if you bid 1♠ and partner rebids 2♣. However, it would also be pretty embarrassing to bid 3♦ or 1NT and have partner turn up with four spades. I suppose this is a win for playing flannery?

I'll go with the "textbook" 1♠ call though. This works out better if partner tends to rebid some off-shape 1NTs (allowing us to reach 2♦ on a 6-2 or 6-3 fit).

[mikeh]

I bid 1♠.

Methods count here: I can see an argument for 1N, intending to bid 2♦ over 2♣, should that be the rebid. It avoids the nightmare of a 2♣ rebid after my 1♠.

However, I play a method that eliminates that for me anyway: for me, 1N followed by 2♦ is a puppet to 2♥ to allow me to distinguish between a variety of hands.

In any event, bidding 1N and arriving at 2♦ is no panacea, and partner may be 4=5 or 4=6 in the majors.

It also helps if you can get to 2♦ after a 1N rebid over your 1♠. If you can do that (I can: 2♣ by me is a puppet to 2♦), then this is an additional reason to bid 1♠.

What do I do over 2♣? I pas, rightly or wrongly. We may be in a 4-2 fit, and the opps are favourites to lead trump, but my partner's have gone down before

[Al_U_Card]

I play the F-bomb so this is no prob for me. 1NT forcing all the way. Kaplan inversionites might have some fun or not.......a WJS in D, if available, might work but then Bergen is far more likely than that 3D usage.

[awm]

Yup, this is an easy hand for Kaplan inversion. Just bid 1♠ (showing a forcing notrump with 0-4 spades) and if partner doesn't show spades you can sign off in diamonds.

In general KI is a more elegant (in my opinion anyway) solution to most of the problems flannery can help with.

[mikeh]

The big problem with the inversion is the hand on which a standard pair would bid 1♥ 1♠ 1N P

The inversion pair bid 1♥ 1N ???

[MickyB]

KI has its own problems...Chip Martel feels that giving the chance to double 1♠ is a big loser, and you can't rebid 1NT when partner has shown ♠. BTW, do any KIers choose between 1♠ and 1N with 4♠, depending upon whether they fancy a Moysian part-score or not?

[Free]

1NT forcing planning to signoff in ♦, or 1♠ when playing Kaplan inversion...

[mike777]

MickyB, on Jan 4 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

The problem is coping with a 2♣ rebid...I'm going to go with 1NT given that we are playing 5 card majors, would go with 1♠ if we were playing 4cM.

I rebid 3d...non forcing. wtp?

I would rebid 2nt if I want to invite in nt, yes?

I can live with passing 2clubs though. .

[awm]

mikeh, on Jan 4 2006, 03:00 PM, said:

The big problem with the inversion is the hand on which a standard pair would bid 1♥ 1♠ 1N P

The inversion pair bid 1♥ 1N ???

The advantage is that 1NT shows five spades, making a raise with any three card support virtually automatic. Even a 2-5-3-3 can conceivably bid 2♠, with the guarantee of a 5-2 trump fit (often after 1♥-1♠-1NT people rebid spades on five anyway). Unless you play lots of off-shape 1NT rebids (which most people seem not to) you're not missing the 1NT contract after 1♥-1NT.

Note that this also nicely solves one of the "bridge world death hands" where opener has three-card support and extras, since opener can jump raise to 3♠ opposite five-card support and need have no qualms about making a normal rebid over 1♥-1♠ (secure in the knowledge that no 8-card spade fit can exist).

Of course, there is some debate as to which bids show which suits after 1♥-1♠ playing Kaplan inversion. The most popular treatments seem to be transfers (so 1NT=♣ or bal, 2♣=♦, 2♦=6+♥, 2♥=5♥+4♠) and natural with 1NT showing spades (so 1NT=4♠, 2♣=3+, 2♦=3+, 2♥=6+♥). Which of these you choose may have some impact, particularly on how often you end up playing 1NT contracts.

[mike777]

Discussing bidding theory, here is another viewpoint.


1h=1s
2c

2c promises at least:

x....AQTxxx...AJx...AJx or
x...AKJxxx...xx...AQTx


rebid 2h with:

x...AKJxx...xx...AT9xx

rebid 1nt with:

x...AQTxx...KJ...Kxxxx or
x....KTxxx...AJ....AJxxx

Please keep in mind that the opp's seem to be silent on less than 40% of the hands, so unopposed auctions become less frequent.

[whereagles]

The hand is a good example why one should think before making any bid.

A 1NT bid (forcing or not) is a much more flexible bid than the "automatic" 1♠, which leaves responder endplayed after the 2♣ rebid. Besides, the chances pard has a weakish hand with 4 spades are too low to compensate the risk of hearing 2♣ if 1♠ is chosen.

[luke warm]

it's hard to imagine bypassing 1s for me, tho i do see that a 2c rebid could cause huge problems

[tysen2k]

1♠ and pass over 2♣ response. Not pretty, but it's what I'd do.

Tysen

[adhoc3]

I vote for forcing NT.

1) too weak to bid both suits, D suit is much more valuable than S. If there's a game, probably need fitting in both S/D
2) If opps inter, I can still bid 3D without exaggerating.

Regards

Jack

[pclayton]

1♠ is possible but this isn't the type of hand where you desire a 4-3 fit. I'd much rather play the 6-1 or 6-2 in the minor, even at MP's. Looking for a 4-4 spade fit is really a small target too.

Even if we have the agreement that 3♦ over 2♣ is non-forcing (which is certainly negligible with a pickup pard), why should we force the auction to the 3 level? 1N gives us the chance to stop in 2♦; 1♠ doesn't. And with some decent 3=5=1=4's and 4=5=0=4, pard can still back into spades.

I bid 1N at the table. The auction spiralled out of control for unrelated reasons, since pard bid his head off with an 8 card heart suit.

[Fluffy]

I would do whatever to sing off in ♦, 1NT or 3♦ depends on agreements.