[rogerclee]

Uncontested
1♦-2♣
2♥

2♣ = GF

Did opener show extras or just shape?

Both styles are playable, and both seem to be 'standard' among different communities. I'm just looking for who supports what, and with what arguments.

[pclayton]

I play it does although in another partnership we just go up the line over 2♣ without regard to length in diamonds or strength.

I don't like that approach as much.

[mike777]

It seems to work just fine as natural not showing extras.
Perhaps this has something to do with I expect responder to be the stronger hand very often. Stronger than opener.

Responder assumes opener has some junky 11-12 hcp.
If opener really has a strong hand, slam or grand slam will often be lay down and opener will not stop bidding.

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=23262
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=23261

[CSGibson]

Playing 2/1, I show shape (in this case more diamonds than hearts, which is why I don't rebid NT).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The adv. / disadv. of a reverses not showing add. strength:

+: The partnership locates its faster, and sometimes at a lower level
-: Opener does not limit his hand, and he has to do this later

I prefer to limit my hand, although this does not mean, that I wont
reduce the requirements for a reverse somewhat after partner made
a 2/1.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[benlessard]

1st i think to play 2C as GF is terrible.

2nd 2D is better played as a waiting bid. With a hand with no feature (3442 for example) its better to let partner unbalanced hand do the talking.

[han]

We play it shows an unbalanced hand but does not show extras/

[jdonn]

I think unless playing a totally artificial set of followups it's better to not have it promise extras.

[CSGibson]

benlessard, on Feb 16 2008, 06:59 AM, said:

1st i think to play 2C as GF is terrible.

2nd 2D is better played as a waiting bid. With a hand with no feature (3442 for example) its better to let partner unbalanced hand do the talking.

Or could you just make a bid describing your hand, with 2NT being 12-14 balanced or 18-19 balanced (or 4-4-4-1, same point ranges) and 3NT being 15-17 4-4-4-1, and 2M being unbalanced, more diamonds than the major suit bid? I mean, if your hand is narrowly defined, then partner with the unbalanced hand can decide whether it is intelligent to describe his hand further, or whether it would just give free information to the defenders.

2C GF is only terrible if you have terrible follow up bids. Otherwise it is systematically sound playing standard 2/1.

[jtfanclub]

benlessard, on Feb 16 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

1st i think to play 2C as GF is terrible.

The funny part is, 2♣ over 1♦ as GF is the only 2/1 GF that ever made any sense to me.

After all, if 2♣ over 1♠ is GF, then virtually every hand without a GF and without a fit ends up bidding 1NT, which seriously overloads the bid. Over 1♠ in 2/1 you have exactly one bid which promises 3+ clubs below the 4 level.

In contrast, you have all sorts of club bids over 1 diamond...
1NT has club tolerence (at least 3, usually 4)
2♣ has club length
2NT has club tolerence
3♣ has club length.

I can use, say, all 6-9 hands with clubs as 1NT, 10-12 balanced as 2NT, 10-12 unbalanced as 3♣, and GF as 2♣. Or I can use them in other ways. If you need four ways to show clubs over 1 diamond without forcing to game, while you don't need any over 1 spade, well, you have a whole lot more spade fits than I do.

[skjaeran]

I really prefer reverse here to show extras.

[awm]

The problem with 2♣ GF is not the 2♣ bid itself or the followups -- obviously when you bid 2♣, you're better off playing 2♣ GF.

The problem hands are the ones where you can't GF. You have:

(1) Balanced constructive hand (6-9 or so) with 4-5♣.
(2) Constructive hand with 6+♣.
(3) Invitational hand with 6+♣.
(4) Invitational balanced hand.

If 2♣ is GF, the usual approach is to bid 1NT with both (1) and (2), meaning you play some silly 1NT contracts with a club fit, and you let opponents into the auction cheaply to find their major suit. You also have to bid 3♣ with (3) and 2NT with (4), both of which consume a lot of space and make it harder to explore for the best game contract.

Playing 2♣ as "inv+" you can in principle bid 3♣ with (2), distinguishing it from (1) and also consuming a lot of the opponents space to look for a major suit fit. You bid 2♣ with (3) and (4), keeping the auction a bit lower so opener can describe his hand especially when he has the extras that produce a game. Basically the idea is that it's better to jump (to 3♣) on a poor hand, and keep the auction low on the invites.

Of course, you have to weigh this against the benefits of 2♣ being GF in the auction 1♦-2♣.

Things are different over a major suit opening, because you have 1NT forcing as a response, and because 2M is almost always a reasonable partial. Auctions like 1♠-2♥ also consume a lot of space, and are particularly hard to unwind when 2♥ is not GF (whereas 2♣ is a pretty cheap 2/1 bid and you can more easily manage a wide range of strengths).

[benlessard]

Quote

Or could you just make a bid describing your hand, with 2NT being 12-14 balanced or 18-19 balanced (or 4-4-4-1, same point ranges) and 3NT being 15-17 4-4-4-1, and 2M being unbalanced, more diamonds than the major suit bid? I mean, if your hand is narrowly defined, then partner with the unbalanced hand can decide whether it is intelligent to describe his hand further, or whether it would just give free information to the defenders.

The problem with responding 2Nt with a balanced hand is that it take too many space to show wide possibilities of hands.

1D-----2C
2Nt-----3M
???
Lets say you have a club fit but have stopper in the unbid major do you bid 3Nt ?
If you have a M fit can you cue bid in 4C or is it natural ?
If you bid 2D with all balanced hand then its

1D-----2C
2D-----2M

with 3C or 3M or 3OM available to show raises (with a balanced hand if you play that 2D only show bal hands) and still be under 3Nt.

The vast majorities of hands after 1D---2C will be balanced 12-14 so its better to keep the less space consuming bid for them.

Quote

2C GF is only terrible if you have terrible follow up bids. Otherwise it is systematically sound playing standard 2/1.

Quote

The funny part is, 2♣ over 1♦ as GF is the only 2/1 GF that ever made any sense to me.

Well what do you do with
xx,xxx,xx,AKQJTxx
Kx,Jxx,x,AJTxxxxx
etc..
There are plenty of hand that are too weak to bid 2C & are way too strong to bid 1Nt. And i dont think bidding 2Nt with them is a bright idea.

After 1M ----2m its a whole different thing, first of all 1Nt is forcing.
2nd if there is a suit without stopper then 4M is often a playable contract while after 1D---2C you will be playing 5m
Ask many experienced players and almost all of them will say that 2C as Gf is only after 1M opening. (unless they play some 3 cards 1M responses or relay)

[CSGibson]

benlessard, on Feb 16 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Quote

Or could you just make a bid describing your hand, ....

The problem with responding 2Nt with a balanced hand is that it take too many space to show wide possibilities of hands.

1D-----2C
2Nt-----3M
???
Lets say you have a club fit but have stopper in the unbid major do you bid 3Nt ?
If you have a M fit can you cue bid in 4C or is it natural ?

You bid 3NT with no major suit fit, a stop, and the minimum (12-14) NT hand. Since your hand is well defined, responder will be well placed to continue if it's right. Same with 4M, or if you decide that your hand has gotten better with controls/fitting honors, making 4D a last train bid on the way to 4M.

Now you can define 2D as some sort of unbalanced hand with 6+ diamonds, and can explore those elusive minor suit slams with more room to bid. I feel like this is more important, because those unbalanced hands are harder to make shape/strength bids if you don't conserve some room.

Quote

Well what do you do with
xx,xxx,xx,AKQJTxx
Kx,Jxx,x,AJTxxxxx
etc..

Those hands are probably why Lawrence 2/1 style is so popular. I play Hardy style 2/1, and try to solve those hands by playing intermediate jump shifts, but I'm sure there are other treatments to deal with them.

[CSGibson]

benlessard, on Feb 16 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Well what do you do with
xx,xxx,xx,AKQJTxx
Kx,Jxx,x,AJTxxxxx

Actually, with those hands I'd call the director and see which of my 14 cards doesn't belong to me, then make a bidding decision.

[benlessard]

Yep ive added the T to make them more beefy but forgot to remove a small x

Quote

You bid 3NT with no major suit fit, a stop, and the minimum (12-14) NT hand. Since your hand is well defined

Not to my taste. A m fit is possible and we have no clue of honor location other then a stopper in the unbid M, being balanced 12-14 is a whole lot of possible hands.

Quote

Now you can define 2D as some sort of unbalanced hand with 6+ diamonds

these are less frequent then the balanced 12-14 types and artificial 2Nt or 3C are available for that.

Quote

and can explore those elusive minor suit slams with more room to bid. I feel like this is more important, because those unbalanced hands are harder to make shape/strength bids if you don't conserve some room.

Agree that why you should let the place for partner to describe his hand.

Its a efficiency of space principle. Using cheaper bid to show the most probable and most undefined type of hands (balanced 12-14) hand and using space consuming bids to show less probable more defined hands (single suiter hands with 6 diamonds).

[jtfanclub]

benlessard, on Feb 16 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

Well what do you do with
xx,xxx,xx,AKQJTx
Kx,Jxx,x,AJTxxxx
etc..
There are plenty of hand that are too weak to bid 2C & are way too strong to bid 1Nt. And i dont think bidding 2Nt with them is a bright idea.

Those would be pretty typical 3♣ bids.

with
xx,Jxx,x,AJTxxxx

I would bid 1NT. I think having a 3♣ bid to show this hand is a bit of a waste. For one thing, 1NT could easily be the right contract. For another, I think 3♣ provides too much information to the opponents. If we have game across that hand, partner probably won't pass 1NT.

[Yogeshdg]

I play it as shape. Opener can always go on with more in subsequent bidding.