[Stephen Tu]

Your original post was a non-argument. Basically you said "2h is a better bid than 2nt because 2h is lower than 2nt" which has no probative weight behind it. In order to argue this, you'd have to demonstrate a set of hands where this extra space gets you to superior contracts that people who bid 2nt on these hands cannot reach.

You said nothing about artificial 2nt rebids etc. You could also say "I prefer to reserve 2nt as an artificial strong rebid showing set of hands (???)", which gets far afield of the original question and conditions, saying that std methods handle this set of hands poorly, and that you don't think throwing extra min bal hands into 2H hurts your 2h rebid auctions too much. That would be OK too. But your original post made absolutely no mention of this, just saying lower = better with no other justifications.

You also might want to define "hand of death".

[david_c]

The_Hog, on Mar 10 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 10 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

I am in a game forcing auction.  I have a balanced hand with values in every other suit than partner's suit.

I bid 2NT.

What am I missing?

2NT is 2 bids higher than 2H. Over 2H you can bid 2S or 2NT as an artificail ask or relay. Lower and more efficient than over 2NT.

I also prefer the style where you rebid 2H on this hand, but I don't agree that this is the reason. For me it is because if you play 2NT as showing a minimum balanced hand then your 2H and 2NT rebids are too similar. You already have a 2H rebid which includes a variety of balanced and semi-balanced hands, so you don't need another bid which covers the same ground.

Let's say opener has a minimum balanced hand with a small doubleton spade. Presumably he doesn't want to rebid 2NT with this, so he has to bid 2H.* So now you're going to need a way to show a balanced hand (without a spade stop) after 1♥:2♦,2♥:2♠. Well, however you decide to do this, you could easily use the same thing when you have a balanced hand with a spade stop. So, while in principle Stephen is right to be worried that "The more bids you lump into 2H, the more bids you need afterwards to untangle them all", in practice you can include the 2NT hands in 2H without having to find any new sequences to show them. Really, a minimum balanced hand is extremely easy to show after a catchall 2M bid - you just keep making minimum no-trumpy noises.

Admittedly, you might find hands where it would be useful to have the negative inference that 2M won't be a balanced hand without side-suit weakness. But it's so much more useful to use 2NT for something that is genuinely "different" from the 2M rebid. Natural with extras is the usual choice, or you can play it as single-suited, or an artificial raise, or even some sort of transfer - whatever takes your fancy. Anything is better than just having two different ways to show the same hand.


*If you do want to bid 2NT with a small doubleton spade - which I think is just weird - then change the example to a 2524.

[fyrish]

I thought that playing 2♥ as "catch-all" meant a hand not suitable to bid a new suit, raise partner or bid NT. This hand can rebid NT comfortably (for me 12-14 or 18-19). If you don't open 1NT with a 5cM then you have to do it differently I suppose.

I've no idea what is standard as I live in Acol land.

[whereagles]

david_c, on Mar 10 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

I also prefer the style where you rebid 2H on this hand, but I don't agree that this is the reason. For me it is because if you play 2NT as showing a minimum balanced hand then your 2H and 2NT rebids are too similar.

Which is why I use the 2NT rebid to show a 6 carder with broken suit. That makes the 2M rebid limited to about 14 or so, making it much simpler for responder to evaluate level of play.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Mar 9 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Mar 10 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

Quote

There is no reason why you can't say it is 12-14. But then, what do you do with 15/16 (assuming that you do not normally open 1NT with a 5 card major)? And what do you do with 17+? If these bid 2NT as well, then partner does not have a clue how strong you are, and when he bids 3NT it is risky for you to go on.

It's not that difficult. It's common to play 2nt = 12-15/18-19.
So with 16-17, jump to 3nt, partner with appropriate hand can go on.
(One can of course play 12-14 2nt, 15-17 3nt, but I prefer a tighter range for 3nt, and don't find you miss too many good slams rebid 2nt with 15)
With 18-19, bid 2nt, if partner signs off in game try again with 4nt, again partner
has a reasonable range to work with.

You won't go too far wrong that often this way. I don't know why whereagles considers this unplayable. Perhaps he could explain why he feels this way.

With a balanced 15-17 don't most people in the modern world open 1NT?

good question...many WC never do with a 5 card major


OTOH many do with almost all hands within range....

side note I am one of those who rebid 2nt(11-13) over 2/1...99.9% never rebid 5 card major.

Yes that means 1s=2d=3c can be 11 hcp....5-4 hand.....that means partner must assume I got junk.

[skjaeran]

Easy 2NT rebid for me, 12-14 balanced with stoppers in the unbid suits. Lacking a stopper I'd rebid 2♥, which is a catch-all for hands not fitting any other rebid. Btw, I strongly prefer to split the NT-ranges and rebid 3NT with 18-19.

[bid_em_up]

ArtK78, on Mar 9 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

I am in a game forcing auction.  I have a balanced hand with values in every other suit than partner's suit.

I bid 2NT.

What am I missing?

And now for a completely different view.

Maybe the fact that you actually have support for partners suit?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to raise with 3 small in this sequence and by failing to do so partner can never evaluate his hand/fit properly.

Partner tends to promise a 5+ card suit for his bid (granted there may be some hands where he only has 4, but then he also likely has a delayed raise for your major if that is the case). If he had opened 1H or 1S, you would have absolutely no problem raising on XXX. Now all of the sudden, just because he makes a g/f bid in a minor, there is some valid reason where XXX is no longer considered to be support? Puhleeze.

Raise partners suit for cryin' out loud. Your auctions become much simpler after this.

And while it may be the "common treatment these days" to rebid 2H or 2N, personally, I think that it is a bad treatment.

jmoo.

[whereagles]

bid_em_up, on Mar 11 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

Raise partners suit for cryin' out loud. Your auctions become much simpler after this.

That's fine in theory but, unfortunately, raising pard's suit is one of the most space-consuming bids available. Hence, it should only be used when it carries extra information, e.g. extra values or shape.

If you could support by bidding the next step (an interesting agreement, btw), then it would be a no brainer

[jdonn]

You say raising partner would simplify the auction, but you don't say why. I can think of several ways it makes the auction more complicated.

- You have no room to work out black suit stoppers. If partner doesn't have heart support, there is only one bid available below 3NT.
- You haven't differentiated your level of support. If you are going to raise on xxx, and as I assume on AQxx, partner is in a world of hurt to decide how to proceed with his KJxxx. In fact, you made the claim it helps partner evaluate, I directly contradict that and claim it will hurt his evaluation.
- I disagree with the comparison to majors. If you are going to play in the suit then it doesnt matter. But when we are a balanced minimum with xxx of partner's minor, we are probably not going to play in the suit.
- If the auction heads toward slam, there is all the time in the world to show some diamond support. If it doesn't, then what have you gained?

Honestly you made a few claims but didn't give reasoning to support any of them. How do you think raising partner on xxx simplifies the auction, especially considering it's the most space consuming action? Why do you think rebidding 2NT on a balanced minimum is a bad treatment? How do you think raising partner on this holding will help him evaluate his hand properly?

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

You say raising partner would simplify the auction, but you don't say why. I can think of several ways it makes the auction more complicated.

Does it make it more complicated than having to decide whether to rebid 2H or 2N with this hand? I don't think so. I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid. Quite easy to me, in fact.

Quote

You have no room to work out black suit stoppers. If partner doesn't have heart support, there is only one bid available below 3NT.

Do you really want to play 3N with only Kx as a stop in clubs? Or Qxx in spades? Partner did not bid 1S over 1H, so he also has 3 or fewer spades (unless of course he is 4♠/5♦+). In either case, again, do you really want to play 3N? If partner cannot bid 3N himself over 3D, it is likely that you don't belong there anyway (imo).

Quote

You haven't differentiated your level of support. If you are going to raise on xxx, and as I assume on AQxx, partner is in a world of hurt to decide how to proceed with his KJxxx. In fact, you made the claim it helps partner evaluate, I directly contradict that and claim it will hurt his evaluation.

More than denying a fit at all? I don't think so. More than lying about the length of your major suit (if you choose to rebid 2M)? Again, I don't think so. At least if he knows he has some degree of fit, he can better judge slam potential, 3N or 5m, immediately.

Quote

If the auction heads toward slam, there is all the time in the world to show some diamond support. If it doesn't, then what have you gained?

And now you are on the four level at least, one level higher than you would have been had you initially shown support. Wouldn't you prefer to start cuebidding a level lower if possible? And even if you show support at this level (4), how will he know that it is actual support and not just some forced preference on what could be 2 cards?

Quote

How do you think raising partner on xxx simplifies the auction, especially considering it's the most space consuming action?

Why do I think it simplifies the auction? It shows support immediately. That alone is enough of a reason for me, but...

See the previous paragraph about space consuming. Now you will be at the 4 level showing support when you could have done it a level lower.

It frees up the 2M rebid to actually show a 6 card suit. It releases the 2N bid to show a hand that actually doesn't have support for partners suit (3-5-2-3).

If you think that you gain more by having to make a false rebid of 2M or 2N and you can "make up the difference later", more power to you (and others). But I fail to see what, if anything, this "gains" you. Either bid is a semi-lie and misleads partner as to the true nature of your hand.

I prefer the accuracy obtained later in this auction or in other auctions than to 'make up' an inadequate choice for this hand.

I stated up front that it was an entirely different view. I know that the raise to 3m would not be the choice of many. However, it is what I find works best with this hand type, for me anyway. I'm certainly not asking you to agree with me, nor would I expect you to, nor would I ever attempt to try to convince you or any other non-partner that they should play it this way.

[hanp]

OK I've had it with all these posters that claim that their pet style works well for them. So easy to say and impossible to check. In your case I just don't believe that you have kept track of the hands where you raised partner on such a hand and got into trouble because partner didn't know you had balanced crap with stoppers in both unbid suits, or raised to 3D on a nice 3541 shape and missed a slam or better game because partner didn't expect a real raise or you felt forced to bid higher because your 3D bid wasn't encouraging enough.

If you do keep track of your results with these entirely-different-view raises then please tell me and I will apologize.

[bid_em_up]

hanp, on Mar 11 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

OK I've had it with all these posters that claim that their pet style works well for them. So easy to say and impossible to check. In your case I just don't believe that you have kept track of the hands where you raised partner on such a hand and got into trouble because partner didn't know you had balanced crap with stoppers in both unbid suits, or raised to 3D on a nice 3541 shape and missed a slam or better game because partner didn't expect a real raise or you felt forced to bid higher because your 3D bid wasn't encouraging enough.

If you do keep track of your results with these entirely-different-view raises then please tell me and I will apologize.

And I...

really don't give a ***** what you think.

How about them apples??

[hanp]

Well that's very unfortunate, I had a slight hope that you would post links to a large number of deals where your partner was able to deal with your style of raises.

[jdonn]

I'm with han, it's frustrating. I mean, do I respond to each individual point you made, which leads to one of those never-ending nitpicky discussions where finally someone just gives up? My instinct was not to, but I'm going to try until I get bored with it.

bid_em_up, on Mar 11 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 11 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

You say raising partner would simplify the auction, but you don't say why. I can think of several ways it makes the auction more complicated.

Does it make it more complicated than having to decide whether to rebid 2H or 2N with this hand? I don't think so. I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid. Quite easy to me, in fact.

What does "I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid." mean here? I don't even know what you mean by 'my hand', you have a minimum, you have a five card major, and you are balanced, which aspect of that are you getting off your chest with this bid that wasn't already off your chest? Or is "hand" just a redundancy for "support" and you said the same thing twice? As for getting your support off your chest, that is backwards logic. Of course if you think raising partner only promises xxx then by raising him you get your xxx off your chest. And of course if you think it promises better than xxx then you are getting support that you don't have off your chest. In other words, that statement doesn't support your argument, rather it follows from your argument.

Quote

Quote

You have no room to work out black suit stoppers. If partner doesn't have heart support, there is only one bid available below 3NT.

Do you really want to play 3N with only Kx as a stop in clubs? Or Qxx in spades? Partner did not bid 1S over 1H, so he also has 3 or fewer spades (unless of course he is 4♠/5♦+). In either case, again, do you really want to play 3N? If partner cannot bid 3N himself over 3D, it is likely that you don't belong there anyway (imo).

My point was that 2NT (or 2♥) leave you more room to work out stoppers in the black suits, and your counter was that I am going to reach bad 3NT contracts because we have suits poorly stopped? The entire point of making a lower bid is you have room to figure all that out, unlike over 3♦ which leaves us guessing. You can say you think we won't belong in 3NT if partner doesn't bid it, but I don't know why you think that. Give partner Qxx in our Kx suit and he won't want to bid it based on your own logic.

Quote

Quote

You haven't differentiated your level of support. If you are going to raise on xxx, and as I assume on AQxx, partner is in a world of hurt to decide how to proceed with his KJxxx. In fact, you made the claim it helps partner evaluate, I directly contradict that and claim it will hurt his evaluation.

More than denying a fit at all? I don't think so. More than lying about the length of your major suit (if you choose to rebid 2M)? Again, I don't think so. At least if he knows he has some degree of fit, he can better judge slam potential, 3N or 5m, immediately.

Who says the other bids deny a fit? Who says rebidding a major suit with 5 is a lie? You are again going backwards and using your conclusions to justify your arguments. You keep making statements that it will help partner to know we have at least some fit, but you don't say why or how. I gave a specific example. If I have KJxxx of diamonds I am very happy if partner has AQxx, and very sad if partner has xxx. If you want to generically say that him knowing we have xxx or better is going to be helpful to him, then at least justify it somehow. Is my example wrong?

Ok I got bored with it. Do you consider this type of discussion productive?

[655321]

bid_em_up, on Mar 11 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

And I...

really don't give a ***** what you think.

How about them apples??

An alternative reaction would be to take advantage of the forums by learning something from some of the excellent players who post here. But your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'not listening la la la'.

Interesting.

[bid_em_up]

655321, on Mar 11 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 11 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

And I...

really don't give a ***** what you think.

How about them apples??

An alternative reaction would be to take advantage of the forums by learning something from some of the excellent players who post here. But your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'not listening la la la'.

Interesting.

Or it may just be the other way around...

[rogerclee]

bid_em_up, on Mar 11 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Or it may just be the other way around...

LOL

[mikeh]

I am late to this recently entertaining thread.

I go along with those who rebid 2N, thinking, if I can be so bold... wtp?

I mean, I am a huge believer in 2♥ as a catch-all. Give me AKJ Jxxxx Kx xxx and I rebid 2♥.

But 2N DESCRIBES my hand.. what a concept

I have probable stoppers in the unbid suits, I have no compelling reason to suggest diamonds as trump, nor to invite partner to stumble around at the 3-level with only partial black suit stoppers, and so on.

BTW, for those who say: I don't open 15-17 1N with a 5 card major.. go ahead and play your (inferior) method (I can elaborate on why it is inferior if anyone is interested and can't work it out for themselves... let me start by asking you for your rebid after 1♥ 1♠ when you hold Ax KQJxx Axx Qxx). But you are not answering the OP.. you are not playing normal 2/1 methods.

As for the 'debate' (one side offers reasons and arguments, the other insults) about raising to 3♦, josh's posts say almost everything I would say on the topic.

[1eyedjack]

I voted 2N. The problem is more interesting in something like SAYC where the 2/1 response is not GF.

[mikeh]

1eyedjack, on Mar 11 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

I voted 2N.  The problem is more interesting in something like SAYC where the 2/1 response is not GF.

Don;t confuse SAYC with SA.

While I haven't tried to play SA for many years, it is entirely possible to play a very sophisticated form of SA... SAYC, otoh, was expressly designed to reduce all players to a very basic level.. the original concept was that SAYC would be used in restricted duplicate events, in which all contestants used the same methods.

Sort of like a boxing event in which all competitors agreed to use only one arm.. it might be amusing but SAYC is not bridge any more than the one-armed boxing is boxing.

Sorry for the apparent effort to threadjack