General 2/1 Style Which do you think is better, and prefer?
#1
Posted 2010-November-03, 17:53
What minimum length do you prefer to use for 2♣/2♦/2♥ in response to 1♠?
What minimum length do you prefer to use for 2♣/2♦ in response to 1♥?
This would be in a fairly standard 2/1 context without any relays etc. 14-16 NT opening if it matters.
#2
Posted 2010-November-03, 18:02
#3
Posted 2010-November-03, 18:05
Fred G wrote a few articles a while back, trying to convince us all that 2N should be natural and suit responses should show length & quality.
But in a 1N-semi-forcing, 2N jacoby context, you're kind of stuck .
You wind up needing to bid 2c on 3 ( or 2H on 4, or 1N with megavalues ).
After 1S, for instance, with 3433 and 13 HCP , what can u do but bid 2C, lacking specialized agreements?
My partnership tries to solve these issues by allowing big raises on 3 trump. Another set of issues
#4
Posted 2010-November-03, 19:04
1♠ - 2♣/2♦/2♥ 3/3.5/5 ( 3=4=(42) responds in the longer minor, 3=4=3=3 responds in clubs, with some discretion regarding suit quality.)
1♥- 2♣/2♦ - 3/3.5 ( ignoring any discussions of the merits of responding 2/1 holding four spades, 4=3=(42) responds longer minor, 4=3=3=3, clubs, again, with some concern regarding suit fragment quality)
I would not assume a 2♣ response as 2+, i.e. balanced GF or GF with clubs in an undiscussed pship, though I like the idea.
#5
Posted 2010-November-03, 19:06
2/5 (sometimes 2♣ on 4-2 in the black suits)
George Carlin
#6
Posted 2010-November-03, 19:15
matmat, on 2010-November-03, 19:04, said:
1♠ - 2♣/2♦/2♥ 3/3.5/5 ( 3=4=(42) responds in the longer minor, 3=4=3=3 responds in clubs, with some discretion regarding suit quality.)
1♥- 2♣/2♦ - 3/3.5 ( ignoring any discussions of the merits of responding 2/1 holding four spades, 4=3=(42) responds longer minor, 4=3=3=3, clubs, again, with some concern regarding suit fragment quality)
I would not assume a 2♣ response as 2+, i.e. balanced GF or GF with clubs in an undiscussed pship, though I like the idea.
What would you bid with something like AKx Axxx Qxx xxx?
#8
Posted 2010-November-03, 19:34
gwnn, on 2010-November-03, 19:06, said:
2/5 (sometimes 2♣ on 4-2 in the black suits)
Prefer this, but would bid 1♠ with 4♠ and a balanced hand.
If you aren't playing 2NT as a forcing raise and are instead using it as nat balanced GF, then I think your club length increases to 4 or 5?
I would bid 2♣ on that last hand, partner knows I can have it and heck, sometimes it stops them from leading clubs against NT ;P
East4Evil ♥ sohcahtoa 4ever!!!!!1
#9
Posted 2010-November-03, 19:37
gwnn, on 2010-November-03, 19:06, said:
2/5 (sometimes 2♣ on 4-2 in the black suits)
+1. Although admittedly I have bid 1S-2C with 3541.
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#10
Posted 2010-November-03, 19:51
mtvesuvius, on 2010-November-03, 19:15, said:
1NT followed by 4♠, in the context of absolutely forcing 1NT. This leaves 2/1 suit quality/length better defined.
I realize this is not ideal either. My preferred solution is to use 2NT as balanced GF hand, and use alternative bids for 4+ card forcing raise.
#11
Posted 2010-November-03, 20:26
Subsequently, she overloaded the 1NTF(orcing) response with as much as 18 hcp.
( I never did find out her follow-ups to that system ).
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#12
Posted 2010-November-03, 22:54
TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-November-03, 20:26, said:
Subsequently, she overloaded the 1NTF(orcing) response with as much as 18 hcp.
( I never did find out her follow-ups to that system ).
Overloading F1NT response is a bad idea imho - it is already a fairly difficult convention to use. Fred's method is much better. With J2NT I would assume 2/5/5, 2/5 with a random CHO. I think Dan Neill's 2/1 notes are as good as any and give a reasonable approximation of 'Standard'.
#13
Posted 2010-November-04, 03:17
A year or two ago I asked about the response to 1♠ holding something like ♠Kx ♥AKQ10 ♦AQ10 ♣xxxx. This caused me a problem in a non-relay context as introducing four small in a potential slam auction did not seem ideal. So whatever you play there will always be hands that might lead you astray.
#14
Posted 2010-November-04, 04:46
I know people who put their GF hands without a biddable 5 card suit in their forcing 1NT response. This way, a 2/1 always shows 5+ cards in that suit. However I don't like the way they have to bid with balanced GF hands, because opener's 2m rebid is hardly natural (1♥-1NT-2♣ can easily be a doubleton in a 4-5-2-2).
#15
Posted 2010-November-04, 04:50
In my new regular partnership 2C is relay, so it can be potentially done with even more hand types although still defined as 255.
About overloading F1 NT, I don't see it as a really big problem, although it depends a bit on the context. With limited openings you are practically never harmed with 1NT including a flat raise to 4M, at least I don't know about any other definition for 1S - 1NT - 2x - 4S that you might want to use. You are unlikely to come to any harm by it in natural system if you use Gazzilli, as you can dedicate one response showing exactly that. Without gazzilli you have problems after jumpshifts though as opener won't exactly play you for that handtype.
#16
Posted 2010-November-04, 08:35
Zelandakh, on 2010-November-03, 22:54, said:
I just happen to have DANIEL'S 2/1 Structure in my files....
http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#17
Posted 2010-November-04, 10:00
I also think Flannery works well with this approach.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#18
Posted 2010-November-04, 17:05
Echognome, on 2010-November-03, 18:02, said:
Indeed I even like to stick my 3-card invitational raise in there.
1♠-2♣-2♦: Any minimum
1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠: I had a 3-card invite, but hey we can stop at the 2-level
1♠-2♣-2♦-2NT: Balanced GF
1♠-2♣-2♦-anything else: GF with clubs
-- Bertrand Russell
#19
Posted 2010-November-04, 17:13
Also, when showing a Balanced GF with 3M, how do you do that but keep 3N in the picture, such as a hand similar to the one I posted in the "Play 4S" thread:
Or is this something that you choose to give up on by playing this way? I am also assuming you are using 1M-3N as a good 1M-4M call, otherwise I suppose you could try 3N with the North hand above...
#20
Posted 2010-November-04, 19:10