[mw64ahw]

I assume that 2♠ doesn't show 6♠ as 4♠ wasn't reached. I do think that an approach is needed that shows 6+. When I started playing I learnt that this was what a rebid of a Major meant. Having Hx should then make a final contract more obvious.

On the above hand I play
1♠-2♦ (or 2♥ see recent bbo link https://www.bridgeba...1s-2h-as-gf-5d/)
2♥ (Min denies 4♥)-2♠ (define further)
2NT (6+♠ unbalanced)-4♠/3♣ (further ask)/4♦ (SI showing ♦ control with a ♠ honour)


The 2NT bid denies 3+♦, 4♥ has already been denied so partner is in a position to place the contract, look for a ♣ fit or try for the marginal slam.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-June-24, 22:21, said:

Ok, I don;t play 2nt that way. For me, 2nt would be an offer to play in NT.



Neither did I

It sounds like you play Lawrence’s version of 2/1 where major rebid does not show 6 and 2nt shows at least partial stops in the unbids. I played that style also. I decided 3 clubs should not show extra strength for just this reason - you will have to bid spades 3 times to find a 6-2 fit so your only chance to bid clubs is after 2d.

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-25, 12:09, said:

It sounds like you play Lawrence’s version of 2/1 where major rebid does not show 6 and 2nt shows at least partial stops in the unbids. I played that style also. I decided 3 clubs should not show extra strength for just this reason - you will have to bid spades 3 times to find a 6-2 fit so your only chance to bid clubs is after 2d.

Yes I do play the Lawrence style of 2/1, or at least that part and I haven't been aware of it causing problems.
1M:2♦ is a rare start to the auction, 1M:2♣ showing clubs or balanced is the most common start to our 2/1 auctions.
6115 With this hand after partner responds 2♦, I am in no hurry to show my clubs other than in a nt context. A slam in clubs doesn't enter my mind.

I'm sure there are benefits to playing 2♠=6 and perhaps a future partner can convince me to change.

[DavidKok]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-25, 12:09, said:

[...] you will have to bid spades 3 times to find a 6-2 fit so your only chance to bid clubs is after 2d.

It is my understanding that one typically avoids bidding the suit a third time on 6 - partner is supposed to show preference with a doubleton if neither side can bid 3NT. Bidding spades 3 times suggests being willing to play it opposite a singleton. This is where the space-saving aspects of 2/1 can be critical.

[fromageGB]

DavidKok, on 2021-June-25, 13:42, said:

It is my understanding that one typically avoids bidding the suit a third time on 6 - partner is supposed to show preference with a doubleton if neither side can bid 3NT. Bidding spades 3 times suggests being willing to play it opposite a singleton. This is where the space-saving aspects of 2/1 can be critical.

But not my understanding. With the 2♠ rebid not showing 6, but merely a hand that is not strong (which would be needed for the 3-level) and a WAITING FORCING 2NT as opposed to a suggestion to play, you can bid a second suit (eg clubs) and then rebid 3♠ genuinely to show 6. You are beneath 3NT, so that contract has not been ruled out.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-June-25, 12:54, said:

Yes I do play the Lawrence style of 2/1, or at least that part and I haven't been aware of it causing problems.
1M:2♦ is a rare start to the auction, 1M:2♣ showing clubs or balanced is the most common start to our 2/1 auctions.
6115 With this hand after partner responds 2♦, I am in no hurry to show my clubs other than in a nt context. A slam in clubs doesn't enter my mind.

I'm sure there are benefits to playing 2♠=6 and perhaps a future partner can convince me to change.

I'm pretty confident that Mike Lawrence meant for the major-suit rebid to show an ordinary hand - and 65 with all the points in the long suits is far from ordinary. The value of this hand is in finding a fit in one of the two suits - which won't happen if one suit is buried in the auction.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-June-25, 12:54, said:

Yes I do play the Lawrence style of 2/1, or at least that part and I haven't been aware of it causing problems.
1M:2♦ is a rare start to the auction, 1M:2♣ showing clubs or balanced is the most common start to our 2/1 auctions.
6115 With this hand after partner responds 2♦, I am in no hurry to show my clubs other than in a nt context. A slam in clubs doesn't enter my mind.

I'm sure there are benefits to playing 2♠=6 and perhaps a future partner can convince me to change.

There are definitely benefits from playing a rebid of 2S as showing 6+. The problem is that one has to decide which call is the ‘default’ bid with a minimum opening hand, say 5332, without stoppers in at least one of the unbid suits.

1S 2H.

You hold AKJxx Jx xxx Axx

You bid 2N and partner has Qx AKQxx Kx Jxxx

A clear 3N call and now we need some luck to make 3N. Had we rebid 2S, responder bids 2N and we reach a bullet-proof 3N by responder.

Have a few of these come up, and using 2N as the default bid loses a lot of any attraction it once held

Of course, playing 2S as the default, so that opener’s 2N promises something in both unbid suits, has issues with finding 6-2 fits. While my experience has been pretty good, there definitely have been hands where we played 3N when 4M was a better contract.

Not surprisingly, the expert community is divided on this issue. My bias is definitely for 2M to be the default noise, but players I respect differ.

As in many aspects of the game, there is no perfect approach.

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-25, 18:40, said:

I'm pretty confident that Mike Lawrence meant for the major-suit rebid to show an ordinary hand - and 65 with all the points in the long suits is far from ordinary. The value of this hand is in finding a fit in one of the two suits - which won't happen if one suit is buried in the auction.

Oh maybe I've got my Mike's wrong and it's the Hargreaves 2/1 I'm playing. When you said the Lawrence style major rebid doesn't show 6, I assumed that's what is was, I don't know what Lawrence says about 65 hands.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-June-25, 23:09, said:

Oh maybe I've got my Mike's wrong and it's the Hargreaves 2/1 I'm playing. When you said the Lawrence style major rebid doesn't show 6, I assumed that's what is was, I don't know what Lawrence says about 65 hands.

All I am saying is that IMO, and it is My opinion only (I can't speak for Mike Lawrence), that it is better to bid 3C than 2S with the hand, and it becomes even more valuable to do so if the style of bidding makes partner reluctant to continue with 2NT.

IOW, I'm simply presenting my argument for bidding 3C; others may disagree, and that is OK.

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-26, 07:15, said:

All I am saying is that IMO, and it is My opinion only (I can't speak for Mike Lawrence), that it is better to bid 3C than 2S with the hand, and it becomes even more valuable to do so if the style of bidding makes partner reluctant to continue with 2NT.

IOW, I'm simply presenting my argument for bidding 3C; others may disagree, and that is OK.

Yes, fair enough , I have no problem with that.
I am wondering how you unravel playing in NT when you use 2N as the default?

[fromageGB]

jillybean, on 2021-June-27, 01:53, said:

I am wondering how you unravel playing in NT when you use 2N as the default?

Default what?

If you mean the idea of playing opener's initial rebid of 2♠ does not show 6, but shows a hand without extras, and RESPONDER's default bid is 2NT, then default is not the right adjective in the method I prefer. Responder does not automatically rebid 2NT, but that is the bid he makes without a shapely descriptive natural bid. With a xx55 (shdc) he would rebid 3♣, xx7x rebids 3♦, and a 2NT bid denies such excessive shape. It is a space-saving waiting bid to let opener describe his shape, such as 3♣ on this hand, or diamond support without extras on a different hand.

The is no unraveling involved for NT. If you as responder have support for opener's suits you make it, if you have good stops in all other suits you bid NT if you have that sort of shape, such as 2452, or you can bid the 4th suit if needing help there, or rebid your own diamond suit with additional length or if you are not sure where to go. A NT contract just happens when there is no fit worth taking further.

On the given hand, 1♠ 2♦, 2♠ 2NT, 3♣ 3♥ (needing help for NT) now allows opener to give you more information, which is obviously 3♠ for a 6 card spade suit. Responder with 2452 has an obvious 4♠ bid, but a 1453 with better hearts would be bidding 3NT, or maybe clubs with poor hearts. Unraveling is a result of having the space to describe hands better.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-June-27, 01:53, said:

Yes, fair enough , I have no problem with that.
I am wondering how you unravel playing in NT when you use 2N as the default?

Room-saving rather than default. But keep in mind that I am advocating that the 65 hand you posted should not rebid 2S. Distributional hands should bid out their distributional features without fear of showing extra high-card strength., IMO. This cuts down on the problems of bidding to NT games.

Btw, I found this article online which discusses just this problem:

This post has been edited by Winstonm: 2021-June-27, 10:53