[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-November-02, 11:29, said:

2H , new suit by responder is 100% forcing.

Really ?

So you play 2♣ with you 5530 and partner holding x, AJx, Kxx, KJxxxx, much prefer to be able to bid 2♥ which is why I don't play 2♦ natural.

[mike777]

Good points
This may be inappropriate for this forum...too many conventions but...
Since 5 spades and 4 Hearts
Can be an issue:
1c-1s
2c-2h. Can be played as solid invitation

Bit more responder rebids 2D gf

Less than invite
Play the convention with many names or no names..
I learned it as the Cosmic Convention
In 2024 I think people call it reverse flannery

1 minor=2hearts

[Ranmit]

mike777, on 2024-November-02, 10:29, said:

Why I just play 2D as artificial gf. Just make the best rebid you can.

I guess that makes sense. What do you do if the minors were reversed though? Say 1d - 1H - 2d - ? with 3-6-1-3 distribution, stopper in spades, no stopper in clubs, but GF hand? 3c artificial GF seems to high to find a 6-2 heart fit?

[smerriman]

You might want to search for "third suit forcing" - that's typically a better description of the treatment than "new minor forcing", with the cheapest new suit bid being artificial. Though of course, there are still several ways to play it.

Don't forget that in both cases, opener has denied 4 spades by rebidding their suit, so even in the first case partner knows that by bidding 2♠ you're not just looking for a 4-4 fit.

[mike777]

Ranmit, on 2024-November-02, 17:07, said:

I guess that makes sense. What do you do if the minors were reversed though? Say 1d - 1H - 2d - ? with 3-6-1-3 distribution, stopper in spades, no stopper in clubs, but GF hand? 3c artificial GF seems to high to find a 6-2 heart fit?

It would help and clarify if you give me the hand you are concerned with..


Smile 😁

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-02, 11:52, said:

Really ?

So you play 2♣ with you 5530 and partner holding x, AJx, Kxx, KJxxxx, much prefer to be able to bid 2♥ which is why I don't play 2♦ natural.

Really !

1C 1S
2C 2H

I have not heard of 2H being non forcing in any std system.

[thepossum]

My inclination was 2S and sure enough the system I bid would bid 2S and hopefully end in 4H - via future heart bids or NT bids

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-November-02, 19:24, said:

Really !

1C 1S
2C 2H

I have not heard of 2H being non forcing in any std system.

Yeah, this is part of the theory of putting the better hands through 2♦ so this can be passed. I would consider 2♦ artificial reasonably standard above beginner level.

When opener's minor is diamonds, systems vary, but we use 2♥ as the ask, and if you have a bad hand with ♠/♥, you have to be willing to play at the 3 level as the bid for that hand is 2N.

[DavidKok]

There are a lot of suggestions here, and in the spirit of trying to be helpful I will share some of my own thoughts. Some of these were covered later by other posters as well. In approximate order of appearance:

Ranmit, on 2024-November-01, 18:35, said:

Partner's 2♣ bid shows 6+ clubs, ~12-15 HCP, <3 hearts.

There are three style choices here already that I think are worth discussing and evaluating:

• Some unbalanced hands with 5 clubs might be stuck for a rebid. On this auction that is only the 2=2=4=5 and 3=1=4=5 hands too weak for a reverse, and you may decide to open those 1♦ or have some other way to show them. I would open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ with these, but this is generally a controversial topic.
  
• Your range seems a little off, maybe you are doing some kind of re-evaluation implicitly? It is common for the 3♣ rebid to show 15-17 and for 18+ hands to fake a reverse with 2♦, so that the 6(+)♣ hands that rebid 2♣ are limited to 11-14 ish.
  
• If you deny a 3c♥ suit always you need a different way to show those, presumably frequent 3-card raises with an unbalanced minimum. Personally I am a fan of this style but others are not.

jillybean, on 2024-November-01, 19:16, said:

3♥ is invitational 6+ hearts

I ran into this style online and internationally, but it is certainly not the only way to play it. To me it depends on your meaning of 1♣-2♥ versus 1♣-1♥; <rebid>-2♥. I like to use one of these auctions as weak (approx 4-7) and one as invitational (approx 8- bad 11). With 12 (or a good 11) and a six card major I will force to game. This way I can invite at the 2-level, and leave my jump bids available for something else (in this case: a slam try setting trumps). The main benefit is from stopping at the 2-level with unbal opposite unbal and both having shortage in the other suit. To be honest I don't know why people want to play their invites at the 3-level - statistically it is not attractive at all. Personally I prefer that the direct jump is weak and the slower route is invitational, but it is currently fashionable in the Netherlands to flip this around.

jdiana, on 2024-November-01, 20:45, said:

I agree that 2♠ is a responder's reverse (I guess I don't have to agree - it is that by definition ) but it doesn't necessarily promise 4 cards. This is a good summary - https://www.betterbr...ndard200905.pdf Auctions can get a little awkward when the opener rebids their suit, at least for me. 2♠ is a way to create a GF and explore for the best contract.

Back in the old days, play and defence was excellent but bidding was pretty lousy. One of the consequences was having to fake a lot of reverses or strong jump shifts just to set up a force - all other bids were reserved for weaker hands. This is one such example, and the 1♣-1M; 2♦ auction on a single-suited clubs hands I mentioned above is another. Some of these are obsolete, and generally I think this is a part of bidding theory that is slowly disappearing and best not taught anymore. We have better solutions now. They are artificial, but then so is faking a reverse. I will explain a bit more about the options below, both conventional and standard.

mike777, on 2024-November-01, 22:02, said:

I was taught to be conservative with my game invites and be aggressive accepting game invites. I try to be consistent in that approach.
However many play differently and win.

This is one of the more entertaining mistakes that has spread through the bridge community, all the way to the top level. Some even believe that conservative invites can be mathematically shown to be better than light invites. I think this is worth a whole topic of its own though, so I will not go into more detail. But as a general observation, I think the converse approach is superior.

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-02, 00:58, said:

As Akwoo says, many people play an artificial 2♦ here, some play it GF, some just F1 and opener describes his hand, look up Bourke relays for details of one such scheme, we play a home hashed one where it is only F1.

I prefer to play 2♦ GF here. It allows both hands to show their shape cheaply without worry of being passed, and we have enough invites anyway. We no longer need to invite in spades, we can invite in hearts with 2♥, we can invite in clubs with 3♣, and have 2NT natural invitational as well. The missing case for me is when opener has x=y=4=5 and responder has an invite with hearts and diamonds - and in Walsh style, this could be quite a few diamonds. This is a systemic hit and I do not have a diamond invite here.
However, in the NB forum and not looking for gadgets, I think 2♦ is merely natural (4+ diamonds) and forcing - especially if 2♣ denies an x=y=4=5 type hand. You will then rely on the following: with 6(+) hearts you can bid weak, invitational or game forcing as mentioned above. With exactly 5 hearts you can bid your side 4-card spade suit (if game forcing - keep in mind partner has denied 4(+)♠ already) or diamonds (if invitational+), raise the clubs with at least 3 (or even 2 in a pinch), or bid 2NT when none of these appeal and you want to invite anyway. That only really leaves you stuck on slamgoing hands with strong club support (though you can bid 4♣) or 5♥332, and I think that's an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for the lower complexity.

Ranmit, on 2024-November-02, 10:07, said:

But, for completeness, what would the bid be if the majors were reversed?

Keeping with the natural approach, both 2♦ and 2♥ show 4(+) cards and are forcing and unlimited. Again this primarily leaves you stuck on the 5♠332 hand type too strong for 3NT. If you play a gadget that 2♦ here is an artificial game force it becomes reasonable to play 2♥ as NF, but even with this gadget the case for it is so-so. If you play reverse flannery your 2♥ is logically game forcing, though now your single-suited spade invites and slam tries get shifted all over the structure.
Notice that on this start the 2=4=2=5, 1=4=3=5 and even 0=4=4=5 hands may have to rebid 2♣ with only a five card suit, so the auctions are not quite analogous.

apollo1201, on 2024-November-02, 11:45, said:

As a general rule, one does not try to improve a partial. So over a min response by opener, if responder bids again, it is (game) forcing.

While a popular quote I think it's a misapplication here. A big reason for not attempting to improve the partscore here is that you are very likely to make it worse. Opener has denied three spades and is not a favourite to hold 4 hearts, while a likely 6-card club suit probably plays reasonably well. And opener might well have a 1=2=4=6 or so, in which case we are courting disaster. There are situations where you want to improve the partscore, but here the risks are too great and the target is too narrow. As such, usually no bidding space is assigned to it.

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-03, 05:05, said:

jillybean, on 2024-November-02, 19:24, said:

I have not heard of 2H being non forcing in any std system.

Yeah, this is part of the theory of putting the better hands through 2♦ so this can be passed. I would consider 2♦ artificial reasonably standard above beginner level.

Not quite. Even alongside the 2♦ 3SGF bid it is reasonable to play 1♣-1♠; 2♣-2♥ as forcing. All the considerations above still apply - most of the hands that would be in range for 2♥ NF are better off passing instead.

[mikeh]

I like much of what David wrote but not everything. Leaving that for below, I definitely agree that, as in so much about bidding theory, one cannot have a one size fits all approach without knowing how one handles such hands as a weak 6 card heart suit in response to 1C. If one has a way of showing such a hand right away, then1C 1H 2C 2H has to have a different range than if one has to respond 1H with say 5-6 hcp and 6 hearts…and that in turn affects what a jump rebid should mean, etc.

One area which prompted me to laugh was David’s dislike of using 1C 1H 2C 3H as invitational. I don’t disagree with disliking it, but he wrote ‘I don’t know why people want to play their invites at the 3-level’ and later, in a different part of his long (that’s not a criticism in any sense) post said that he disagreed with the invite heavy, accept light approach to invitational bidding.

The argument in favour of that approach is precisely to minimize jumping to the 3-level to invite, unless one has a ‘good’ or ‘heavy’ invite. The arithmetical explanation of the benefits of invite heavy, accept light revolves almost entirely on the small subset of hands where the invite light school gets to the 3 level and fails while the invite heavy, accept light bidders are playing at the 2 level.

In terms of reaching or missing games, both schools reach or miss the same number of games…the invite heavy miss some that the other school reaches because inviter doesn’t invite. Conversely, the invite light, accept heavy school misses just as many, but different, games due to the invitational being declined. I’ve never seen a logical counter to this….one expert partner of mine was strongly opposed but it turned out that he’d decided that I’d decline invites the same way he did…which is untrue. Once he realized thst I was accepting MORE invites than he was, but simply making a FEW fewer invites, he agreed to the invite heavy approach. I stress, as I did to him, that the two schools bid, I’d estimate, 95% of hands identically. Invite heavy doesn’t mean bid ultra conservatively. Nor does invite light mean go nuts.

On the OP topic:

We open most 11 counts and at the higher levels of the game virtually nobody passes 11 counts with a 6 card suit, absent some bizarre features, such as a stiff K or Q…and even then most open.

Few players raise a major with a decent 3 card club suit and 3 hearts…most of the time they rebid the long suit. If partner is weak, let’s play the (usually) safer suit plus let’s allowcresponder to compete should the opps balance and responder has 3+ clubs

When he’s got game values, all experienced, competent pairs have ways to back into the major when responder holds 5+.

Jump rebids. 1C 1H 3C….style matters…but for us some 15 counts qualify and some don’t. Generally the better the club suit, the more aggressive we will be. That’s because the most common target is 3N and we’re more likely to make with good clubs than weak ones…our suit should offer tricks….bidding is often taught as being about points but that’s because judgement is difficult to teach, absent years of playing with and against good players. Bidding is about tricks, not points and points, no matter how you calculate them, are only a crude indicator of tricks.


Here, it’s virtually universal amongst expert players playing natural methods to use 2D….1C 1H 2C 2D as artificial, forcing one round. This is extremely convenient, taking up virtually no bidding space unless opener chooses to raise to 3D, which rarely happens.

It allows for 2D then hearts to carry whatever constructive meaning you’ve agreed…for us typically forcing (with the caveat that we can’t have this auction, lol, because of our artificial methods…but playing with other experts in a natural system, that’d be my agreement).

Also, it allows opener to show his 3H 6+ club hand without the distortion of raising hearts immediately

Plus, and this is hugely important…bidding 2D is the normal way of preparing to show a gf or slam invite club raise

1C 1H 2C 3C is a simple raise, not the least bit forcing. 1C 1H 2C D 2y 3C is gf in clubs.

Here, I’d be torn. I have a very good hand but how good it is depends on fit. If he has 6 clubs, I’m really interested in that suit….we could have slam opposite even a modest hand….AJx x Axx KQxxxx offers play and he could have a better hand and still rebid 2C. But if he is, for example, 3=1=4=5 the hand may blow up in clubs and we should play 3N (or 5C OR 4H).

And, obviously, we will often belong in hearts. So I’d bid 2D, intending to commit to hearts if he shows support now (3 cards) or next time (probably Hx), or clubs or notrump, depending on what happens

Btw, I think that the artificial 2D gadget is so common that I’d not be afraid of teaching it here. It’s an incredibly useful gadget. Whether it’s gf (as both David and I prefer) or F1 isn’t as important as using it artificially..


I do play 1C 1S 2C 2H as artificial…less than gf, doesn’t show or deny hearts but I’d definitely not recommend that in this forum…it requires detailed agreements in order to be played safely.

[jillybean]

Revisiting this

How do you play

1♦:1M
2♦:3♣

[DavidKok]

NF invitational with 4(+)M, 5(+)♣.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-08, 01:50, said:

NF invitational with 4(+)M, 5(+)♣.

Classically this is what you bid with Qxxx, x, void, Qxxxxxxx drop dead, particularly if not playing WJS (or absolutely denying 4M in a WJS)

[DavidKok]

I think that hand type is a worse choice to assign to the bid for several reasons. Also I do not play and recommend not playing 1♦-3♣ as a weak jump shift.

• Opener is limited and has practically denied 5(+) cards in either major. You are assuming that the opponents, with half the deck and a major suit fit, haven't found a way to enter the auction.
  
• Correcting the partscore gains less when it wins compared to finding game when it's on. Keep in mind that opener may still have a near-reverse with diamonds and hearts.
  
• Very weak hands like this are rare to begin with, and the uncontested assumption makes it even lower frequency.

You could put my hand type in 2NT, but I think it is better to reserve both 2NT and 3♣ for invitational non-fit hands.

I've before seen a suggestion that with really weak hands with such a suit imbalance you should respond 1NT rather than 1M to 1♦ (and also conceal 4 spades if partner opens 1♥). The idea is that now the correction to 3♣ is weak, as the direct jump would have been single-suited invitational. I think with 8-4 in suit lengths this is a sound suggestion, and with 7-4 I would also consider it. With 6-4 I would personally not dare this, I think.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-08, 01:50, said:

NF invitational with 4(+)M, 5(+)♣.

Also with 4M5C? If so, what is Opener supposed to do?

[DavidKok]

Choose between 3♣ and 3♦ with a weak hand, keepin in mind partner didn't raise 2♦ so you will find at most a doubleton opposite.
Bid 3NT with a maximum and heart values.
With none of the above, choose between 3♠ (punt) or bid 4m (either one) to describe your hand further.

[mike777]

How are you bidding
AKxxx..xxx...void..AKxxx
Etc

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2024-November-07, 21:42, said:

Revisiting this

How do you play

1♦:1M
2♦:3♣

It seems ok to just play this as gf. Solid Invites go thru 2NT.
Weakish 4M and long clubs pass 2D..... 😊

[DavidKok]

mike777, on 2024-November-08, 08:54, said:

How are you bidding
AKxxx..xxx...void..AKxxx
Etc

2oM 3SGF.

mike777, on 2024-November-08, 15:56, said:

It seems ok to just play this as gf. Solid Invites go thru 2NT.
Weakish 4M and long clubs pass 2D..... ��

Of all hand types it can be it cannot be 5(+)♣4M GF, that hand responds 2♣ to 1♦. Are you saying this is 5(+)M4(+)♣ GF? I would start with 2oM with that hand type, especially if the major is spades. But also I would regularly raise 1♠ on a 3-card suit with an unbalanced hand. Keep in mind opener has bypassed clubs as well, so introducing a 4-card suit now will only gain infrequently.

You can play this however you like, if you are curious what methods I think are good I've shared them across multiple responses upthread.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-08, 01:50, said:

NF invitational with 4(+)M, 5(+)♣.

Let’s give you something like Axxxx KQx KJx xx

1D 1S 2D. Your call.

If partner has Kx Axxx AQxxxx x I want to be in 6D.

If he has xx Jxx AQxxxx AQ I want to be in 3N from his side

So explain to me how you force to game over 2D without going by 3N.

Using cheaper OM as (potentially) artificial can be made to work after 1D 1H 2D since responder need not worry too much about 2S being raised, but after a 1S response, opener may well have four hearts and now a 2H bid risks 3H and now it’s unclear how the auction might go.

I’m not picking on you or anyone else. I think 1m 1M 2m sequences pose often ignored problems…ignored because there’s no obviously best answer.

1C 1M 2C is pretty straightforward. Use 2D as artificial. But 1D 1M 2D is more difficult, with the spade response being the trickiest.

My solution,fwiw, is to use 3C as forcing, saying nothing much about clubs. It’s not perfect, but I think it solves ‘big’ problems (how to show slam interest in diamonds when unable to splinter over 2D or to commit to the 5 level via a (forcing) 4D, and how to best choose strain. So after a 1H response, 2S is the artificial bid while after a 1S response, 3Cis the artificial force.

With a 5=3=3=2 opening hand, after 2D we have three strains to worry about…spades, diamonds and notrump. Thus responder needs a relatively cheap force that will (usually) lead to opener providing more input into strain.

I enjoy your ideas about bidding so I await your methods over the 2D rebid with interest.

Edit: I just read your post in the other related thread, so see that you opt for 2OM. I’m with you on 2S but my view is that 2H is problematic. Plus I just don’t like 3C as natural, invitational. I think it very rare that 3C is where we want to play opposite a hand that declines the invite. Yes, one can construct hands where 3C is better than 2D, but I’ll trade you every one of those for some used subway tokens (I think that’s a likely mangled reference to a Kaplan line).