[pclayton]

Playing 2/1, pard opens 1♠ and you hold:

♠AQxx ♥Ax ♦Kx ♣?????

What is the minimum suit quality you would need to bid 2♣ instead of making a forcing raise?

Would the suit quality matter if your hand was slightly weaker, but still good enough to GF?

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jul 3 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Playing 2/1, pard opens 1♠ and you hold:

♠AQxx ♥Ax ♦Kx ♣?????

What is the minimum suit quality you would need to bid 2♣ instead of making a forcing raise?

Would the suit quality matter if your hand was slightly weaker, but still good enough to GF?

Hi Phil

My general rule for choosing between a 2/1 and a GF raise focuses on opener's hand.

If I made a game forcing 2/1 bid and then support partner's suit it means that a holding of Hx (or better yet Hxx) is very good. If I had to draw a line with the holdings you listed I'd count KJTxx as the minimum

[han]

With these three suits I think I would make a forcing raise no matter what my clubs are.

[mike777]

forcing raise 100% with any.

[fromageGB]

Game forcing raise with any. I have counted four spades, haven't I ?

[ArtK78]

Game forcing raise.

The reason for this is that my hand should be asking questions, not partner's hand. If partner does anything other than sign off, I will be in a position to RKCB (assuming that the missing clubs are strong enough to warrant a slam try). Providing partner with information about my club suit will not give him the information that he needs to make an intelligent decision about slam. But if I find out what I need to know about his hand, I will be in a position to make an intelligent decision about slam.

[kenrexford]

This is a tough question to answer without explanation. A lot of this depends on agreements and on general approach. The decision on whether the make a GF raise or to make a 2/1 GF bid in a side suit first should depend upon agreements, definitions, and predicted auctions. The first two are foundational, and the third is critical (but ignored too often) as a means of applying the systemic foundation.

FWIW, my thought process on what to elect might illustrate my point. My general default is to loath 2NT (Jacoby) unless mostly external Aces and Spaces. If I do not have Aces and Spaces, I predict likely auctions if I make a 2/1 call and see if I will likely run into a problem that Jacoby 2NT might better solve.

So, I imagine a 2♣ call with all examples. With 2-2 in the reds, and four trumps, I am fairly confident that I will get a red-suit call from partner. If I do, I'll rebid 2♠, which for me sets trumps and promises three. Because I have two of the top three spade honors, I know that partner will next bid 2NT, as this denies two of the top three spade honors; any other call would promise that which he cannot have. My next call will be 3♦, whether partner bids 2♦ or 2♥. Partner now may make any number of calls, but I expect that I will probably be able to not cue 4♣ when I have xxxxx. But, partner may well cue 4♣, in which case we might have xxxxx opposite Qx, or something ugly like that. So, I am not liking 2♣ when I do not have the Ace or King.

So, I then think through alternatives. 2♦ is really appealing for me, but only because partner expects that I might do something like this. That allows me to bid around the club hole (xxxxx or Qxxxx) and has a possible advantage of a 2♥ rebid. That could start a nice auction.

What about 2NT? With xxxxx in clubs, I'm expecting a fair likelihood of a splinter there, and my values are right for handling a shortness bid in clubs from a quantitative bash perspective. If partner does not show shortness in clubs, I'm not interested unless he has a fairly large hand. If he has that, he will make any number of calls below 3NT, or at 3NTm always with me able to predict bypassing clubs to deny the control.

If I have Qxxxx in clubs, I have a slightly different problem, but not terribly unworkable.

So, I suppose that the end result is that I bid 2♣ with all club suits that feature at least the King. With five small, I'll bid 2NT because I predict an easy auction. With Qxxxx in clubs, I am torn between 2♣, 2♦, and 2NT, and I might make any of these three bids on different days.

[pclayton]

This came up in a class yesterday and I was curious how others viewed this.

We had one hand with KTxxx in a side suit and a strong 4 card holding in trump, and my gut told me the forcing raise was better. Another hand had AJ9xx and I thought the 2/1 was better (slightly).

I made a comparison of the sequence 1M - 2N - 4x. Many references have 4x as KJTxx or better, and think the same rationale can be used. Its notable that the poll has KJTxx leading.

Justin - do you require 2/3 honors for the 4x sequence in his partnerships?

[mikeh]

While I have not formalized any internal test such as Richard's, my approach is much the same.. if my club suit offers a source of tricks, and needs a little help, I will bid it.

Compare these two hands:

AQxx Ax Kx AQxxx opposite either of KJxxx Kx Axx xxx or KJxxx xx Axx Kxx

Opener has the same shape, the same hcp, the same number of controls, yet the second hand is a far better fit for us than the first.

Now, examples are not really helpful, other than in broad terms, because there are so many response structures to a forcing raise. But consider the default Jacoby sequence in which opener, with either of the above hands, bids 4♠.

As it happens, we have 5 level safety and 6♠ is far from hopeless even on the first pairing, and if we play specific king responses, we can discover the key club King on the 1st one... but it would be a matter of minutes to construct hands on which Jacoby, played in this fashion, would leave us unable to safely explore for a missing club card.

The point I am trying to make is that when we know that we are in the slam zone, and that WHERE partner's non-ace honours are is at least as important as his shape or strength, then we should show our suit.

A 2♣ response, followed by spade agreement and strong slam moves will get opener to fall in love with the second hand above, and slow down with the first... which is precisely how we'd like to see the auctions develope.

Now, if you have a truly sophisticated forcing raise structure, the need to bid 2♣ on AQxxx, KJ10xx KQxxx etc diminishes (I miss my relay methods )

[rbforster]

We needed a "none" option. I use Jacoby when I've got 4+ card support most of the time.

This isn't the only option however, since telling partner to upgrade his club holding is useful with some hands too. If I've got a good 5+ side suit (2/3 top honors), I make a strong jump shift into that suit, Soloway style. After the jump, when I return to 3♠ this shows a balanced slam try with 4+ support and a good side suit (4♠ would be a balanced GF without extras). I could also bid a new (red) suit to show shortness, support, and a good side suit and let partner evaluate from there. For me, my strong jump shifts only promise GF values when I've got 4+ support - they don't have to be 17+ or 19+ or something.

[matmat]

for a 2♣ call i am kinda stuck between KJxxx and KJTxxx... so i guess maybe KJ9xx? possibly QJTxx?

obviously with xxxxx i'd 2N or whatever my forcing raise is, but to mention that suit seems a little much and will cause p to misjudge his holdings with club shortness and values in the reds. in fact... i guess in any case he would misjudge his club shortness given the ♥ and ♦ values I hold, but at least with a decent club suit i still have a slam try in me over p's lack of interest...

[andy_h]

KQTxx/AJTxx/AQxxx or better. I really like 2/1-ing with a (near) source of tricks then later support partner.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 3 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

Compare these two hands:

AQxx Ax Kx AQxxx opposite either of KJxxx Kx Axx xxx or KJxxx xx Axx Kxx

Your comparison of hands approach is a good approach, but I would take it a slight degree further.

Imagine ♠AQxx ♥Ax ♦Kx ♣Kxxxx also.

If partner has a hand like ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦AQJx ♣Qx, our slow diamond King is the key to this hand. If we bid 2NT and partner bids 4♠, that's the contract. However, 12 tricks are (usually) easily reached. If, instead, we bid 2♣, partner's natural diamond bid allows for a much better sequence. For instance, at least using my approach:

1♠-2♣
2♦-2♠(spades trumps)
2NT(not two of the top three spades)-3♦(not two of the top three clubs, but one of the top three diamonds)
3♠(no heart control, but one of the top three spades)-4♣(heart control and a club control)

Some start like that gets us to a fairly certain 6♠. The reason on this layout for bidding 2♣ is not the club suit, but rather the slow diamond value and prime heart control as fairly likely helping a secondary diamond suit that might not otherwise be shown.

Similarly, give Opener ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQx. Again, a Jacoby 2NT sequence gets us nowhere. However:

1♠-2♣
2♦(my call)-2♠
2NT(see above)-3♦(one of the top three diamonds)
3♠(see above)-4♣(see above)
4♥(LTTC)

Opener knows that the AQx in clubs is huge.

If the diamond fragment bid is too much, then reduce the clubs to AQ-tight.

You made a very valid point. "The point I am trying to make is that when we know that we are in the slam zone, and that WHERE partner's non-ace honours are is at least as important as his shape or strength, then we should show our suit." However, I think you do not take this far enough. Opener might have two critical honors in clubs, not just one. Further, it it just as important at times that when Responder has non-Ace honors, that he be able to show their location for Opener, a task not as easily done after Jacoby 2NT. 2/1 sequences lead to good maximization of that goal, and 2♣ over 1♠ maximizes the likelihood of having room and description of where to look for non-Ace honors from both sides. Hence, my conclusion that 2NT sequences generally make the most sense when Responder has Aces-and-Spaces (no non-Ace honors) on the outside, and that 2/1 sequences usually are better when non-Ace honors are present, whether in short suits or in long suits.

[mike777]

Yes, there are many forcing response conventions, playing Bergen 2nt...one can rebid 4d, with the first example and 4c with the second. that is why I vote for forcing raise. Very often it is nice to be able to ask with this hand.

Even with Ken's example one can bid:
1s=2nt
4d!=4h
5d=6s

[FrancesHinden]

Depends on my methods.

In one partnership I have very well developed forcing raise methods including detailed shape/high card relaying and would use them.

In my other regular partnership we haven't really worked on our Jacoby methods so only use it on i) a balanced hand, or ii) a hand where we want to take control, whilst we have some pretty sophisticated methods after a 2/1, so in that partnership I would bid 2C on all except the first two.