[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ 96 ♥ 7 ♦ KJ92 ♣ KJ7432

West North East South

 -     1♠    Pass  1NT
 Pass  2♥    Pass  ?  

Should I give a ♠ preference now, is 3♣ invitational?

[awm]

This is one of the problem sequences for 2/1. In "standard 2/1" the range for a 3♣ rebid in this auction is something like 5-11 hcp with 6+♣ (i.e. anything strong enough to respond to the opening but not strong enough to force game). Obviously this range is rather unwieldy.

Some 2/1 players solve this by playing invitational jump shifts, so a direct 1♠-3♣ shows 6+♣ and something like 9-11 with a good suit. Then the 3♣ range in this auction becomes a more manageable 5-8 or so. Others play "2/1 GF except suit rebid" so the 9-11 hand can bid 2♣ followed by 3♣.

In any case, without such agreements my advice is to avoid bidding 3♣ in this auction if you have a reasonable alternative. Here you can bid 2♠.

[ArcLight]

Opener is probably 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors.
They may have 1 or 0 Clubs.

Do you wnat to play at the 3 level in clubs opposite 0/1 clubs, or above in another suit?

If you bid 2♠ you are telling pard you have a weak hand with Spade tolerance/preference. Pard will pass. If pard had a monster and didnt open 2♣, they would have bid 3♥ not 2.

[jdonn]

2♠ is an easy bid on this hand. It is a level lower than clubs, and guaranteed to be 7+ card fit which clubs is not.

[andy_h]

I would bid 2S. If 3C now is invitational I would still not bid it with my not-so-good-looking-8count as my suit quality isn't that great. If I don't know if 3C is weak or invitational now I guess will depend on what 1S-3C means. If it is some form of major raise, then I guess you have to discuss what this sequence now means.

I remember I used to play, after a forcing NT, if responder had 2 bids available to bid a suit, a lower bid is weak and a jump bid is invitational. For Eg. 1S-1NT; 2C- 2D/H are weak, with 3D/H being invitational. If responder does not have 2 bids available but 1 like, 1S-1NT; 2S-, I decided to drop the weak hands. Obviously it isn't that great, but it was something simple.

[benlessard]

Bidding 3C here is horrible. Most 6 card suit arent enough and this 1 is kj7xxx yurk.

[Winstonm]

This is a non-problem - in any system.

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

This is a non-problem - in any system.

Well I guess it was for this newbie 2/1 player or I wouldnt have posted it

[Winstonm]

jillybean2, on Jul 5 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

This is a non-problem - in any system.

Well I guess it was for this newbie 2/1 player or I wouldnt have posted it

If so, then there is more of a problem than system - and please, I do not mean that harshly or glibly.

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 5 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

This is a non-problem - in any system.

Well I guess it was for this newbie 2/1 player or I wouldnt have posted it

If so, then there is more of a problem than system - and please, I do not mean that harshly or glibly.

cute

[rogerclee]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 5 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

This is a non-problem - in any system.

Well I guess it was for this newbie 2/1 player or I wouldnt have posted it

If so, then there is more of a problem than system - and please, I do not mean that harshly or glibly.

What is your problem? Somebody asks a question in some other thread and you ask if it is a joke; here, jillybean is sincerely asking a question that a lot of newer players get wrong routinely, and you feel the need to basically call her an idiot. You are a piece of work.

Anyway I would bid 2♠, for the reasons awm and jdonn said.

[Winstonm]

rogerclee, on Jul 5 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 5 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

This is a non-problem - in any system.

Well I guess it was for this newbie 2/1 player or I wouldnt have posted it

If so, then there is more of a problem than system - and please, I do not mean that harshly or glibly.

What is your problem? Somebody asks a question in some other thread and you ask if it is a joke; here, jillybean is sincerely asking a question that a lot of newer players get wrong routinely, and you feel the need to basically call her an idiot. You are a piece of work.

Anyway I would bid 2♠, for the reasons awm and jdonn said.

I am shocked that honesty causes such animosity.

[rogerclee]

You're not wrong, Winston. You're just an asshole.

[jillybean]

deleted

Pity we don’t have a separate classification - ‘bridge for idiots’.

[fred]

jillybean2, on Jul 6 2008, 04:48 AM, said:

deleted

Pity we don’t have a separate classification - ‘bridge for idiots’.

If you had the same hand with the 109 of clubs, 3C would be fine IMO. Try to visualize some hands for partner that include a singleton club (a likely holding) and you will see what a big difference these cards make.

If 3C is that close to being reasonable, then your question was not even remotely idiotic (wish I could say the say for all the posts in this thread).

So hope you don't lose any sleep over it and that you keep asking questions

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[skjaeran]

Completely agree with Fred.

[han]

Also, change the majors into x xx and 3C would be much more attractive. With 2 spades and some ruffing potential I think that 2S is the clear winner.

[kenrexford]

I'd like to add my $.02 as to why this is not a stupid question.

One of the worst sequences in bridge for 2/1 GF is this start. Opener's range could be anything from about a 5♠/4♥ 11-count to a reasonable 5-5 intermediate to a fairly weighty 6♠/4♥. When you courtesy correct, you may well get another call from Opener, and 3♥ as that other call would not be cherished.

Some tools here help, in an unexpected way, perhaps. For instance, a few of us out here (e.g., Skaeran, if I recall correctly) use 2NT as an artificial strong relay, freeing up 1♠-1NT-3♥ as a 5-5 intermediate hand. Having a method to show 5-5 intermediate hands means that Responder in this sequence can more comfortably bid 2♠ with a hand like this, not afraid of the 3♥ rebid.

Of course, this screams for the observation that playing 5-5 intermediates yields the same 3♥ call if Opener has the 5-5 intermediate and Responder has this hand. However, this is nonetheless mitigated somewhat. First, the problem for Responder on this hand is nonetheless lessened, which helps for all of the other instances (like when Opener has just the expected or the 6-4 if stronger). Further, when Opener does bid 3♥ and finds this dummy, the sequence is faster (1♠-1NT-3♥-3♠-P versus 1♠-1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥-3♠-P) and less revealing, which translates, IMO, to fewer penalty doubles. The lengthier auction screams for hitting it, and the length of the auction usually means that doubles no longer have any takeout purpose anyway.

I'd also add that the question begs another question, namely what Opener should do (if not using the 5-5 intermediate tool) if he is inclined to bid again. After 1♠-1NT-2♥-2♠, Opener might consider bidding a three-card fragment if he elects to take another call. It is possible that a 5503 Opener with extras might open spades, hear 1NT, bid 2♥, hear 2♠, and bid 3♣ to find this hand with Responder. That would be nice.

[mikeh]

I agree with Fred, as modified by Han

This was far from an idiotic question, and one doesn't need much imagination to see how 3♣ could be great.. opener may be 5=4=1=3 with a good hand or 5=4=0=4 without enough to bid over 2♠: picture AKxxx Axxx void Qxxx and so on. 3♣ may even be the best partscore.

One of the most difficult things to learn in bridge is the ability to know when to push, hoping for good luck, and when to take one's lumps and make the staid, conservative... may not be great, but won't be horrible... bids.

This hand is a good example. 2♠ may fare badly but, on average, it will fare as well or better than 3♣... as Fred said, make the club suit stronger, and the converse will be true.


It is also important, for anyone here is is or claims to be expert, to remember that very few non-experts, other than those willing to pay for the privilege, get to play with and against experts, and the vast majority of non-experts judge a bid on how well it worked at the table, rather than on its intrinsic merits, or lack thereof.

Thus, if a B/I or even many I have seen claim advanced or expert status, wants to learn how to think at the table, this forum is invaluable, compared to the advice/criticism that that player will encounter at the table.

So kudos to jb for consistently posting questions... if more advancing players did so, this would be an even better resource than it already is.