[jim420]

You play 2/1, as South

Scoring: IMP

W N E S
p 1♥ p 2♦
p 2♠ p ?

---

1) Do you agree with 2♦?
2) What do you bid now?

[david_c]

1) Yes.
2) 3♦.

I really don't think there are any other options.

[Echognome]

david_c, on May 14 2007, 07:32 AM, said:

1) Yes.
2) 3♦.

I really don't think there are any other options.

Agree. Although I do see the problem if partner bids 3NT next. Do we leave it in 3NT or correct to 4♥? The problem with leaving it in 3NT is if the club stopper is tenuous and partner doesnt' have the ♦A or has the ♦A, but not the ♥A and clubs get knocked out on the opening lead. Against that, our stiff ♣Q may score a trick on the lead. If we correct to 4♥ we may have to ruff with one of our ♥ honors, which is fine if partner has AJT9x, but not so great opposite Axxxx.

[P_Marlowe]

2S promised add. values?

#1 no, but it is close, and if you asked me tommorow
I may answer yes
#2 3D

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SoTired]

david_c, on May 14 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

1) Yes.
2) 3♦.

I really don't think there are any other options.

agree. Although the ♣Q is not worth much, the hand has 13 hcp and a 7-card suit and certainly worth a GF to me. If worse-comes-to-worse, you might have to bail out at 4D. After 2S, raising hearts or spades would show primary support, so you have to bid your 7-card suit again.

If over 3D, opener bids 3N, I might correct to 4H. 3N will have troubles with the club suit since it is unlikely partner has a double-club stopper or has the ♦A, a club stopper and a major ace.

[pclayton]

Agree with 2♦.

I have to show my 7th diamond and we need to give pard a chance to support diamonds or shy away from 3N. Frankly, with my short clubs, I don't think pard has much length in diamonds, but 3♦ is kind of obvious.

My diamonds aren't worth much in a heart contract, and we may need my heart honors to ruff clubs (not necessaily bad, but usually not good).

3♦ might get us a 3♠ rebid or a 3♥ rebid; neither of which are unpalatable. Only 3N gives me a little cause to worry, but my stiff Q♣ may be a surprise stopper across from a hand like: AQxx, AJxxx, x, Axx

[skjaeran]

pclayton, on May 14 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Agree with 2♦.

I have to show my 7th diamond and we need to give pard a chance to support diamonds or shy away from 3N. Frankly, with my short clubs, I don't think pard has much length in diamonds, but 3♦ is kind of obvious.

My diamonds aren't worth much in a heart contract, and we may need my heart honors to ruff clubs (not necessaily bad, but usually not good).

3♦ might get us a 3♠ rebid or a 3♥ rebid; neither of which are unpalatable. Only 3N gives me a little cause to worry, but my stiff Q♣ may be a surprise stopper across from a hand like: AQxx, AJxxx, x, Axx

Agree.

[inquiry]

I have available a bid, 1H-3D, that shows six to 8 good diamonds and roughly 11 hcp with 0-2 hearts. I would never considering using this bid on this hand, no not because of the club queen and spade jack, but because KQ doubleton of hearts is a very bid feature, clearly worth more that then apparent 5 chp they show.

So I will bid 2♦ and follow that up with a forcing 3♦, just like everyone else. How esle is your partner to evaluate his hand. When you next raise hearts, the cat will be out of the bag.

[Echognome]

inquiry, on May 14 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

I have available a bid, 1H-3D, that shows six to 8 good diamonds and roughly 11 hcp with 0-2 hearts. I would never considering using this bid on this hand, no not because of the club queen and spade jack, but because KQ doubleton of hearts is a very bid feature, clearly worth more that then apparent 5 chp they show.

So I will bid 2♦ and follow that up with a forcing 3♦, just like everyone else. How esle is your partner to evaluate his hand. When you next raise hearts, the cat will be out of the bag.

The question is, are you moving if partner bids 3NT? I agree that if you do, you next bid 4♥.

[jim420]

Well I bid 3♦ next as well
But the big problem didn't really come until p passed 3♦ (!?)
This was his hand

Scoring: IMP

---

Do you agree with this action?

[gwnn]

This was probably a pick-up partnership. Your partner must have assumed that a rebid of the 2/1 suit was NF (a treatment I happen to abhor).

[Apollo81]

Responder made 2 auto bids and opener passed a forcing bid. Nuff said.

[FrancesHinden]

Bridge World Standard plays that a 2/1 is game forcing unless responder rebids his suit. It sounds as if your partner assumed that is the variety of 2/1 you were playing, while you went with the "2/1 is game forcing" approach.

Neither of you was wrong (although I also prefer the game-forcing-means-game-forcing method).

If your partner knew it was intended as forcing and passed anyway, then that is clearly wrong.

[neilkaz]

FrancesHinden, on May 16 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Bridge World Standard plays that a 2/1 is game forcing unless responder rebids his suit. It sounds as if your partner assumed that is the variety of 2/1 you were playing, while you went with the "2/1 is game forcing" approach.

Neither of you was wrong (although I also prefer the game-forcing-means-game-forcing method).

If your partner knew it was intended as forcing and passed anyway, then that is clearly wrong.

If partner feels the need to pass GF bids, then he shouldn't open. I really dislike the rebid your suit method in GF 2/1 as not being GF and I bid those hands via the catch all forcing NT.

However, it is a very good idea to discuss treatments with a 2/1 PD.

1) Are you playing Walsh ?

2) Is this rebid of the 2/1 suit not GF ?

3) With hands with a 5 card major that aren't really suitable for a 2NT rebid do you bid 2NT as a catch all or do you rebid the 5 cM or does a rebid of the M promise 6 cards ?

4) What rebids after the 2/1 GF response, if any, promise extra strength ?

.. neilkaz ..

[gwnn]

I'd add

5) is 1♦-2♣ GF?
6) what's 1x-2y-3z where z could have been bid on the 2 level (ie 1♠-2♣-3♦)? nat. 55+ good hand or splinter for y (pd's suit)?

[helene_t]

3♦ is forcing in any system. Even in Acol or BWS. Maybe not in Culbertson.

Some play 2♠ as not showing extras and some play 3♦ as denying GF values opposite a minimum opener, but nobody plays the combination of the two, as far as I know.

[david_c]

helene_t, on May 17 2007, 10:06 AM, said:

3♦ is forcing in any system. Even in Acol or BWS. Maybe not in Culbertson.

Some play 2♠ as not showing extras and some play 3♦ as denying GF values opposite a minimum opener, but nobody plays the combination of the two, as far as I know.

Actually if you play 2♦ as GF except rebid it's quite reasonable to play 2♠ as not promising extra values because this means you can bid 2♦ on 4♠-6♦ invitational hands and not miss any spade fit. Obviously when a GF hand comes up you'd prefer to be playing the pure GF 2/1 style, but after opener has shown two suits it's actually not that difficult to find a way to bid a single-suiter (much harder after 1♥:2♦,2♥).

And unlike other posters I think this player has good taste if he wants to play the rebid as non-forcing.

But certainly if you've agreed to play "2/1" passing 3♦ is ridiculous.

[the hog]

I agree with 2D followed by 3D. (Partner reversed and thus showed extra values in my book.) Regardless, I think 3D is clear here.

[BebopKid]

I like the 2♦ response.

I think I would have bid 3♦ next

[redbird97]

1) Yes. I cannot imagine what else you would bid with the hand.
2) Since partner reversed, you have time to show him/her 6 nice diamonds, so 3d seems like the only bid.