[pescetom]

MP

---

EW are playing 2/1 with 15-17 NT and fairly solid openings, a strong jump shift by opener is unconditionally forcing to game.

Please answer the poll and add comments or considerations here.

[K&R rates the hand 17.25 if that helps]

[LBengtsson]

why waste bid space. 2♣ is forcing. make ♦J in to the♥J and 3♣ is reasonable.

[sfi]

LBengtsson, on 2021-March-02, 07:06, said:

why waste bid space. 2♣ is forcing.

In my experience, pairs that play 2C forcing are very much in the minority. Particularly when 3C is natural and game-forcing, it makes sense for responder to be able to pass on a minimum hand.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2021-March-02, 07:32, said:

In my experience, pairs that play 2C forcing are very much in the minority. Particularly when 3C is natural and game-forcing, it makes sense for responder to be able to pass on a minimum hand.

I agree, we play it as "forcing if you had a response" we don't mind bidding 1♠ over 1♥ with a 4144 4 count and passing 2♣, but anything sensible gives a courtesy raise even though we don't play 3♣ GF or even F1 over a 1 level response (we use it for 2 good suits, not a really good hand say AK10xx, KQJxx and out, we have a different multipurpose bid for an unbalanced GF).

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2021-March-02, 07:32, said:

In my experience, pairs that play 2C forcing are very much in the minority. Particularly when 3C is natural and game-forcing, it makes sense for responder to be able to pass on a minimum hand.

It seems to me that any natural bid which limits strength must be non forcing, and 2C meets that bill. But the range is still so big and the unexplored territory so vast that I don't see responder passing often or with a hand that was good for game here.

[mycroft]

1NT-5NT.
1♦-2NT old-fashioned 13-15.

But yeah, in general...

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-March-02, 10:15, said:

1NT-5NT.
1♦-2NT old-fashioned 13-15.

But yeah, in general...

It could be argued that both of those are conventions (1♦-2NT is 11-12 non-forcing in all my old-fashioned european bridge books, although Reese does concede it could be played 13-15 forcing).
But then it can also be argued that "natural" is always conventional and I guess I should try not to hijack my own thread here

[jillybean]

I would like another option '2♣ is obvious but I want to bid 3♣'

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-02, 13:06, said:

I would like another option '2♣ is obvious but I want to bid 3♣'

Suppress that desire!

This is, imo, an extremely important point for advancing players to internalize. You are NOT responsible for all the decisions in your partnership.

By bidding 3C you are making the unilateral decision that your combined hands belong in game. You have zero reason to think that that is the case. You have ample reason to hope that that is the case, but those terms...think and hope...are not identical in meaning.

Yes, bidding 2C will once in a while result in a missed game, but will not, by contrast, result in reaching a hopeless game or slam. Remember: partner is an equal participant in the auction.

Show a hand that is strong enough to force to game opposite an average 6 count, and pity poor partner who holds either a misfitting 6 count or a good hand, where she ought to be able to drive to slam with confidence, only to be disappointed, and turn an easy game into a losing slam.

Standard, including 2/1, methods have seams...hands where your choices are going to be difficult. You cannot get around those problems by consistently overbidding or insisting that you and you alone are the partner responsible for these decisions.

In 2/1 you have a 2C rebid. You don't like it, nor should you like it, but it's what you have decided, in common with partner, to play. Want to avoid this?

Play a forcing club or adopt a Gazilli like 2C rebid. Don't try to avoid it by lying to partner about the strength of your hand.

I remember a hand many years ago, in the last round of the round-robin stage of the CNTC. My team was playing the team with which we were tied for the last playoff spot (back then, only 4 teams advanced, now it is 8).

RHO opened, LHO responded, and RHO (the weaker of the two opps) jumpshifted on a mediocre 18 count with shortness in responder's suit. They reached a no-play vulnerable game, 6 imps out of the window for no good reason. LHO was not happy and told partner words to the effect of 'just rebid 2C...if I pass, we're almost never missing a game'

That's the advice I give you here. Bid 2C.

If partner passes, you may miss a game but the odds are against it.

If you bid 2C and have missed an easy game, take a look at partner's hand. While some misses are inevitable, my expectation would be that partner probably have some call other than pass available. I've previously discussed false preferences: they are an important tool when one plays that opener's jumpshift is gf, and thus a simple change of suit could be on as much as a bad 18 count.

Over 2C, responder should preference to 2H with, say, Axxx xx Qxxx Kxx. Btw, I'm not at all sure what game you hope to make opposite that 9 count!

But you can then bid 3C to show a near jumpshift with 5-5 in your suits....

Imagine, instead, that he has QJxxx x Kxxx xxx.

Over your 3C (if you jumpshift) you're forced to game. Good luck.

[helene_t]

If partner passes 2♣, they will have something like
AQxx-x-xxxx-xxxx
Axxx-x-Qxxx-xxxx
Qxxx-A-xxxx-xxxx
Qxxx-J-xxxx-Kxxx
Jxxx-x-KQxx-xxxx
xxxx-A-Qxxx-xxxx
xxxx-x-Kxxx-Kxxx

So 3NT will be somewhere between hopeless and requiring a minor miracle.

This means that this hand isn't even a maximum for 2♣. A maximum would be a hand that gives good play for game opposite a minimum response with the right honours. I don't think this one does.

Said differently, a maximum is a decent 17-count or modest 18-count.

2♣ doesn't deny a decent hand. We just say that we don't want to be in game opposite a random 6-count with a singleton hearts. If partner doesn't pass, we can bid
- 3♣ if partner bids 2♥
- 3NT if partner bids 2NT
- If partner bids 2♠ I think I bid 3♠, I would be afraid that 3♣ isn't constructive in that auction. But maybe I am wrong.
- If partner bids 3♣ it's a bit difficult, I think I just bid 5♣. It would be great if 3♦ would ask for a diamond stop as it does in my old club in Northern England, but I don't think that's standard. Although it makes some sense. A hand with a diamond stopper would bid 3NT, and a hand with xxx in diamonds would bid some clubs or hearts.

[jillybean]

It all comes down to trust and confidence in your partner

[ali quarg]

I don't treat 3♣ as a Strong jump-shift, but as an Intermediate hand with 5+♣ & 5+M. This hand feels more intermediate than strong at this stage in the bidding so ♣ is a clear descriptive bid for me.

[Evies Dad]

Given the parameters of the question 3C is a GF so have to bid 2C.

I like the example 9 count that mikeh posted that doesn't have a game.

[Evies Dad]

Regarding false preference. Would partner pass 2C on 5143 shapes ?

[helene_t]

Evies Dad, on 2021-March-03, 01:48, said:

Regarding false preference. Would partner pass 2C on 5143 shapes ?

Yes I think so. Maybe take false preference on a stiff ace or king. Or repeat a spade suit like KQT9x. But obviously 6-counts will rarely have that. So yes, passing with a 3-card clubs is possible.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all who answered, in particular to mikeh and helene for well argued replies.
I had no doubts on this one (I bid 2♣ and always would), but I had a problem convincing someone else, and I figured that if it wasn't clear to our players then it might not be to other intermediates either.

For those curious, W held ♠AQ7642 ♥AJ3 ♦KT8 ♣3 and several of us bid what turns out to be an easy 6♥E, although it would be tough if S put us to the test by leading low from ♦A6532.

[mikeh]

---

here is a plausible auction, assuming that N-S play the popular style of cuebidding below game doesn't distinguish between 1st and 2nd round controls.

This auction, and indeed just about any control showing auction, regardless of style, will tell an attentive West that declarer does not have the diamond King nor does he have a stiff/void.

If North uses keycard, and is competent and thus knows that south has no diamond control, north is marked with the diamond King or a stiff.

If this were matchpoints, underleading the diamond Ace is very dangerous. If N-S have, between them, the diamond KQ, then we will likely never see a diamond trick and will get a zero. Also, if N-S lack even the Jack of diamonds, South may well, especially if he is good, pop the King rather than play east to make a mistake....east is guaranteed to hold at least one of the Q or Jack, since west would lead the Queen from QJ....and on a low lead, east might/should play the Jack from AJx...if he has AQx, nothing matters.

At imps, however, I think that unless we have some weird shape, such as 5 hearts or a stiff/void, where we can hope for a heart trick on defence, the low diamond lead is clear.

I have underled an Ace very seldom, but most of the time I have done so it has been against a slam and always based on the inference that the King is in dummy. And always at imps.

[Winstonm]

2C. WTP?

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2021-March-03, 14:17, said:

here is a plausible auction, assuming that N-S play the popular style of cuebidding below game doesn't distinguish between 1st and 2nd round controls.

This auction, and indeed just about any control showing auction, regardless of style, will tell an attentive West that declarer does not have the diamond King nor does he have a stiff/void.

If North uses keycard, and is competent and thus knows that south has no diamond control, north is marked with the diamond King or a stiff.

If this were matchpoints, underleading the diamond Ace is very dangerous. If N-S have, between them, the diamond KQ, then we will likely never see a diamond trick and will get a zero. Also, if N-S lack even the Jack of diamonds, South may well, especially if he is good, pop the King rather than play east to make a mistake....east is guaranteed to hold at least one of the Q or Jack, since west would lead the Queen from QJ....and on a low lead, east might/should play the Jack from AJx...if he has AQx, nothing matters.

At imps, however, I think that unless we have some weird shape, such as 5 hearts or a stiff/void, where we can hope for a heart trick on defence, the low diamond lead is clear.

I have underled an Ace very seldom, but most of the time I have done so it has been against a slam and always based on the inference that the King is in dummy. And always at imps.

Your logic is compelling, and I wish I could be that clear-minded at the table.
As it happened our auction did not expose that South's diamonds control was second-level or that North lacked a diamonds control, but it was clear that we were missing a keycard and diamonds Ace is the most likely candidate.