[Little Kid]

Playing 2/1 you have the auction 1♦-2♣, which is GF natural. Is it standard to play 2M rebid by opener showing extras or not? 2♣ doesn't deny a major.

[ArtK78]

If 2♣ is an absolute game force, then there is no reason for 2M rebid to show extras. Opener should be able to make the call that best describes his hand.

Having said that, I know that there are players who play that the 2M rebid shows extras. I just don't understand why.

I don't know if there is a "standard" answer to this question.

[nigel_k]

I think you still want to define hand strength to some extent, despite being in a game force. You can reverse lighter than normal, e.g. 15 or good 14. but with a minimum opening I would just bid 2♦.

[Lobowolf]

Little Kid, on Aug 22 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 you have the auction 1♦-2♣, which is GF natural. Is it standard to play 2M rebid by opener showing extras or not? 2♣ doesn't deny a major.

Sounds like one of them "Hardy or Lawrence?" things.

[aguahombre]

another thread occurred recently which covered this.

It is the one in which I was advised that it wasn't nice to quote "old Hardy". An old style of unknown source advocates the following rebid structure:

first priority --3+ support for clubs
second priority 5+ in diamonds
then comes one 4-card major in the balanced hands (bid it)
2NT=exactly 4-4-3-2, in that order. weak, or too big to open 1NT.
Jump shift=shortness, but not extra strength ---with 4-card club support.

If opener has extra strength, that will come later after shape.

A lot of people don't play the above, and will do what they do ---just showing one possible style.

[ONEferBRID]

Little Kid, on Aug 22 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 you have the auction 1♦-2♣, which is GF natural. Is it standard to play 2M rebid by opener showing extras or not? 2♣ doesn't deny a major.

Australian expert ( Ron Lel ) has a system for the 1D - 2C! GF auction where
Opener's rebid of 2D! shows "extras" ( 16+hcp, any shape).
   Responder next bids 2H/2S, his 4 card Major if he has one,
or 2NT! if he hasn't... and it "asks" Opener for shape.....
etc, etc, etc.

   And with a minimum, Opener bids 2H or 2S to show a 5 card Diam suit with or without 4 cards in the bid major. Again, 2NT! ( by Responder ) asks for shape clarification..... etc, etc, etc.

Or with a minimum, Opener may rebid 3C ( support ), 3D-jump ( good Diam but denies 4s,4h or 4c ), or 2NT( which denies 5d, but may have 4M ... again there is an asking bid of 3C! by Responder... etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, it probably works but is too much for my little gray cells.

[manudude03]

I prefer to play 2♦ shows at least 5, and 2M to show 4-4, no requirement to show extras.

[pooltuna]

ArtK78, on Aug 22 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

If 2♣ is an absolute game force, then there is no reason for 2M rebid to show extras.  Opener should be able to make the call that best describes his hand.

Having said that, I know that there are players who play that the 2M rebid shows extras.  I just don't understand why.

I don't know if there is a "standard" answer to this question.

and extra strength clearly does not meet that definition? If nobody shows extras it is really tough to get to slam real quickly

[aguahombre]

pooltuna, on Aug 22 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

and extra strength clearly does not meet that definition? If nobody shows extras it is really tough to get to slam real quickly

You see, 2/1 has that luxury. Once a game force is established it isn't necessary to get to slam "real quickly". Strain first, then level.

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on Aug 22 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Aug 22 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

and extra strength clearly does not meet that definition? If nobody shows extras it is really tough to get to slam real quickly

You see, 2/1 has that luxury. Once a game force is established it isn't necessary to get to slam "real quickly". Strain first, then level.

I didn't mean bid it fast I meant it gets hard to reach slam quickly. One of 2/1's difficulties is getting players to limit their hands so at least one partner has a feel for slam chances.

[jillybean]

See here... http://forums.bridge...=ST&f=5&t=18928

mikeh said:

Now, playing 2/1, particuarly a style in which 2♣ is gf, at least eliminates that difficulty. But 2/1 has its own areas of difficulty: especially with strong but not huge hands facing equally strong but not huge hands. Thus it is not uncommon for 2/1 players to reach 3N with 16 opposite 16, when opener was offshape for 1N (if playing strong notrumps). 1♦ 2♣ 2♠.. .if responder knows that this promises extras, then he will not be afraid to probe beyond 3N... and 3N is a kind of bidding trap for bridge players with no major suit fit. If 2♠ is wide-range, then responder will be leery of reaching 4N on 12 opposite 16... yes, it may make, but the cost of going down 1 in a voluntarily bid 4N makes most of us cringe.

[the hog]

Art, if you don't play that the reverse shows extras, then how will you bid a good hand with extras? Move over say 3NT?

[mikeh]

Quote

Having said that, I know that there are players who play that the 2M rebid shows extras.  I just don't understand why.

The reason is to allow responder, with extras but not a huge hand, to be comfortable exploring past 3N when opener bids 2M, to show extras. As I said in the thread to which jb linked, 2/1 GF players can have a tough time with 15-17 opposite 15-16 (obviously with opener unbalanced, thus no 1N opener).

You may well claim, accurately enough, that your partnerships don't suffer from this problem...but some pretty good theoreticians agree with me on this (more accurately, I agree with them )

[Bbradley62]

Since OP asked what is standard, not what agreement is better than others, nor what forum posters prefer to play, nor what convoluted systems Australian experts have concocted...

I believe that standard is that 2M over 1♦/2♣ shows extras. If you have neither 5 diamonds nor 4 clubs, you have a NT shape hand (unless you're 4441, in which case you bid as though you're NT) so you can bid NT. Partner can show 4-card major over that if he has one.

[CSGibson]

I believe that standard is that 2M does not show extras, but does generally deny a 5th diamond.

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on Aug 22 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

Since OP asked what is standard, not what agreement is better than others, nor what forum posters prefer to play, nor what convoluted systems Australian experts have concocted...

I believe that standard is that 2M over 1♦/2♣ shows extras.

Now we know. Shame on us all.

At risk of life and limb, I will still interject that to need extra values to explore for a major suit fit seems silly when we are already in a game forcing auction.

[jkdood]

FWIW, I DO discuss this issue with all regular 2/1 GF pds... having found over decades that there IS NO universally AGREED STANDARD...

...now that that is settled, how about the 2/1GF question: after 1H - 2C or 2D... is there a standard for whether 2H shows 6, or how much extras (if any) 2S shows?

[aguahombre]

Unfortunately there is no "standard" as to what 2C or 2D means (after a 1H opening) ---which makes the question tricky.

If 2C really shows a suit, then "an old style of unknown origin" has specific rebids:

2D=suit
2H=6
2S=4 spades (not requiring extras)
2N=exactly 3-5-3-2, weak NT strength
3C=3+
3NT= exactly 18-19 (same distribution as 2NT)
3H=Solid suit, at most one outside prime
3D or 3S= splinter, no extras, 4+ clubs

Hands with extras in opener not included in the above show pattern first and extras later.

2D response creates different problems, so:

2H=a noise; might have 6, might not.
2S=suit
2N=exactly 3-5-2-3, weak NT strength
3C=suit and extras
3d=3+ support
3s=splinter, 4+ diamonds, no extras
3N=exact pattern & 18-19.

[Bbradley62]

Bridge World Standard, 2001:
IV. Partnership-Bidding Methods
H. After Our Minor-Suit Opening
... A two-club response to one diamond is forcing to game except where responder rebids his suit simply after opener has not promised extra values... Opener’s reverse of the form one diamond — two clubs — two of a major does not promise extra values.

Best I can tell, this is the most recent edition of BWS, and also best I can tell, it is the closest thing you are likely to find to "standard". Therefore, I sit corrected.

But I still think my other point is valid: if an OP asks a specific question, it would be nice if responders tried to answer the question that was actually asked, not a sorta kinda similar question...

[aguahombre]

yeh, well it helps to read the whole OP where he (not the Bridge World) says 2c is GF (not maybe GF).