[kenberg]

---

Matchpoints

Some might open this 2NT or even 2C, rebidding 2NT, but I started with 1C. So far, so good. I will now go with a hypothetical.

Hypothetical: Suppose partner now bids 2S, a relay to 3C that could be dropped. If partner has club length he will have some sort of strength, 6+ I imagine, else he would have passed 1C. So I don't want to bid a passable 3C. Any ideas? In particular, is 2NT passable? Maybe 3S over 2S? And this would show or ask what? It seems bidding 4C over 2S should show longer clubs than I have.

Actual: We were not playing any Lebensohl structure over reverses, partner's actual call was 3C over my 2D. This showed clubs, but said nothing about extras values.

Occasionally I guess right. Here are the hands:

---

Clubs are not 4-0 so 5C is a cakewalk, while after a spade lead against 3NT I have 8 top tricks, 9 tricks if I guess which way to go in diamonds, 10 tricks if I guess diamonds and if they split (they don't). Or ten tricks if I lead twice toward the KJT, finessing twice. Oops, rho takes his Q, their spades, a heart. All in all, I am happy to be in 5C even at mps.

Off and on I nag at partner to discuss reverses, and I would like to play that, after 1C-1H-2D, a bid of 3C is game forcing. So 2S, or maybe 2NT, gets used as a relay for the non-gf hands. Of course this hand is an advertisement for our current approach. Partner bids 3C, I learn we have a club fit without the danger that I learn of the club fit as partner bids 2S->3C and then passes.

Conventions are great but they need discussion. If you are willing to accept my preference for opening 1C rather than 2NT, how would you handle 1C-1H-2D-2S(or 2NT, whichever you prefer as a relay to 3C)?

[P_Marlowe]

If partner bids a relay to a passble 3C, I break the relay to show add.
strength.
If the relay is 2S, perfect I can bid 3NT, showing what I have.
If the relay is 2NT, I will raise it to 3NT, leass perfect, the king of
hearts is not protected, but whatever, if partner has a spade singleton
or weak hearts, he can correct to 5C, not likely but he can.

Breaking the 2S relay by bidding 2NT, should be forcing, but shoule be
weaker than 3NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[The_Badger]

hi kenberg,

I accept that many good players prefer 1♣ in 2/1 to 2NT with this hand, even though it comes out on a K&R count at 22.30 as partner is supposed to drag a response up on as little as ♠xxx ♥A109xx ♦xx ♣xxx

Opening 2NT probably (not too 2♣ - too many losers) doesn't give so much information out about the hand, even if partner initiates a Puppet/Stayman response, so I can understand others choosing this opening, even with 2-2 majors.

In answer to your question, if partner uses 2♠ or a 2NT bid as a relay to 3♣, then I am assuming he is showing preference only, not 4 card ♣ support as in the diagram [North]. If that's the case, then ignore the relay and bid 3NT as that's where everyone else will probably be, I feel.

[kenberg]

Quote

Breaking the 2S relay by bidding 2NT, should be forcing, but shoule be
weaker than 3NT.--Marlowe

This sounds right to me. I had never discussed it, and I can't recall seeing it, hence the question. But it sounds right. Thanks.

Quote

I accept that many good players prefer 1♣ in 2/1 to 2NT with this hand, even though it comes out on a K&R count at 22.30 as partner is supposed to drag a response up on as little as ♠xxx ♥A109xx ♦xx ♣xxx. --Bager

I considered both 2NT and 2C. It's a pretty good hand! Some factors: I was reluctant to give up on 6C. Of course it might be reachable, when right, even after the expected 2C-2D(waiting)-2NT but it's tougher and we have no sexy agrements lying around at the ready. Also, it seems like a suit oriented hand. As it turned out to be. In NT, partner's QJxx in hearts are useless except as guards against spade to A, heart back, but Jxxx would be enough for that. . The diamond K is of course great, his J is needed if we are to have any hope of 9 tricks in NT. After the club fit is found I am hoping for 12 tricks in clubs. The 4D bid didn't do it for me, but if partner had the ace of hearts then things are looking up. This s a bit optimistic, I guess.

Anyway, I can well imagine opening 2NT, I certainly have done it with this shape, but not with this hand this time. Close, I think. Partner would bid 3C Puppet, I would bid 3NT. As it happened, 5C making was average. Some were in 3NT going down, but some in 3NT did not, for whatever the reason, get a spade lead and then they had time to do quite well. I am guessing a bit here, from looking at the scores.

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts..

[Stefan_O]

Only... what on earth was 4♦?
Slamtry on that junk?

[kenberg]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-03, 16:01, said:

Only... what on earth was 4♦?
Slamtry on that junk?

Well, the true answer is that I am not sure. But I see it this way: Partner reasons: "If Ken wanted to play 3NT he would have bid 3NT. He bid 3S. He wants to hear more about my hand. What do I have? Well, I ain't got nothin but the blues but I guess I do have KJT. I guess I will bid 4D. What else? I can't pass.".

In fact, partner and I have essentially no agreements as to what happens after a reverse. He has decent judgment and decent card sense and on many hands that suffices, as it did here. I think far more hands go south because of bad choices than from the lack of a particular convention. But I would like to push him into some form of Leb over a reverse. We all have our limits on how many things we we want to discuss, neither of us plans to take on Meckwell for money. I prefer more discussion than he is comfortable with. So I dunno, but I think it's roughly as I say. Surely after my 3S bid we all know we will be playing game in something. He has KJT. So he bid it, just in case it interested me. . That's all I can say.

[Stefan_O]

kenberg, on 2016-September-03, 17:20, said:

Well, the true answer is that I am not sure. But I see it this way: Partner reasons: "If Ken wanted to play 3NT he would have bid 3NT. He bid 3S. He wants to hear more about my hand. What do I have? Well, I ain't got nothin but the blues but I guess I do have KJT. I guess I will bid 4D. What else? I can't pass.".

In fact, partner and I have essentially no agreements as to what happens after a reverse. He has decent judgment and decent card sense and on many hands that suffices, as it did here. I think far more hands go south because of bad choices than from the lack of a particular convention. But I would like to push him into some form of Leb over a reverse. We all have our limits on how many things we we want to discuss, neither of us plans to take on Meckwell for money. I prefer more discussion than he is comfortable with. So I dunno, but I think it's roughly as I say. Surely after my 3S bid we all know we will be playing game in something. He has KJT. So he bid it, just in case it interested me. . That's all I can say.

OK

I would just bid 4♣ over 3♠, and not feel that I underbid if pd decides to pass

[kenberg]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-03, 18:14, said:

OK

I would just bid 4♣ over 3♠, and not feel that I underbid if pd decides to pass

It is true that your holding is a bit short of spectacular.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-September-03, 06:56, said:

Hypothetical: Suppose partner now bids 2S, a relay to 3C that could be dropped.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than having 2♠ as a marionette to 3♣, have the normal hands instead bid 2NT. 3♣ instead would show a maximum with extra club length. Obviously you can do it your way as an inversion but it seems to me to be less efficient as you have more terminal sequences.

kenberg, on 2016-September-03, 06:56, said:

Actual: We were not playing any Lebensohl structure over reverses, partner's actual call was 3C over my 2D. This showed clubs, but said nothing about extras values.

If not playing Lebensohl I would suggest that it is very clear to treat your hand as big and balanced of whatever evaluation you put on it. Reversing sequences are traditionally difficult without agreements so you want to avoid them rather than seek them out.

kenberg, on 2016-September-03, 06:56, said:

Occasionally I guess right. Here are the hands:

Well done - you got to a better contract than I would have with that partner.

kenberg, on 2016-September-03, 06:56, said:

Conventions are great but they need discussion. If you are willing to accept my preference for opening 1C rather than 2NT, how would you handle 1C-1H-2D-2S(or 2NT, whichever you prefer as a relay to 3C)?

Since I covered this one already, here's something completely different:-

1♣ - 1♥; 2♦
==========
2♥ = to play
2♠ = 5 hearts, GF
2NT = clubs
3♣ = diamonds
3♦ = 6+ hearts, GF

If your partner finds transfers easier to understand/remember than Lebensohl, this sort of scheme might be worth considering. It is not better (or worse) just different.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-05, 07:18, said:

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than having 2♠ as a marionette to 3♣, have the normal hands instead bid 2NT. 3♣ instead would show a maximum with extra club length. Obviously you can do it your way as an inversion but it seems to me to be less efficient as you have more terminal sequences.



If not playing Lebensohl I would suggest that it is very clear to treat your hand as big and balanced of whatever evaluation you put on it. Reversing sequences are traditionally difficult without agreements so you want to avoid them rather than seek them out.


Well done - you got to a better contract than I would have with that partner.



Since I covered this one already, here's something completely different:-

1♣ - 1♥; 2♦
==========
2♥ = to play
2♠ = 5 hearts, GF
2NT = clubs
3♣ = diamonds
3♦ = 6+ hearts, GF

If your partner finds transfers easier to understand/remember than Lebensohl, this sort of scheme might be worth considering. It is not better (or worse) just different.

Starting at the bottom: Partner would like the 2S as a GF, perhaps modifying it to mean that I, as opener, should now bid 3H if I have three hearts. That's not quite the same as saying 2S promises five hearts. On those occasions when I do bid 3H, he could lpay me for 1=3=5=4 shape and good values, and then have a fair idea of where we should play. I doubt very much he would go for the transfer parts though.

Reverse auctions are often tough, even with more elaborate agreements than what we have. I have not found anything to be thoroughly satisfactory. I have from time to time referred to the pinned post by mikeh. This is the I/A forum and I think having something such as this is very appropriate. I/A does not mean beginner, but in my experience many I/A players have no agreements at all. But Bob says "My preference is for what is known as the strong reverse approach: opener has a good 18 or more, altho even we strong reversers will upgrade 16 or 17 counts with a good 3 card holding in responder's suit.". Maybe he is right about this, but sometimes I hold a 17 count and I don't have a strong three card holding in partner's suit. I still have to bid the hand. Anyway, my idea of a reverse does not require an 18 count, at least not for 1m-1S-2H, . But then there are other problems of course.

I generally agree with your comment that when there are few agreements about reverses a 2NT opening has merit. looking only at my hand before the bidding began, 6C seemed like a real possibility. Hence the 1C. If I had decided to treat it as balanced, it's a close call, I think, between 2NT and 2C-2D-2NT. The spade KQ is not five points in NT, it takes one trick just as Ax does. And Ax may be more useful to provide me with transportation to a weak dummy. On the other hand, that's a really good five card suit.

I will repeat a view on conventions.They have to be discussed or you are probably better off without them. Here was an auction at a club the other day.

1H 3C(alerted as Bergen)
?

Opener had quite a good hand and saw the choice as between 3H and 4H. She chose wrong, and afterwards there was time for a little discussion. I knew them well enough to make a comment: What would it have meant if you bid 3D? This had never occurred to either of them. I am no big fan of Bergen raises but if I play them I want to discuss this. I think 3D is a 3.5 heart raise. Says nothing about diamonds, just better than the 3H sign-off but not worth a jump to 4H. Maybe those who play Bergen regularly have a better idea. But not having it discussed at all? This happens with many conventions. Conventions have a cost, there are other possible uses for that 3C bid. If it shows hearts, you want to get the most out of that meaning.

PS I am not trying to start an argument with mikeh about the pinned article on reverses. I often recommend that article. But everything involves a choice and I prefer my reverses to be less dramatic.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-September-06, 06:45, said:

Starting at the bottom: Partner would like the 2S as a GF, perhaps modifying it to mean that I, as opener, should now bid 3H if I have three hearts. That's not quite the same as saying 2S promises five hearts. On those occasions when I do bid 3H, he could lpay me for 1=3=5=4 shape and good values, and then have a fair idea of where we should play. I doubt very much he would go for the transfer parts though.

2♠ promising 5 hearts was something I came up after some experimentation to compensate for 2♥ being non-forcing, which makes a lot of sense in my system. In combination with the transfers it works but playing a more standard approach with 2♥ being forcing with 5+ hearts is probably right for you. In that case 2♠ reverts back to the general weakness call and 3♥ over that should show extras.

kenberg, on 2016-September-06, 06:45, said:

Anyway, my idea of a reverse does not require an 18 count, at least not for 1m-1S-2H,

Nor mine, and even more so for 1♣ - 1M; 2♦. The idea that a reverse should show a stronger hand than the jump suit rebid just makes no sense to me from a bidding theory point of view. I know from a couple of BBF threads that Mike will sometimes make such a jump rebid rather than reverse but this is something I just cannot agree with and I have not seen any advantage accrue from that approach either.

kenberg, on 2016-September-06, 06:45, said:

If I had decided to treat it as balanced, it's a close call, I think, between 2NT and 2C-2D-2NT.

I would personally treat it as 22 balanced and bid accordingly. Whether that is 2NT, 2C->2NT or something else depends on agreements. I also left that figure off from the previous post not to distract away from the main point.

kenberg, on 2016-September-06, 06:45, said:

I think 3D is a 3.5 heart raise. Says nothing about diamonds, just better than the 3H sign-off but not worth a jump to 4H.

This is precisely what I play except that I call 3♦ a game try. As it happens I also use 3♠ as a slam try as that matches meta rules (3M+1 = Frivolous) which some might see as something of a waste. Regardless of anything else, I would strongly recommend the game try/3.5 raise approach for 3♦. It comes up often and allows for having a wider range in the 3♣ response, thus taking pressure away from the 3♦ response (assuming they also play that as Bergen).