[pescetom]

MP

---

You have agreed 2/1 GF with 1♣ 2+ and 1♦ 4+, you would rebid hearts rather than NT over a 1♦ response, no XYZ or similar. A direct response of 2♦ would have been weak.
If you cannot stomach the agreements then please ignore this post, otherwise see poll.

[DavidKok]

Spoiler

I can stomach these agreements, but if I do not have to I'd rather not
At the risk of being too sour about this sort of thing, I really think these types of questions should be solved by the bidding system. You're going to hold a balanced hand opposite partner's hand very often, and the notrump ladder should resolve bidding issues you may have with balanced hands. Even in an up-the-line approach, using 1♣-2♦ and the slower 1♣-1♦; 1X-2♦ helps resolve these problems. Personally I also play a 14-16 NT to smoothen some of the edges.

Now, in fairness, I've played in plenty of partnerships where the 2♦ rebid range was approximately 5-11. Not by design, but by lack of agreements to the contrary. And I can see how we might easily have game opposite some of those hands - ♦AKQxxx is enough for 3NT, and even weaker hands might still be enough. What I'm getting at is that the lack of agreements are forcing us to guess (between pass, 3♦ and 2NT, of which the latter is likely best on average with no information). I'd really like to not have to guess. I much prefer having a better notrump ladder, and a system that caters to it more.

Sorry for the acidic tone. I hope that instead my comment can be taken as a constructive insight: with more adherence to a notrump ladder, these guesses won't be necessary.

[mikeh]

Wtp? Playing inferior methods will often lead to suboptimal outcomes. It’s a tautology. Such methods are inferior precisely because they often lead to poor outcomes that might be avoided by better methods. Here, I have to ask…what on earth is the alternative to passing? Seriously! 1H, playing the stated methods, could be anywhere from a balanced hand weaker than a (strong) 1N (or stronger than a weak notrump, but less than a 2N rebid) up to some 1435/3415/x4y6 hand from minimum to just under a jumpshift, etc. since we have the weakest, flattest possibility, albeit top of the range for that, any bid should describe one of the other holdings. 3D would be 1435, 0436 and 2N something like 2425 or 3415 17+.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-November-10, 14:08, said:

Here, I have to ask…what on earth is the alternative to passing? Seriously!

While I agree with the rest, I think at MPs especially 'pass' is taking a position just like some other calls is taking a position. The lack of interference increases the odds of partner having extra's, and playing 2-of-a-minor at MPs can be deadly even if it makes. We're forced to take a guess, and bidding on is masterminding... but the poor agreements might make that worth it on balance.

[pescetom]

No spoilers necessary. I did say please avoid comment if you dislike the agreements of this pair, but I concede it is tempting to discuss them
Nevertheless, my objective as stated is to obtain votes of I/A who can immediate themselves in the named agreements.
You may be able to guess why.

But that said, and while we are OT:

DavidKok, on 2025-November-10, 14:00, said:

At the risk of being too sour about this sort of thing, I really think these types of questions should be solved by the bidding system. You're going to hold a balanced hand opposite partner's hand very often, and the notrump ladder should resolve bidding issues you may have with balanced hands. Even in an up-the-line approach, using 1♣-2♦ and the slower 1♣-1♦; 1X-2♦ helps resolve these problems.

I agree about the inferiority of up-the-line here, but saying that is heresy here in Italy.
I still play it because I have no partner willing to take that plunge.
I also play XYZ, which smoothes many edges, just like 14-16.
I'm not sure what you mean by "using 1♣-2♦": as a weak jump (traditional here, but not that useful IMO) or as something else?
Playing XYZ we can always stop in diamonds by bidding 1♣-1♦; 1X-2♣;2♦-P; we need your slower sequence as a game force.

[akwoo]

A couple weeks ago I was playing with someone terminally ill, whose cognitive faculties had declined slightly due to health. She was underbidding whenever she was likely to declare, and mostly (but not completely) avoiding declaring at NT. Needless to say we did not have any complex agreements.

Let's say you had this auction in that sort of situation. What would you bid?

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2025-November-10, 16:04, said:

A couple weeks ago I was playing with someone terminally ill, whose cognitive faculties had declined slightly due to health. She was underbidding whenever she was likely to declare, and mostly (but not completely) avoiding declaring at NT. Needless to say we did not have any complex agreements.

Let's say you had this auction in that sort of situation. What would you bid?

What was your agreement about 1♣-2♦ ?

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-November-10, 16:15, said:

What was your agreement about 1♣-2♦ ?

Happy not to be part of this pair, but their (your) agreement is Weak 6+ without fit.

[mike777]

Easy pass, partner needs to bid something else with an inv+ hand across from a weak NT hand

Otoh if you thought this hand stronger than a wk NT; open one no trump..

[P_Marlowe]

pescetom, on 2025-November-10, 16:25, said:

Happy not to be part of this pair, but their (your) agreement is Weak 6+ without fit.

This matters, and was missing in the description, it strengthens responders hand.
I was deciding between Pass and 3D, went with Pass, but if you play a direct 2D as weak,
you should raise.

[pescetom]

 P_Marlowe, on 2025-November-11, 03:01, said:

This matters, and was missing in the description, it strengthens responders hand.
I was deciding between Pass and 3D, went with Pass, but if you play a direct 2D as weak,
you should raise.

You're right, and I guess that may have biased the poll results to some extent. You can delete your vote and vote again if you like.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2025-November-10, 16:03, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "using 1♣-2♦": as a weak jump (traditional here, but not that useful IMO) or as something else?

For me this jump shows 4-8 points and 6(+)♦. Even lacking XYZ, the slower route would show 9-11 for me. On this hand that matters quite a bit, in my opinion.
Now I actually think this is likely not the best way to play this jump (though I'm very fond of the jumps in the majors with this range!), especially in Dutch Doubleton. But it is solid, and what I currently play.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2025-November-11, 03:58, said:

For me this jump shows 4-8 points and 6(+)♦. Even lacking XYZ, the slower route would show 9-11 for me. On this hand that matters quite a bit, in my opinion.
Now I actually think this is likely not the best way to play this jump (though I'm very fond of the jumps in the majors with this range!), especially in Dutch Doubleton. But it is solid, and what I currently play.

If it is 9-11, than even inviting may not be enough.
We usually play the jump as 4-7, so we just tighten the range, and the lower floor
gets raised, i.e. inviting would be is enough for us.
But if 2D showes invitational values, ... 3NT?

[pescetom]

Thanks for the votes and the interesting side discussion.

Although in reality this was an easy hand to bid even with this pair's methods, only West got it horribly wrong. The problem is that West made it abundantly clear to East that 2♦ had been a mistake, but East chose to bid 2NT raised by West to 3NT... hence the poll. The verdict seems clear, Pass was an LA and 3NT+3 rolls back to 2♦+4.

[TylerE]

I open 1N and don't lose sleep over it in the slightest.