whats going on here?
#1
Posted 2024-December-06, 17:14
#3
Posted 2024-December-06, 17:54
#4
Posted 2024-December-06, 18:09
1. This is why I prefer a semi-forcing 1NT. As West, I would have passed a SF 1NT.
2. If this pair plays 1M-3m as showing an invitational 6-card suit, East has a choice between 1NT and 3♦. I can see either bid but it's pretty quacky. I think I would have bid 3♦.
3. Given the first two rounds of bidding, I think East should have rebid 3♦ rather than 2♦.
4. (Edited) - At first, I thought it was odd that West passed 2♦ but I guess I can see that. First rule of a misfit is to stop digging.
#5
Posted 2024-December-06, 18:25
2C is fine
Very common start
1s- 1Nt
2C...
#6
Posted 2024-December-06, 18:27
I read East's hand as weak with diamonds, no tolerance for clubs, which could be short.
#7
Posted 2024-December-06, 18:51
mike777, on 2024-December-06, 18:25, said:
2C is fine
Very common start
1s- 1Nt
2C...
I would bid 2♣ with a 3-card suit only if I were at the top of my range, with 14 HCP. Having three aces may be a good reason to upgrade this hand. Each to his own.
#8
Posted 2024-December-06, 19:19
I would only pass sf 1NT with drek 11, so much more rare than your application.
kJxxx..Qxx..Qx..QJX
#9
Posted 2024-December-06, 19:20
#10
Posted 2024-December-06, 20:14
mike777, on 2024-December-06, 19:19, said:
I would only pass sf 1NT with drek 11, so much more rare than your application.
kJxxx..Qxx..Qx..QJX
I don't want to hijack this thread (more than I already have - sorry JB), so I started a new one. I'll be interested to see what criteria other players have for when to pass a SF 1NT. I have a feeling that your approach is more prevalent among more advanced players, who may also be more inclined to open more aggressively.
#11
Posted 2024-December-07, 07:57
jillybean, on 2024-December-06, 18:27, said:
I read East's hand as weak with diamonds, no tolerance for clubs, which could be short.
What would 3D have been instead?
If it is natural and invitational with no promise of fit then it looks like the standout bid.
But then I play semi-forcing NT and am unfamiliar with the nuances of rebids after forcing NT... what would a rebid of 3D rather than 2D have shown?
#12
Posted 2024-December-07, 13:33
#13
Posted 2024-December-07, 15:00
pescetom, on 2024-December-07, 07:57, said:
If it is natural and invitational with no promise of fit then it looks like the standout bid.
But then I play semi-forcing NT and am unfamiliar with the nuances of rebids after forcing NT... what would a rebid of 3D rather than 2D have shown?
The method I play after 1M 1nt shows
A weak raise in opening M. 6-7. I play 1M 2M constructive 8-10
A 3 card limit raise 1M 1nt 2m 3M
A weak hand, no tolerance for M , wanting to get out in another suit , will pass openers rebid or correct to own suit at 2 level
1M 1nt 2x 3y seems to fit this hand,
#14
Posted 2024-December-07, 15:11
jillybean, on 2024-December-07, 15:00, said:
The catch is what to do if you can't bid at the 2 level; e.g. consider a weak hand with 6-7 of a minor after opener rebids 2♥ instead, when you may still need to sign off in 3 of a minor. Which is why it's quite common to play an immediate 1M - 3m as the invitational hand, and 1M - 1N followed by correcting to your suit as the weak hand. But in all cases, 1NT then 2♦ here is weak.
#15
Posted 2024-December-08, 18:24
smerriman, on 2024-December-07, 15:11, said:
Agree, this is quite common agreement.
However for Bergen bidders, they end up putting weak and invitational long minors into 1NT. after..1s...1nt...2h...??
2nt is solidly invitational, most likely game on misfit, 3 of minor is weakishish ish...