[pescetom]

Our 2/1 system has a very natural base and defines the auction
1♥-1♠
2♥-3♠
as Responder showing 6+ spades, invitational, NF, does not deny or affirm hearts fit.

I've always been uncomfortable with that and feel it should either be game forcing or deny hearts fit (or affirm it, but that is not consistent with our system or style).
How do others play it, or wish to play it?
Is there some convention over 2♥ that might lubricate the situation?

[DavidKok]

This is one of my favourite bidding questions, because there's such elegant natural solutions. I'll give two different solutions that I suspect might not require much or even any system modification, and then go into a bit more detail on my personal preferences and some considerations here.

Firstly, I feel that 3♠ should deny a heart fit. You don't need to find a double major suit fit if you've already found the hearts, you can't play in both strains at the same time anyway. If we have a known heart fit on this start I would take the money and raise partner.
Secondly, when partner opens at the 1-level and we have a 6(+)cM in a higher ranking major (so not us having hearts over a 1♠ opening, but all other situations apply), we have two ways to get to 2M: directly and via 1M. We also have two hand types with a long major that we wish to describe cheaply: weak and invitational (because game forcing can bid 4SGF/3SGF/XYNT/other to show the hand eventually). I really like picking one of the two ranges and putting in the direct bid, here 1♥-2♠, and taking the other range and putting it in the delayed bid, here 1♥-1♠; 2♥-2♠. Either way, we get to show the invitational hand with spades and no fit at the 2♠ level. No need to go to 3♠, let alone with a jump. No need for conventions either, these bids are all natural and NF. This way we can reserve the 3♠ rebid for something else - I like game forcing, slam-going, sets trumps, demands a control bid.
Either of these two agreements would resolve most of your issue and not require new conventions, I think.

Now a little bit more about this treatment:

• Using the 1m-2M bids and 1X-2Y jump shifts in general, there is a general principle that I think is poorly understood. If opener was about to rebid NT, be it 1NT or 2NT, we are usually in a comfortable position having responded 1M. Instead it is the suit rebids that make things awkward - taking away more bidding space, while being less descriptive with regards to strength and degree of fit (i.e. length in unbid suits). Therefore I feel strongly that the jump responses to 1-level openings should cater to the hands that are difficult to show on the 1X-1Y; 2Z auctions. The single-suited hands match this description well, and Reverse Flannery does to a degree too. Personally I really like having a way to invite in a major suit at the 2-level and getting the trump-setting jump rebids for free, so I'll stick with the single-suited meaning.
  
• If opener regularly ('always') raises on a 3-card suit on the auction 1X-1Y with an unbalanced hand, as is my preferred style, you have a negative inference on the example auction 1♥-1♠; 2♥ that partner has at most two hearts, to go with at most three clubs, three diamonds and at least six hearts. That's a pretty specific hand shape already - 2=6=3=3 minus a non-heart card. In view of that I think having to jump to 3♠ to invite in the hopes of finding extras and/or a doubleton opposite is not attractive at all. It's good to discuss with your partner under which conditions they would/wouldn't raise with 3-card support, and under which conditions they would/wouldn't bypass a 4cm.
  
• If we're using 1X-2Y (jump shift) as natural, I prefer for the direct jump to be weak (4-8) and the delayed bid to be invitational (9-11). The reasons for this are threefold:
  • If we have a weak hand the fourth seat is more likely to interfere, so we want to get our hand out of the way at once.
    
  • If opener has a strong hand, especially a strong misfit hand, the jump rebid auctions 1X-1Y; 3Z or the jump suit rebid auction 1X-1Y; 3X can be really awkward with a weak hand, since we'd really like to play in our own long suit to create more entries.
    
  • Invitational hands are often more flexible with regards to strain than weak hands, so by taking the slow action and getting more information we have a higher chance of finding a profitable alternative strain.
• It's already included above, but repeated for emphasis: the decision of how to play 1♥-2♠, and more generally 1X-2Y (jump shift), should not depend on your NT system or checkback variant. Those systems are all sufficiently airtight that you can show weak, invitational and strong at the 2-level or so. It's the unbalanced hands where you need to describe your single-suited hand quickly, or risk facing a tough decision next round.
  
• On 1♥-1♠ specifically, if your 1♠ response may still have a 3(+)c♥ support, you may well struggle to show this hand later. For that reason I prefer to eliminate hands with a fit as much as possible from changes of suit - support with support. In my system the exception is hands with slam interest, there I'm systemically forced into giving a delayed raise.

[mw64ahw]

Kaplan Inversion sorts this one out for me.

1♥ - 1♠ 0-4♠ weak, 5+♠ GI+, 3♥ lim
Now after 2♥
.. 2♠ 6+♠ GI+
.. 2N 5♠ GI
.. 3m 4m5♠ GF
.. 3♥ 2/3♥ min.
.. 3♠ self-sustaining ♠
.. 3N 5233 GF
.. 4♥ 2/3♥ max.

If you want to cater for 55 in the minors then
3♣ xs55
3♦ 5s(4x) GF, 3♥ asks

[mikl_plkcc]

pescetom, on 2025-March-25, 13:25, said:

Our 2/1 system has a very natural base and defines the auction
1♥-1♠
2♥-3♠
as Responder showing 6+ spades, invitational, NF, does not deny or affirm hearts fit.

I've always been uncomfortable with that and feel it should either be game forcing or deny hearts fit (or affirm it, but that is not consistent with our system or style).
How do others play it, or wish to play it?
Is there some convention over 2♥ that might lubricate the situation?

I play this as semi-forcing and denies ♥ fit. Responder has a very strong ♠ suit and value for a game (note that ♠xxxxxx and side values do not qualify for this bid).

You are only allowed to stop if you absolutely have no hope of any fit, not even in a minor suit. If you have a minimum hand and 2 ♠ you must bid 4♠.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2025-March-25, 13:25, said:

Our 2/1 system has a very natural base and defines the auction
1♥-1♠
2♥-3♠
as Responder showing 6+ spades, invitational, NF, does not deny or affirm hearts fit.

I've always been uncomfortable with that and feel it should either be game forcing or deny hearts fit (or affirm it, but that is not consistent with our system or style).
How do others play it, or wish to play it?
Is there some convention over 2♥ that might lubricate the situation?

What is 1♥-2♠ ? as this may say what 2♠ means over the rebid

We play 2♠ over the rebid of hearts as encouraging, pass only if you really have to, so 3♠ would be forcing, denying the ability to bid a one suited GF/SI 2♠ response to 1♥ so 13-15 ish.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-27, 09:57, said:

What is 1♥-2♠ ? as this may say what 2♠ means over the rebid

The system says 6+ spades, at most an ugly 6 HCP.
With intimate partners I agree to 5+ spades, equally despicable.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-25, 13:57, said:

This is one of my favourite bidding questions, because there's such elegant natural solutions. I'll give two different solutions that I suspect might not require much or even any system modification, and then go into a bit more detail on my personal preferences and some considerations here.

Firstly, I feel that 3♠ should deny a heart fit. You don't need to find a double major suit fit if you've already found the hearts, you can't play in both strains at the same time anyway. If we have a known heart fit on this start I would take the money and raise partner.
Secondly, when partner opens at the 1-level and we have a 6(+)cM in a higher ranking major (so not us having hearts over a 1♠ opening, but all other situations apply), we have two ways to get to 2M: directly and via 1M. We also have two hand types with a long major that we wish to describe cheaply: weak and invitational (because game forcing can bid 4SGF/3SGF/XYNT/other to show the hand eventually). I really like picking one of the two ranges and putting in the direct bid, here 1♥-2♠, and taking the other range and putting it in the delayed bid, here 1♥-1♠; 2♥-2♠. Either way, we get to show the invitational hand with spades and no fit at the 2♠ level. No need to go to 3♠, let alone with a jump. No need for conventions either, these bids are all natural and NF. This way we can reserve the 3♠ rebid for something else - I like game forcing, slam-going, sets trumps, demands a control bid.
Either of these two agreements would resolve most of your issue and not require new conventions, I think.

Now a little bit more about this treatment:

• Using the 1m-2M bids and 1X-2Y jump shifts in general, there is a general principle that I think is poorly understood. If opener was about to rebid NT, be it 1NT or 2NT, we are usually in a comfortable position having responded 1M. Instead it is the suit rebids that make things awkward - taking away more bidding space, while being less descriptive with regards to strength and degree of fit (i.e. length in unbid suits). Therefore I feel strongly that the jump responses to 1-level openings should cater to the hands that are difficult to show on the 1X-1Y; 2Z auctions. The single-suited hands match this description well, and Reverse Flannery does to a degree too. Personally I really like having a way to invite in a major suit at the 2-level and getting the trump-setting jump rebids for free, so I'll stick with the single-suited meaning.
  
• If opener regularly ('always') raises on a 3-card suit on the auction 1X-1Y with an unbalanced hand, as is my preferred style, you have a negative inference on the example auction 1♥-1♠; 2♥ that partner has at most two hearts, to go with at most three clubs, three diamonds and at least six hearts. That's a pretty specific hand shape already - 2=6=3=3 minus a non-heart card. In view of that I think having to jump to 3♠ to invite in the hopes of finding extras and/or a doubleton opposite is not attractive at all. It's good to discuss with your partner under which conditions they would/wouldn't raise with 3-card support, and under which conditions they would/wouldn't bypass a 4cm.
  
• If we're using 1X-2Y (jump shift) as natural, I prefer for the direct jump to be weak (4-8) and the delayed bid to be invitational (9-11). The reasons for this are threefold:
  • If we have a weak hand the fourth seat is more likely to interfere, so we want to get our hand out of the way at once.
    
  • If opener has a strong hand, especially a strong misfit hand, the jump rebid auctions 1X-1Y; 3Z or the jump suit rebid auction 1X-1Y; 3X can be really awkward with a weak hand, since we'd really like to play in our own long suit to create more entries.
    
  • Invitational hands are often more flexible with regards to strain than weak hands, so by taking the slow action and getting more information we have a higher chance of finding a profitable alternative strain.
• It's already included above, but repeated for emphasis: the decision of how to play 1♥-2♠, and more generally 1X-2Y (jump shift), should not depend on your NT system or checkback variant. Those systems are all sufficiently airtight that you can show weak, invitational and strong at the 2-level or so. It's the unbalanced hands where you need to describe your single-suited hand quickly, or risk facing a tough decision next round.
  
• On 1♥-1♠ specifically, if your 1♠ response may still have a 3(+)c♥ support, you may well struggle to show this hand later. For that reason I prefer to eliminate hands with a fit as much as possible from changes of suit - support with support. In my system the exception is hands with slam interest, there I'm systemically forced into giving a delayed raise.

I apologize for my belated reply to this thoughtful response, but I was hoping for more others.

Thanks and it all makes sense and is comforting to me.
What you are suggesting fits almost perfectly with what I would expect from my more intimate partners, basic system notwithstanding.
We do not raise a spades response on 3 cards, so no discussion needed there (one way or another) and XYZ takes care of some related issues.
In particular, I agree that 3♠ should deny fit and given that a 2♠ jump definitely (the first line of Tropic of Capricorn comes to mind) describes Responder's hand, 1♥ 1♠; 2♥ 2♠ must be invitational.
Thus my instinct too is that 3♠ probably should be game forcing, slam-going, sets trumps, demands a control bid (and that is why I investigated slam and caused the car crash that instigated this thread ).

[DavidKok]

No need to apologize, I was also hoping for more comments and suggestions from others.
In practice I think many people are reluctant to bid 1X-2Y, thinking it is too soon to commit. Alternatively, there are good artificial uses for these bids as well (reverse Flannery and invitational raises are good examples). In those styles a second round jump to invite is necessary when opener has an unbalanced hand, and in my experience the strong meaning is so rare that without discussion these jumps are usually NF invitational.

[mikeh]

Without going into great detail wrt to David’s lengthy post, there was one point he made with which I very strongly disagree.

He suggests that 1H 1S 2H denies 3 spades. I think that unplayable, in the sense that it’s downside (rare though it may be) is huge while it’s upside is not exactly a good thing on many hands.

I hold Kxxx Qx Ax xxxx

Partner opens 1H and I bid 1S…..unless playing Flannery and even sometimes then, we may belong in spades.

Partner bids 2S because he has 3 card support and an unbalanced hand…say QJx AKJxxx xxx x

Note that David explicitly states that opener denies 3 spades if he rebids 2H.

Does any reader think (a) that we should be in spades on that layout or (b) that we can get back to hearts after the spade raise?

The example hand is a partscore hand but similar issues, with potentially larger costs, arise on game and slam hands.


Oh…btw, I gave opener good spades. David says….very clearly…that a 2H rebid denies 3 spades. I’m assuming even he would rebid 2H with 3=7, lol. But what if the hand were KJxx Qx KQxx xxx opposite xxx AKJxxx Ax xx. Seriously? A good bridge theorist (which I think David usually is) deliberately chosen a style in which his partnership can never play hearts but must play spades?

[DavidKok]

Thank you for the comment. I have a few thoughts:

• In my comment on the 2♥ rebid I completely neglected to mention the possibility of a 7-card suit, which is also why I ended up at the '2=6=3=3 minus a non-heart card' description. With 7 hearts I would rebid 2♥ frequently, and I forgot to mention those hands.
  
• On game and slam deals I have ways to get back to hearts on the 1♥-1♠; 2♠ start if responder only holds four and opener has a 3=6. It's the partscores where this style may cost.
  
• I said "If opener regularly ('always') raises on a 3-card suit on the auction 1X-1Y with an unbalanced hand, as is my preferred style, you have a negative inference on the example auction 1♥-1♠; 2♥ that partner has at most two ♠". The 'if' part is important, and clearly you don't agree with it on this auction. I think that's fine, but I would like a little more discussion on the relative merits than one losing case. In particular, on my start responder is in a better position over the 2♥ rebid, as they can now better evaluate the spade fit.
  
• On the auctions 1m-1M I have become a big fan of the unbalanced 3-card raises. I find that on partscores they score well (the 4-3 fit is playable even if responder has a poorly fitting hand, in part because the three trumps are with the unbalanced hand, i.e. frequent outside shortage), plus majors are just better than minors. 1♥-1♠ is a special case, and deserves its own rules. What changes the numbers here is that a 1♠ response to 1♥ is frequently a five card suit. For me the 1♠ response
  • Denies 3(+)♥ unless SI or a big disparity between spades and hearts (e.g. we'll bypass a five card spade suit to raise partner, though I've gone either way before with 6=3).
    
  • With a balanced GF we start with 2♣.
    
  • With a 5m4♠ GF we also start with a 2/1 GF.
  Adding this up, there aren't that many hands left that would prefer 2♥ to 2♠ opposite 3=6. If responder is invitational or stronger I claim that I can find our best fit at the 3-level. If responder has 5(+) spades we've got a fit, and the issues are minor. If responder has 0-1 hearts to go with 4 spades, often the spades play better. That leaves the 4=2=x=y less-than-invitational hands - possible, but infrequent. Meanwhile on the standard start 1♥-1♠; 2♥ responder can be faced with an awkward decision with e.g. a 5=1=4=3 6-count - I mean obviously we have to pass, but spades might well be better than hearts. More generally, showing the fifth spade can be awkward on stronger auctions, e.g. 1♥-1♠; 2♥-2NT/3♣*; 3♠ takes us high before establishing a trump suit. There's losing and winning cases either way, but I think raising spades with 3=6 here has more ways to win than to lose. I'm not convinced I'd like to make it mandatory, but I definitely think it should not be dismissed.
• In some partnerships I've played a Gazzilli style that resolved most of this issue, putting 5(+)♥4(+)♣ in 1♥-1♠; 2♥ and the 6(+)♥ weak hand through 2♣. That way we can retain the 3-card raises with a 3=5=(41)-type hand, but also get another round to probe for strain in case of the 6(+)♥ hand (responder, when weak, can sign off in 2♥ or 2♠ depending on their hand). This isn't a full solution - responder can still have 8-9 HCP and then opener has committed to 2♥ rather than 2♠ - but it reduces the pressure somewhat.