[gszes]

Playing 2/1 GF partner opens 1h rho passes and you hold
IMPS both vulnerable

Ax xx QJTx QJTxx

Simple looking hand but mentor and mentees do not see eye to eye:)))

[jjbrr]

this will be unanimous

[hrothgar]

jjbrr, on 2014-April-16, 09:11, said:

this will be unanimous

This SHOULD be unanimous

[neilkaz]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-16, 09:14, said:

This SHOULD be unanimous

So far it is. Anything other than 1NTF is a gross overbid and a NMAB (New Mentor Asking Bid).

[diana_eva]

neilkaz, on 2014-April-16, 10:02, said:

So far it is. Anything other than 1NTF is a gross overbid and a NMAB (New Mentor Asking Bid).

I'd guess it's not gzes suggesting another bid, but rather mentees coming from a sayc/NF NT background and charmed by the vulnerability...

[hrothgar]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-16, 10:15, said:

I'd guess it's not gzes suggesting another bid, but rather mentees coming from a sayc/NF NT background and charmed by the vulnerability...

I admit that the rebid over a hypothetical

1♥ - 1NT
2♦

Could be more devisive...

[jjbrr]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-16, 10:15, said:

I'd guess it's not gzes suggesting another bid, but rather mentees coming from a sayc/NF NT background and charmed by the vulnerability...

I'd be surprised if you could find three people, let alone in the same room, who think it's right to bid 2C or 2D with this in 2/1.

[jjbrr]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-16, 10:20, said:

I admit that the rebid over a hypothetical

1♥ - 1NT
2♦

Could be more devisive...

This is true, and for any newer players reading this and looking for useful discussion, this auction does warrant some thought.

One bid that is available in this auction that maybe isn't immediately obvious is 2♠, which can be used to show a really good raise to 3 of the minor. That makes an immediate 3♦ raise something like 8-10ish points and a 2♠ bid something like 10-12ish points. It can be very useful for finding 5m or thin 3NT contracts.

Obviously this doesn't exist when the opening bid is 1♠ rather than 1♥.

[diana_eva]

jjbrr, on 2014-April-16, 12:02, said:

This is true, and for any newer players reading this and looking for useful discussion, this auction does warrant some thought.

One bid that is available in this auction that maybe isn't immediately obvious is 2♠, which can be used to show a really good raise to 3 of the minor. That makes an immediate 3♦ raise something like 8-10ish points and a 2♠ bid something like 10-12ish points. It can be very useful for finding 5m or thin 3NT contracts.

Obviously this doesn't exist when the opening bid is 1♠ rather than 1♥.

2S was my first thought too, but was reluctant to post in N/B. I think following up with 2NT is just fine if 2S is not available.

[Mbodell]

While I agree that this is a very clear 1NTF it also isn't that far from a 2♣ response. For instance, if the shape was 1=2=4=6 with the ♠A moved to clubs I think 2♣ would be right. If instead of xx it was Qx of hearts I think 2♣ would be clear. Instead of xx of hearts if it was JT of hearts maybe we are on the border and I could imagine some folks bidding 2♣.

It does depend a little too on how light we open. A few people also play 2/1 gf except if minor rebid at 3 level, so some of them might have other ways to get out on these hands that are too light for a traditional 2/1 GF but that are 2m in SA.

[diana_eva]

Mbodell, on 2014-April-16, 15:03, said:

While I agree that this is a very clear 1NTF it also isn't that far from a 2♣ response. For instance, if the shape was 1=2=4=6 with the ♠A moved to clubs I think 2♣ would be right. If instead of xx it was Qx of hearts I think 2♣ would be clear. Instead of xx of hearts if it was JT of hearts maybe we are on the border and I could imagine some folks bidding 2♣.

It does depend a little too on how light we open. A few people also play 2/1 gf except if minor rebid at 3 level, so some of them might have other ways to get out on these hands that are too light for a traditional 2/1 GF but that are 2m in SA.

If this was a mentor - mentee session I think advocating "upgrades" to 2/1 responses is a bad idea. Teaching beginners how to break the rules before they master the rules is not helpful - will only confuse them IMO. It's fine to miss a few borderline games or slams as long as the bidding was correct and the decisions were indeed borderline.

[mcphee]

Hard to imagine bidding anything other than 1NT, even if playing SAYC. Those that feel this is worth 2C playing sayc should review their thinking.

[eagles123]

surely if you don't bid 1N u ain't playing 2/1

[mike777]

I think all of us...I mean all of us forget that words such as

suit
rank
trumps
honors

are very confusing

I mean most have no idea how many cards in a deck...or what the hell a deck is? nothing to do with cards


how many suits in a deck OR WHAT THE HECK A SUIT IS

how many cards in suit

rank of suit, LET ALONE WHAT THE HECK RANK MEANS

etc


this reminds me of the days when people said right click....or write click?

teaching is hard

[rhm]

eagles123, on 2014-April-27, 14:30, said:

surely if you don't bid 1N u ain't playing 2/1

jjbrr, on 2014-April-16, 11:55, said:

I'd be surprised if you could find three people, let alone in the same room, who think it's right to bid 2C or 2D with this in 2/1.

There is a theory, espoused by top players like Kit Woolsey, that it is better to overbid and force to game with hands where strain and level is unclear, but thereby making sure you end up in the right strain from the right side.
Invitational sequences are often murky and imprecise. The risk getting too high is more than offset by getting to the best contract
I wonder what Kit Woolsey would bid here, but I can well imagine him preferring 2♣ and force to game.
Yes there might be no game, but if there is one, 2♣ is much better to explore all your options.
Partner is not always minimum when he opens the bidding and sometimes game makes with less than the usual requirements for them.
For example, it is not hard to see that you could go down in a notrump partial, while 3NT declared from partner could make.
2♣ red at IMPs is reasonable and you are playing 2/1 if it forces to game.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-16, 15:24, said:

If this was a mentor - mentee session I think advocating "upgrades" to 2/1 responses is a bad idea. Teaching beginners how to break the rules before they master the rules is not helpful - will only confuse them IMO. It's fine to miss a few borderline games or slams as long as the bidding was correct and the decisions were indeed borderline.

If mentee means novice, I agree.
But it sounds to me more like advanced tournament player, wanting to improve their judgment....
No point using book examples with clear answers then...

Rainer Herrmann

[diana_eva]

rhm, on 2014-April-30, 05:30, said:

If mentee means novice, I agree.
But it sounds to me more like advanced tournament player, wanting to improve their judgment....
No point using book examples with clear answers then...

Rainer Herrmann

Since this was posted in Novice/Beginner forum, I assume it was a session with beginners and not advanced players.