-2
and 1
-3
)
as forcing raises of the major suit that was opened (the hand you would
normally bid Jacoby 2NT with). Here is the response structure I suggest
for these raises. The emphasis is on opener describing his hand. Opener
can always show whether or not he has extra trump length, extra values,
as well as if and where he has shortness.
-2
- Opener's responses:| 2NT | 5 trumps, extra values, balanced |
3![]() |
Any minimum (but see 4
below) |
3![]() |
5 Trumps, extra values, unbalanced |
3![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, balanced |
3![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, singleton or void in spades |
| 3NT | Unused |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, singleton or void in clubs |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, singleton or void in diamonds |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, minimum, balanced |
-3
- Opener's responses:3![]() |
Any minimum (but see 4
below) |
3![]() |
5 Trumps, extra values, unbalanced |
3![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, balanced |
| 3NT | 5 Trumps, extra values, balanced (forcing) |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, singleton or void in clubs |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, singleton or void in diamonds |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, extra values, singleton or void in hearts |
4![]() |
6+ Trumps, minimum, balanced |
when hearts was opened) show shortness in the suit bid (like splinters)
but also show extra values and extra trump length.The auction has gone:
1![]() |
2![]() |
or | 1![]() |
3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
3![]() |
3 |
or 3
) to ask. Opener responds
as follows:
Jxxxx
KJ
AQx
Q10x).
This is the one sequence in my entire system that contradicts the definition
of serious 3NT in the first article.
AQxxx
xx
xx
AJxx).1![]() |
2S | or | 1![]() |
3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
3![]() |
3 |
Here are a couple of suggestions:
1![]() |
1NT |
|---|---|
2![]() |
? |
Kx
A10x
xxx
Jxxxx
Do Not Pass. Bid 2
or 3
(I prefer 2
). Game is still
possible in spades (partner has something like:
AQJTx
x
xxx
AKQx),
clubs (slam is excellent opposite:
Axxxx
x
Ax
AKxxx),
or no trump (
Axxxx
Kx
xxx
AKQ).
By bidding you will occasionally take a minus when you would have made
2
but the potential game (or
slam) bonus is much more important (at IMP scoring anyway).
1![]() |
1NT |
|---|---|
2![]() |
? |
| Hand 1: | xxx |
x |
AQxxxx |
xxx |
| Hand 2: | Qxx |
x |
KQxx |
Jxxxx |
| Hand 3: | Ax |
x |
AJTxxx |
Qxxx |
with all 3 of them. That would give the raise of partner's minor too wide
a range and make it impossible for him to judge accurately. There is an
easy solution when hearts is the suit that has been opened:
rebid
as some kind of conventional raise. 2
has no natural meaning since responder did not bid 1
at his first opportunity.
I prefer to play that 2
shows either a hand like Hand 1 or a hand like Hand 3 (that is either a
weak raise with a lot of trumps or a hand almost worth a 2/1). With a hand
like Hand 2 you simply raise opener's minor (this is called a courtesy
raise). Over responder's 2
rebid, opener can return to his minor with no game interest or bid 2NT
to ask which hand type responder has. This 2NT bid will not effect who
declares a possible no trump contract because responder has already bid
1NT. After opener's 2NT inquiry, responder can go back to 3 of the minor
with Hand 1 or make some other descriptive bid with Hand 3. When 1
is the opening bid, things are more difficult. If opener bids 2
,
you can use responder's 2
rebid as an artificial force. There are many variations of this convention.
The one that I play is called BART. Unfortunately it is quite complex,
but if interest warrants I will discuss BART in a future article. Notice
that BART (or one of its variations) does give something up (the natural
2
bid) while the 2
bid discussed in the previous paragraph is free (it does not replace a
natural bid). If opener's suits are spades and diamonds, bidding is extremely
awkward. If somebody has a good solution to this problem, I would be happy
to hear it.
1![]() |
1NT |
|---|---|
2![]() |
2NT |
| ? |
There are 6 types of hands that opener might wish to describe:
The structure that I use lets opener show all of these hand types at a convenient level. After that, responder is usually in a good position to place the contract or at least to know what the best trump suit is (if any). In the above auction, this is how opener would continue:
3
- Artificial force (types
2, 4, or 5 above). Responder must bid 3D and opener will clarify.
3
- Type 1 above. Responder
would either PASS, take preference to spades, or raise diamonds with a
good fitting hand.
3
- Type 6 above. Responder
can place the contract in the appropriate game, bid 3
to show 2 card support, 4
to
agree hearts, or 4
with a
good hand in support of diamonds.
3
- Type 3 above. Responder
would usually PASS, but might occasionally raise spades or go back to 4
.
If opener bids 3
(the artificial
game force, types 2, 4, or 5), responder must bid 3
.
Opener would then bid:
3
- Type 2 (5-5 game force)
3
- Type 4 (6-4 game force)
This structure works in all sequences in which opener's second suit
is not clubs. If opener's second suit is clubs, the 3
bid is needed to show the weak 5-5. 3
is now used as the artificial force. There are only 2 sequences:
1![]() |
1NT |
|---|---|
2![]() |
2NT |
| ? |
3![]() |
Type 1 (weak 5-5) |
3![]() |
Type 2 (strong 5-5), 3 (weak 6-4), or 4 (strong 6-4) |
3![]() |
Type 5 (strong 1534) |
3![]() |
Type 6 (strong 3514) |
)
if he wants to play 3
(Type
3, weak 6-4). Responder will bid 3H and opener can pass.
1![]() |
1NT |
|---|---|
2![]() |
2NT |
| ? |
3![]() |
Type 1 (weak 5-5) |
3![]() |
Type 2 (strong 5-5) or 4 (strong 6-4) |
3![]() |
Type 3 (weak 6-4) or 5 (strong 5134) |
3![]() |
Type 6 (strong 5314) |
(artificial force) followed
by 3NT unless clubs is his second suit. If clubs is opener's second suit,
he bids 3
.
.The last thing I would like to offer is a warning: Unless you are willing to really learn a system well with a regular partner, you are better off without it. Not knowing your system will get you poor results, ruin the game for your opponents, and create ethical problems that you really do not need. The more complex and artificial your methods, the greater the scope is for all of these types of problems.
I am not suggesting that everyone has to play methods as complex (and I believe effective) as those that I present. Having agreements with your partner is the important thing. They do not have to be the best possible agreements. In fact, I strongly believe that having simple agreements that your partnership knows well is far more effective than having complex agreements that your partnership is uncomfortable with.
If you believe that the methods I have described are too complex for you or your partnership, then I hope I have been able to show you some weak parts of how you play 2/1. If you do feel like you would like to adopt some or all of these methods, all I can tell you is that it is worth the effort. You will experience one of the most satisfying parts of bridge when the perfect hand for your methods actually comes up (as it will)