After 1D -1S - 2NT

[kenberg]

The auction 1D-1S-2NT came up today and of course it often does.  Being a lesson hand, I commented. And I will expand it bit on the various possibilities.


Sometimes the hand belongs in a partscore, but usually it will be played in at least game and maybe slam. So which game and which slam?

Perhaps responder holds 5+ spades and there is an 8+ card fit. Playing in spades seems right.

Perhaps opener has a 2=4=4=3 shape and responder has a 5=4=2=2 shape. Playing in hearts seems right.

Perhaps opener is 2=4=4=3 and responder is 4=3=4=2. Maybe 3NT is a fine game contract but for slam maybe we should be in diamonds.

Perhaps opener is 2=3=4=4 and responder is 5=3=1=4. Again 3NT might be a fine game contract but perhaps a club slam?

And so on. How do we sort this all out? My comment at the table was that I thought continuations after 1D-1S-2NT have not been given the attention that they deserve. It's simpler after 1D-1S-1NT. Playing NMF we can bid 2C and, if it goes 1D-1S-1NT-2C-2D we can and should play 3C as a game force with clubs Playing 2 way NMF gives even more options. But that jump 1D-1S-2NT takes up room and I think it gets really tough to accommodate all the possibilities.

I have thought that a simple method is to play that after 1D-1S-2NT then a bid of 3S is forcing, asking partner to bid 3NT if he has 2 and to bid 4S if he has 3. That frees up the 3C bid and 3D bid for other uses. But I have not really thought though the details. I am interested in seeing references. On the hand today I was responder with a 5=3=2=3 shape and just bid 3C, figuring the default understanding would be NMF. It worked out fine. But the hand was simple. Partner had three spades, we played 4 , we made an overtrick. But on another day?

[jcreech]

Hence Bobby Wolff's lebensohl-like concept of the Wolff signoff.  Where 3 puppets to 3 on weak hands, and allows the next bid to be passable (just as 2NT is passable).

[kenberg]

Hence Bobby Wolff's lebensohl-like concept of the Wolff signoff.  Where 3 puppets to 3 on weak hands, and allows the next bid to be passable (just as 2NT is passable).

I have never played the Wolff sign-off but I can see how it could be useful. Perhaps I am too optimistic but I am more interested in how to explore for various slams, in particular minor suit slams, after the 1D-1S-2NT beginning.

I think that sign-offs below game are less of a problem if a pair plays weak sump shifts. We begin 1D-1S. Playing weak jump shifts that 1S will not be on six spades to the K and out, with that hand we can start 1`D-2S. With five spades to the Q and out, I probably pass 1D. Make it five spades to the KJ and I would bid 1S but then, over 2NT, it is not really all that certain I want to puppet my way to 3S. Maybe just let pard struggle. Nobody has doubled us yet. But getting out in 3 might well be useful. I ned to find some details about the Wolff sign-off.

But it has occurred to me that 1D-1S-2NT-3C could be a dual purpose bid. It could be a potential sign-off but then, after the 2D, if I now bid 3NT that means that I have real clubs and think maybe the hand might belong in 6C.

Aha. I see from https://www.bridgehands.com/W/Wolff_Signoff.htmthat W plays 1m-1S-2NT-3C-3D(forced)-3NT as a slam try in m. Reasonable.

[jcreech]

Ken,

As you well know, all systems and conventions involve give and take.  Something that would be useful in another context is often lost in the current.  The best you can do is to find the best mix for what is important to you and your partner, and hope you can find a way to communicate the rest without confusion.

All this is why I describe my favorite convention on Bridge Winners as "The one that best describes my hand at the moment its needed (when needed, it is almost never played by the partner at the time, and if it is, then partner has forgotten it.)"  Which is another way of saying I am a believer in Murphy's Law and its correlates as espoused by his collaborator and disseminator Sean Finagle.

[kenberg]

Absolutely.
And there are priorities.
A minor suit slam after 1D-1S-2NT is possible but probably not very frequent. So with limited time for discussion we should probably focus on matters such as whether 1H-2D-2H promises six hearts (I much prefer that it does  not).
So I have decided that unless we really want to get into things, then probably we just play NMF after 1D-1S-2NT.  Surely it is not best, or even close to best, but it leaves time for more basic questions.
Still, I would be interested in knowing what is currently being played by long term expert partnerships. Assuming that they are playing 1D-1S-2NT as a somewhat balanced 18-19 of course.
Maybe it is some form of Wolff, but I sort of think not. BWS says:

"After a one-level new-suit response and opener's two-notrump rebid:
(a) responder's three-club rebid is artificial, and opener bids three diamonds unless he has three-card support for responder's major (responder's next bid up to and including three of his original suit is nonforcing; otherwise, responder's next bid is a signoff if that is possible; otherwise, it is a choice of games if that is possible; otherwise, it is a checkback for an eight-card major-suit fit if possible; otherwise, it converts the three-club rebid into a natural bid in the minor that three diamonds over two notrump would not have shown);
(b) responder's three-diamond rebid shows a fit for opener's minor;
(c) four clubs is Gerber."

I'm still working on understanding that. I guess that (b) says, after 1C-1M-2NT, that 3D shows a club fit.  Ok by me, but better discuss it before hauling it out.

[blubayou]

I had to refer to the BWS2017 note above a few MSC-months back, and quickly concluded that the consensus method used to decide what bids mean had gone utterly and completely off the rails in this area.  All of those "or"s are mutually exclusive in regard to one or more of the other "or"s.  I do however  like that bit near the end that reminds us that reminds us that 3 diamonds shows a raise of WHICHEVER minor opener started with, as 3 clubs is always the Wolfe-like relay.  But they should scrap all those "otherwise" items and start over , as job-one when, "BWS2025"  is being assembled.   And run the compiled decisions through a good B-S-detector as just mushing all the voters' choices together may make no more sense than it did 4 years ago.

[kenberg]

At the very least, they need to work on the presentation. I have thought a little more about tis. Here is an example:

1 - 1 - 2NT - 3 - 3 - 3NT.

We look at what was bid and what was nor bid and try to guess/infer what is going on. Over 3 , opener could/would have bid 3 so if responder has five spades he has no worries now about missing the spade fit. Over 3 , responder could have bid 3 . Now that's a little trick since we see "opener bids three diamonds unless he has three-card support for responder's major (responder's next bid up to and including three of his original suit is nonforcing; otherwise, responder's next bid is a signoff if that is possible; otherwise, it is a choice of games if that is possible", so I guess 3 !h is non-forcing. But is it really? If opener has four hearts his hand just got better, surely he wants to raise to 4 , and if he does not have four hearts I think he wants to get out of hearts. With Hx in spades I think 3 is plausible, responder knows he does not have three spades. So I think some sequences that could be noon-forcing really could be seen as forcing. They could clear this up. And now, after 1 - 1 - 2NT - 3 - 3 - 3NT, might they wish to be in 5m or 6m? Not if m is . If responder has a fit along with five spades, it could have begun 1 - 1 - 2NT - 3 . Opener can still bid his three spades if he has them. But what does responder do if he has clubs?  Well, if the hand is strong enough so that they might want to be in6 , he could have started with 1 - 2 if he holds, say, a 4=2=2=5 shape. And otherwise, I think that they just forget about clubs.

That's the best I can do. But really I don't know what they are saying.  The plan might be fine, but the exposition leaves me confused.