But seriously, since the bid is forcing (at least by a non-passed hand for all 2/1 bidders), should it be unlimited? I don't think so. While it might at first sight appear arbitrary, I think that 2/1 responses should all be based on at least a healthy interest in seeking a slam while 1NT responses followed by game bids suggest no enthusiasm for slam unless opener has significant extras. Other 1NT responses are obviously not interested in slam. At best, they are invitational to game. At worst they hope to find a safe haven at the two-level.
Let's assume that we have three-card support for partner's 1-of-a-major opening bid (any more and we would not be considering 1NT, and with less we'd still need to find our best strain). Come what may, we're going to support his suit at our next turn. If we start with 1NT, a jump to 3M will not be forcing to game (a "three-card limit raise"). If we start with a 2/1 bid, and then support partner's suit at the lowest level, that will be forcing to game with slam aspirations. Another option is starting with a 2/1 and then jumping to game. Some people play this simply as the principal of fast arrival (PFA) and others play it as a "picture bid" showing cards primarily in the two suits bid.
So, a forcing 1NT followed by a jump to game shows a hand with three-card support and either:
- a non-picture-bid hand (if you have the picture bid agreement mentioned above);
- a hand that is not interested in slam opposite a typical minimum opener (PFA).
So, what should you bid with this hand ♠K74 ♥AJ87 ♦J86 ♣A96 when partner opens 1♠? In my opinion, this is an absolutely automatic 1NT followed by 4♠, or even 3NT, (assuming partner makes a minimum rebid). But not everyone agrees with me.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate the possible responses as follows:
- 1NT: 9
- 3NT: 7
- 2♣: 6
- 2♥: 5
- 2♦: 2
- 2NT: 0
Thanks to Steve for pointing out that 3NT, for those who play it as a 4x3 hand with 13-15, is almost a perfect bid here. I generally don't play that so I didn't think of it. The only fly in this particular ointment is that we do not have diamonds even half stopped. Sure partner should have something, but on a bad day, partner might have only ♦Qx, they set up their diamonds then get in with the ♠A and cash for down 1. Not too likely perhaps but possible. He also feels that 1NT followed by 3NT should show a shapely hand, short in spades, that's actually improved by opener's rebid. That seems sensible.
So, how did our hand turn out? On this particular evening we were playing IMP pairs at the club and, as it transpired, we could do no wrong all evening. Opener's hand (that's to say my hand) was ♠AQ632 ♥K ♦AQT3 ♣J82 and the auction went (opps silent): 1♠ – 2♥ – 3♦ – 3♠ – 4♦ – 4NT – 5♠ – 6♠. 3♦ (the so-called "high reverse") showed extras, as did 3♠. 4♦ showed a control in diamonds and slam interest (valuing the ♥K perhaps slightly higher than it truly deserved but expecting a decent five-card suit). 5♠ showed two key-cards with the spade Q.
I received a low heart lead and was able to wrap up 12 tricks without difficulty once the ♦K was discovered to be in its proper place (actually I'm supposed to make all the tricks because the ♥Q is doubleton) but this wasn't matchpoints. A club lead (rather more obvious on the auction) would have been somewhat more awkward however as I would be required to unblock the ♦T, something I doubt I would have done, not knowing that the 9 was going to fall singleton.
So, I think we were both somewhat guilty of over-bidding resulting in a less-than 50% slam (I need the diamond K onside and the ability to keep finessing from dummy or a non-club lead). If partner's response had been 1NT I think we'd have been able to rest more safely in game. As it turned out, we'd still have won, but by a less impressive margin.
Hi, Robin,
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with 1NT, then 4S on the hand you shows. Or, for that matter, with Fast Arrival calls in general.
The problem, IMHO, is that Fast Arrival does not provide partner with the specific information he needs. Lets take your example of Kxx, AJxx, Jxx, Axx opposite a 1S opening bid. If partner has AQxxxxx, KQx, x, xx, you are cold for slam. But if responder has chosen that auction on Kxx, Jxx, AJxx, Axx, slam has no play. How can opener know the difference when responder has chosen to use up a lot of bidding room without providing opener the information he needs to know?
Perhaps if the 1NT-4S auction showed not just a minimum but a totally nonslammish minimum, something like QJx, KJxx, KJx, Qxx, the use of bidding room might make some sense. But, frankly, I do not think the auction of 1S-1NT-2x-4S really has much meaning at all, and might best be reserved for hands with a just-discovered fit for the suit of partner's rebid and that had been planning on rebidding 3S.
I like the 2H response that was chosen by your partner at the table.
Some of the folks that play 1NT forcing and unlimited do so because they like to reserve the 2/1 response for a five card suit. I think that makes a lot of responding hands very hard to bid, and so I think I would consent to that treatment only if a 2C response could be either clubs or artificial, balanced. Not sure at what levels of games that would be allowed.