1D - 2C

Reviewing Shep's 2/1 at www.bridgementor.com, I see that the opening sequence 1D – 2C is not treated as a game-force. That strikes me as probably a good idea, since the 2/1 GF structure works best with the major suit openings and the forcing 1NT response. When I play with Elwood, 1D – 2C is a game force, and as a consequence 1D – 3C has to be invitational, showing a 6-card suit, and non-forcing. That is playable, but it introduces an asymmetry into the treatment of 1C and 1D openings that I find aesthetically dissatisfying. If 1D – 2C is not a game force, the asymmetry can disappear.

The notes on Shep's 2/1 continue that the 2C response denies a 4-card major. That sort of approach just doesn't sit well with me, even though it has a long 2/1 pedigree. Known as Walsh, it has been a part of “West Coast Scientific” for thirty years or more. Walsh bidders will bypass a 4-, 5-, or even 6-card minor to bid a 4-card major suit. Commonly seen at the one level after a 1C opening, you can also apply the same general idea over 1D, choosing to bid 1H or 1S even when holding a longer club suit. But I don't like it. My preference would be to respond to 1C and 1D as I would in old-fashioned Standard American. Basically, when I am not strong enough to respond at the two level, and may even be making only one bid, I will choose to mention a 4-card major while I can. But if my hand is strong enough to respond at the two level, it is also strong enough to bid twice, and I can afford to bid naturally, long suit first and shorter suit second. I dislike distorting the picture I paint of my distribution when I don't really need to.

Perhaps the answer is that I tend to think within a weak no-trump frame of reference. Consider the sequence 1D – 2C; 2NT - ? If you play 1NT as 15-17, then Opener's minimum NT rebid has to be 12-14 balanced. If the 2C response could be as weak as 10-11 hcp, it is now somewhat dangerous for Responder to go fishing for 4-card majors. It would be very easy (almost inevitable) for you to find yourself in a lot of games with sub-minimum total values when both Opener and Responder are at or near their allowed minimums. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to get your major suit investigations started immediately, so that Responder can comfortably pass that 2NT rebid. And it could be argued that the “natural” approach I prefer is unsound when you play a strong no-trump, unless you play that 1D – 2C is a game force, and Opener can rebid a major suit without it being a reverse (just bidding out shape).

But consider the same story when an opening 1NT shows 12-14 hcp. Now that minimum NT rebid by Opener after 1C or 1D shows at least 15 hcp. So the sequence 1D – 2C; 2NT has become a game force by simple arithmetic – there are at least 25 or so hcp between the two hands. Now Responder doesn't worry about bidding a new suit at the three level, because he knows that the partnership will not be out of its depth in 3NT. My comment slipped in earlier that “if my hand is strong enough to respond at the two level, it is also strong enough to bid twice” is true when you play a weak no-trump, but not necessarily if you play strong.

I enjoy thinking about bidding sequences in this way, and quite often surprise myself when I work through something and discover an underlying connection that isn't readily apparent. I mean, without having thought about sequences carefully, if you read about Walsh, did it occur to you that its utility is connected to the strength of your 1NT opening? I was startled when I suddenly saw it.