bucky

:( I had a very bad experience with a 8-10hcp balanced hand opposite my partner's 2♣ opener (some other partner) sometime ago. I bid 2N and we ended up in 6N. Only 2 tables failed to make 12 tricks out of 16 tables. Ours and a 6♠, both of which were played by South (I was South at our table). I then became convinced that having the strong hand play the contract (which is worth 1 trick) was crucial. I posted the hand in General Discussion. So yes, I am always trying to play 2♦ waiting. Your bad experience came from responding 2NT to 2♣, which is usually (but not always) bad. But when you have a positive hand and suit worth showing, responding in SUIT will help partner count the number of tricks. This is particularly true when your hand has shape, you need to tell partner lots of information, a nebulous 2♦ is not a good start in achieving that. And it doesn't mean you will have to end up being declarer either. In short, I think it is premature to jump to the conclusion to ALWAYS bid 2♦ from one bad experience of responding 2NT.

Yes, for this hand there is no difference. But we were talking about the right defense in general.

It almost doesn't cost anything to pass here. You are not unhappy if 2♦ gets passed out (partner should have 3+ diamonds for the double). More likely LHO will bid 2♥, and when that is passed to you, you can then balance with 2♠.

I didn't imply that a particular system is good or bad for B/I. My point is that, bidding fundamental is about card evaluation and judgment. When that can be shown in a most natural way (as few relay as possible), the benefit will be most appreciated.

But most don't play 2♠ as gf.

I don't quite get it. If you are good enough to bid 2♣ then bid 2NT over 2♦, you should be good enough to reverse on strength.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. With this hand, wouldn't declarer simply draw 3rd trump, ruff a small H in dummy, and play a spade toward his ♠K? I am assuming the declarer is of at least average caliber, who may make subtle mistakes but not butchering hand like this.

Phil, This becomes an even more interesting problem then. Surely LHO will go up with the King if they have it. If that is the case, then declarer has 2 hearts, 2 heart ruffs, 4 diamonds and the Spade King for 9 tricks ... so we can never set it if partner has Qx of Spades. With ♦8 in hand, how can declarer ever take TWO heart ruffs and come to 9 tricks?

I agree with you Josh. I was just speculating why OP didn't think of the 2♠ bid, and I was reminded of the experience I had with a BBO-expert. But yes, that doesn't affect what SHOULD have been done.

I am not convinced this is suitable for B/I. There was enough trouble to decide what to open and to respond. Natural bidding sequence with good evaluation and judgment is best (like the one Josh proposed, although responder may consider rebidding 3♦ instead of 2NT after opener's jump shift, but either sequence will reach 6♦ painlessly).

I have a feeling that OP may not want to cuebid to confuse partner. That may be why 2♠ wasn't even in the list of possible bids he gave. I once did it on a similar hand with a random expert partner on BBO, and I was left playing in 2♠.

Both the 2♣ opening and the 2♦ response share the same problem: making a nebulous bid when a more descriptive bid is available.

I think what you missed is this question: what do you bid when you don't have 3-card support?

Agree with Stephen's first post. And this is not about 2/1, rather standard natural bidding in general. And again, I feel that although it is not wrong to discuss it at "SAYC and 2/1 forum", the "beginner and intermediate" forum is a more suitable place for these posts as these discussions really benefit beginners.

1. 2♥ should show 5+. 2. Depends on your agreement. You can choose to play it as forcing, sign-off, or constructive. I think the majority in North America play it as constructive but non-forcing. 3. Have you thought about consulting partner by bidding 2♠ first (assuming he doesn't take it as natural and pass)?

If you are interested in making artificial bids just for the sake of establishing GF, you should probably look into some of relay system structures. In sayc or 2/1, the idea is to bid naturally. If in that process we can show a natural suit AND game-forcing value, we will want to take advantage of that. But it is unsound (under the framework of sayc or 2/1) to GF just for the sake of GF.

Missing 7! :D

I think vulnerability has a huge role to play. When w/r, I agree with your assessment; not only should partner give me more leeway, but the opponents are also more likely bidding on value, which makes it less likely that partner has enough to even consider raising me in first place, so you have relative safety. When r/w, partner will take me much more seriously, as I am supposed to bid to make, not to sacrifice. Under unfavorable vulnerability I definitely want partner to raise me to slam with 2 aces and a side Q (and he will). So it is pretty crazy to bid with this hand r/w; you either go for a number, or even when it is the right contract partner will be entitled to raise you, making it a lose-lose situation. In short, I believe it is right to bid w/r, just as it is wrong to bid r/w. When we are at equal vulnerabilities, it is unclear. But since I don't want to take speculative actions at 5-level when it is unclear ("FIVE-level belongs to the opponents"), I'd pass with equal vulnerabilities as well.

Wouldn't it be better to use X to show this? This way you express desire to compete but doesn't overstate your shape. Of course if this is an unpassed hand, you need a much stronger hand for X, but as a passed hand, I think you have enough value for this action, and keep the bidding flexible. Then 3♥/3♠ can be reserved to show extra shape in terms of length.

Just curious, what structure do you guys play after (2♥) 2NT (P) ? If 3♠ shows clubs, how do you show diamonds?

Hmm, you agree with North's 3♠ bid? If 2♦ shows 5-5, why does North have to bid 3♠ to repeat the same message? To me, 3♠ should show extra shape, something like 6-5 in the majors (and weaker suits since I would definitely have opened with 6-5 shape and SAQ/HKJ). I do agree that South should bid 4♠, given North's 3♠ bid (which in my view is wrong).

FWIW, I don't think one should be deterred from bidding at w/r, just because oppoents play precision, or like majority of BBO players who bid 1♠ - 4♠ with 13+ HCP and 3+ spades. In fact, if opponents are known to bid to make, I don't have to worry about partner having a good enough hand that can raise my 5♦.

No one seems to have mentioned this yet: one of the possible dangers of bidding 5♦ is that, whatever you can make, partner may take it seriously and bid to one or two levels higher. That being said, I think in long run it is a winning style to bid 5♦ w/r. At this color, partner should proceed with extra caution. I'd rather miss occasional slams (because partner thinks I am joking) than being hanged for competing and pushing opponents.

Technically speaking, it also gains if RHO has ♠QJ9 to begin with, along with 4 clubs, though I realize it is unlikely RHO plays a deep game and false card ♠Q.

Bid 3♦. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. :)