responding to 2C

[jillybean]

I have always played 2♣:2♦ as 0-7 points or ‘waiting’ good hand, no bid available.

2♥, 2♠, 2nt all positive, 8+

 

Most players at the club play 2♥ is bust 0-3 no Ace or King.

 

It was suggested that I can’t play 2♦ as 0-7 and ‘waiting’ it must be one or the other.

I don’t see why it can’t be played like this, the 2♣ opener must rebid and I can either show a minimum or make a forcing bid with a good hand.

 

Your comments on this and is 2♥ bust a better use of the bid?

 

tyia

[hotShot]

I use:

2♦ 0-3

2♥ 4-7

3♠ 8-9

Anything else 10+ NT balanced suits are 5+

This way opener can decide what level we should reach.

I prefer 2♦ to be 0-3 because opener can bid both majors and NT after that (to let the strong hand play).

 

I don't like "waiting" i think it just wastes a bid.

[inquiry]

is 2♥ bust a better use of the bid?

Yes, emphatically yes.

 

It was suggested that I can’t play 2♦ as 0-7 and ‘waiting’ it must be one or the other.

I don’t see why it can’t be played like this, the 2♣ opener must rebid and I can either show a minimum or make a forcing bid with a good hand. 

 

Your comments on this

 

You certainly can play the way you do, and many do. They play a positive suit response as five card suit headed by two of the top three honors, or someother discriptive minimums.

[kenberg]

Fred, who certainly has more claim to your attention than I do, advocates the 2H as a bust. I understand it to be one of those things with some hidden snags, so a little study is probably worthwhile before diving in.

 

Now about "waiting" versus"negative" . The issue is how you respond to 2C holding something like

 

KTxxx

Qx

Axx

xxx

 

People who say the play negative would respond 2S, those who play waiting would respond 2D on the grounds that they have values but a 2S response promises a better suit, usually they insist on KQxxx at a minimum.

 

The advantage of the waiting bid is that when the 2S call actually comes up, it is very descriptive. The disadvantage, and I think it is substantial, is that it can be difficult to get your values across in a hand such as the above. Eg: 2C-2D-2H-Now what? Quite possibly this hand belongs in six of something. Either you have to get your values across to partner so he can move, or you have to try to take charge, discover what he has, and make the key decisions. If he has six hearts or three spades, all will go well. If not, this could get tough.

 

Aces Scientific, written eons ago when the Dallas Aces were hot, has various practical suggestions including some artificial bids. Useless if your partner is not on the same wavelength. So, as with anything, there can be problems if the extent of the discussion is "Over 2C?", "Waiting?", "OK". 2C isn't an everyday opening so the problems often don't show up.

 

One more thing about waiting: If your partner wants to play waiting, try hard to get him to relax the requirements for the auction 2C-3C. Here is why: after 2C-2D-2H a bid of 3C is a second negative (I assume) and most likely 4C is a splinter. Over 2C-2D-2N a bid of 3C is Stayman (of course) and 4C may well be Gerber. Even if 4C shows clubs it's a space hog. So if you cannot bid 3C over 2C when you have values and clubs, the clubs can never be shown.

 

Let me know how you like the negative 2H if you try it.

[jdonn]

The 2♥ bust convention is very popular at most bridge clubs I have been to. On a higher level, some excellent players like it (such as Fred), and some excellent players hate it (as Fred freely admits). Personally I hate it, and I would even much rather respond 2♦ on 100% of hands than use that. I think it just gets in opener's way when he has hearts without great gain, as well as preventing him from being able to use Kokish (and after all, it's when responder is most weak that opener is most likely to be game forcing balanced).

[kenrexford]

If you use 2♥ as bust, keep in mind one thing that many people forget. This is not a request for partner to place the contract. In other words, partner's next call is usually still forcing one round.

 

The most common situation is 2♣-P-2♥-P-2♠. This is not passable, despite the weak values. With support, raise even with zero points. Some play 3♣ here as "no, I'm really bust." Personally, I just like to bid naturally, often 2NT, kind of like the old-school 2♠ opening, followed by 2NT. This way, partner can complete pattern, you find the right spot, partner is not stuck with game in his own hand, etc.

 

The same goes for 2♣-P-2♥-P-3min. Still forcing.

 

2♣-P-2♥-P-2NT is probably best played as passable.

 

As noted, the 2♥ call comes with a price -- what to do as opener with five hearts. 3♥ is a high bid to make, especially if it is forcing like the other calls. Of course, one option for Opener is to pass 2♥. This creates a strange counter-intuitive idea. If Opener has a heart-based hand that cannot be described as balanced (2524/2542 might go through 2NT after 2♥) and cannot be bid backwards (e.g., 2♣-P-2♥-P-3minor with 6min/5hearts) and cannot be passed after the 2♥ response and cannot comfortably handle forcing game with a 3♥ bid after 2♥ would typically be opened 1♥. Thus, strangely, a 1♥ opening might be stronger than a heart-based 2♣ opening (when too strong to pass the 2♥ negative but not strong enough or right for 3♥). This might typically be something like 5-5 in hearts and a minor.

 

To me, the solution for the problem that jdonn notes is this potentially bulky 1♥ opening. I'm comfortable enough with that, especially considering the ease of auctions after 2♦ is GF. Note that the "hiddeen cost" to a 2♥ double negative response is that Responder must keep the auction open on slightly lesser values than usual after a 1♥ opening.

[jdonn]

To me, the solution for the problem that jdonn notes is this potentially bulky 1♥ opening.  I'm comfortable enough with that, especially considering the ease of auctions after 2♦ is GF.  Note that the "hiddeen cost" to a 2♥ double negative response is that Responder must keep the auction open on slightly lesser values than usual after a 1♥ opening.

It is so easy to just say "I will open 1♥ instead of 2♣ on strong hands with hearts, problem solved" without considering everything that arises. These sorts of changes have huge and far reaching implications. Consider the following:

 

If this is how you play a 1♥ opening ("Thus, strangely, a 1♥ opening might be stronger than a heart-based 2♣ opening") then responder has to keep the bidding open with nothing at all, not merely "slightly lesser values" than otherwise. And this is particularly true on hands without a heart fit, since you even admit these very strong hands are more likely to be opened 1♥ when they are two suited.

 

So how many times will it go 1♥ p 1NT p 3♥ and there you are with 17 opposite 2 and not even in a fit. Or 1♥ p 1♠ p 1NT with 13 opposite 3. Or 1♥ p 2♥ p 4♥ down a couple.

 

Or how many times will it go 1♥ p 1♠ p 3♦ and responder has a 9 count, wondering if he bids 3NT whether opener has 19 or 25. Or if opener should pull the 3NT bid with 25, how does responder feel with the 1 count he was forced to respond on?

 

Or how many times will you be unable to double the opponents because you are worried responder has nothing?

 

Or does opener now raise the requirements for a jump shift since the range for it became so wide, so with some 19 count he has to bid 1♥ p 1♠ p 2♣, and so responder can't ever safely pass on THAT auction?

 

And allllll of this was to cater to the hands where one of you has 23 and the other has 2, which aren't even that hard to bid with old fashioned methods.

 

Look, all reasonable methods work fine on most hands, and even though I hate the 2♥ bust convention you will usually do just fine, so if that's what you are comfortable with then you should play it. But it's a monumental mistake to try to solve the problems the convention might create by screwing with other (far more common) bids. If you play something that will occasionally have a cost (in this case that opener has lost his convenient ways to show 2♣ openers with hearts or 25+ balanced when responder has a bust) then just live with the cost and do the best you can.

[kenrexford]

jdonn,

 

I'm not sure why you are mis-describing what I have proposed and then knocking down that misdescription with an argument that does cover what I actually wrote.

 

You will notice that I never stated "problem solved!" Rather, I noted that I was comfortable with the unfortunate realities created by the 2♥ double negative. Being comfortable strongly implies, or was meant to imply, and could be contextually understyood to mean, that the evils for me are less problematic than the benefits.

 

What I noted was that there is something between 2♣-P-2♥-P-P-P and 2♣-P-2♥-P-3♥ that must be opened 1♥. I also gave the most common specific case, namely the 5-5 player with hearts an a minor. With strong enough values, and two-suited,m you could bid 2♣...3♥...4minor. With a minimum 2♣ opening, you could probably pass 2♥ with six hearts. However, with insufficient values to force game opposite a 2♥ response, but too strong to pass 2♥, you would open 1♥.

 

This does not mean that every hand must be bid after a 1♥ opening, as you suggest. Rather, the "big hand problem" is one where passing is a bad idea when Responder has a fit. Thus, Responder will tend to raise 1♥ with lesser values than usually are expected. If you play a constructive raise approach, as I do, then these weak raises are handled via a forcing 1NT. So, whereas you might otherwise pass 1♥ with something like xxx-Qxx-Jx-xxxxx, you might now feel obligated to bid a forcing 1NT and then bid 2♥, showing a bust raise. You would not feel obligated to make a call that yields a 17-count opposite a 2-count "without even a fit" because that would be stupid.

 

Remember that the bulky 1♥ hand is one that is unbiddable, and Responder will be aggressive when he can cater well to that. In other words, Responder will not pass a 1♥ opening if he would have liked an auction that started 2♣-P-2♥-P-2♥, insufficient bid accepted.

 

I know that you are an extremely talented player, so I'm sure that this makes a lot more sense to you now, eh?

[jdonn]

Sigh, yet again....

 

My masochistic tendencies prevent me from just letting that last post go, but I am going to move this dicussion out of the B/I forum to the SAYC and 2/1 discussion forum when I respond later today. Sorry about the confusing posts guys, it's at least as much my fault as anyone's.

[awm]

As I understand it, the argument in favor of 2♥ showing a bust is that it makes the auctions that start 2♣-2♦ substantially cleaner. Now responder can bid out his shape with some gamegoing hand, without worrying that some natural bid will be construed as a second negative, or that opener might think a direct raise is potentially based on a zero-count. The 2♥ bust method is not particularly good when responder has a bust and there are certainly losses associated with those sequences. But honestly, even conditioned on opener having 22+ points, how often do you have less than 3? It's not that frequent.

 

One alternate approach I've seen advocated uses 2♥ to show moderate values. The problem with this is that these "moderate" hands are a lot more common than the busts. Now you have systemic losses when opener has 22+ and responder has (say) 4-7. Admittedly you're always going to game on those hands, but the continuations will be awkward to say the least after 2♣-2♥(moderate values)-3♥, when opener could have a heart one suiter or hearts and any other suit, or a semi-balanced heart hand, and you have virtually no room to sort this out before 3NT (which could easily be the best game).

 

In any case, there is no perfect solution. Basically you can either try to take some hands out of the strong 2♣ (creating wider-ranging one-level openings, or adding extra strong bids or multiway bids to the method at the cost of preempts) or you can decide on which hand types you're willing to be guessing.

[SoTired]

I use:

2♦ 0-3

2♥ 4-7

3♠ 8-9

Anything else 10+ NT balanced suits are 5+

Don't play this. It is universally comdemned by experts. Whether responder has 6 HCP or 7HCP is usually irrelevant to opener. It also steals bidding space for little useful purpose and may wrong side the contract. If you insist on playing "steps", use steps that show the number of controls where A=2 and K=1. So 2D=0-1, 2H=2, 2S=3 in same suit, 2N=3 in different suits, 3C=4 and 3D=5+. This is a little more useful to opener, but still has problems.

 

Playing 2D = 0-7 is poor also. It means with 8 or 9 hcp you must find some other bid. It is only a little better than the "steps".

 

Many play that an immediate 2H = 0-3 with no king and 2D= waiting and GF. This is an easy way to play. It allows responder to immediately show a bust hand. Over 2H: It is forcing by responder to 3M or 2N. Opener may pass 2H. If opener bids 3H or 3S, it is forcing. If opener bids 2S, then 3S, responder may pass if truly busted.

 

If playing 2H = immediate negative, then responder may bid own suit if it is headed by 2 of top 3 honors and at least 5-cards for a major and 6-card for a minor. 2S, 3C, and 3D responses to 2C are natural. 2N = a heart suit.

 

Another way to play the "negative" hand is called "second negative". An immedate 2D = waiting. After opener rebids 2H, 2S, or 3C, responder bids the cheapest 3m = 2nd negative with 0-3 and no king. If opener rebids 3D over 2D, responder cannot show the 2nd negative, always leaving 3H and 3S as natural.

 

Please be aware that there is another special "negative bid" by responder. If opener rebids a natural 2M and responder jumps to 4M, this shows at least 3-card support, but no outside aces, kings, voids or singletons. Responder is allowed to have a top trump honor.

[goobers]

I never really liked cheaper minor 2nd negative, which is why I play 2H bust. You will be at the 3 level, with no information at all from responder aside from "my hand is very bad." It gets even worse when the auction is 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦. Now 3N is the 2nd negative. Yuck.

 

For what it's worth, I really like 2H bust because it's easy, and basically the only problem is when opener has hearts. (I don't play any complicated structures like Kokish or whatever, so if you only play 2D waiting, then I think 2H bust is good agreement with few downsides.)

[Stephen Tu]

Playing 2D = 0-7 is poor also. It means with 8 or 9 hcp you must find some other bid. It is only a little better than the "steps".

 

Can you explain why this is poor? I think that forcing 8+ hands (w/ 2+ controls (A=2, K=1), or something like A+K) to make some immediate real positive response is a good thing. Show that you are close to slam, but not necessarily enough to force a slam, and let opener take control thereafter. Instead of trying to catch up later after opener signs off in game because your later positive move could be on just one ace or K. I personally usually play 2d neg, swap 2h/2nt, so that 2h is this "other bid". You lose some space when partner has hearts, but you gain some valuable inferences when the positive is not made.

 

I think it's easier to judge whether it's worth risking beyond game level for slam exploration when responder can be divided into 3 tiers of strength (0-4-), (4+-7-), (good 7/8+) rather than just 2 (0-4, 4+).

[Badmonster]

Last year I agonized about this for a few months. I asked a lot of excellent players what they thought. Many great players advocated 2h negative. I am willing to believe them. A few excellent players thought a second negative was better, and what the heck, I'm willing to believe them too. What everyone agreed on was this: That a bad agreement is better than no agreement and that you have to have a way to show a total bust. Hope that's of some use.

[Apollo81]

I have always played 2♣:2♦ as 0-7 points or ‘waiting’ good hand, no bid available.

2♥, 2♠, 2nt all positive, 8+

 

Most players at the club play 2♥ is bust 0-3 no Ace or King.

 

It was suggested that I can’t play 2♦ as 0-7 and ‘waiting’ it must be one or the other.

I don’t see why it can’t be played like this, the 2♣ opener must rebid and I can either show a minimum or make a forcing bid with a good hand.

 

Your comments on this and is 2♥ bust a better use of the bid?

 

tyia

You can certainly play 2♦ as 0-7 or waiting positive.

[the hog]

Kathryn, you can play whatever responses you like to 2C.

 

There was a thread a few weeks ago about this. One of the methods I quite like was that used by the great Seres-Cummings partnership of few years ago. Seres was one of the best players in the world at that time.

2D - all positives

2H - absolute negative

2S+ semi positive transfer responses, (5-8, 5+ suit)

(2S = flat or 3 suited, 2N = C, 3C = D, 3D = H, 3H = S)

[SoTired]

The reason for the super negative rather than just 0-7 negative, is that it allows opener to get out below game when that is right.

It also allows opener to not have to explore for slam when opener is huge because it precludes responder possessing a king.

 

The "step" responses based on HCP are the most useless... I am sorry if I have offended your pet convention. It may seem logical to you, but quacks to the 2C bidder are generally useless information, unless the 2C bidder is balanced. If opener is balanced, opener will rebid some number of NT indicating HCP and responder can place the final contract, so responder's immedate HCP count is not needed. If opener is unbalanced, after a fit is established opener usually needs control info (A, K, singleton, void) and HCP is again useless.

 

The space taken away by step responses is needed to find a fit below game level. This is particularly true if opener is minor oriented.

 

By usually responding 2D, opener can rebid 2M with a major oriented hand, thus re-gaining the strong 2 bids lost by weak-2. If responder bids 2H with 4-7, opener is required to bid 3H with a heart hand, responder now bids 4H to show a fit. Now opener has to make a critical guess: Does that 4-7 HCP include any aces or kings? If not, the 5-level may not be safe. But passing may risk missing a playable slam.

 

OTOH, suppose you play 2D waiting only (no super negative at all). The bidding might go: 2C 2D 2H. With support, responder bids 3H with an outside control and 4H with no outside control. Responder still has a super negative available. Opener has the critical 4-level to get and receive a q-bid before deciding whether to bid beyond 4H.

[skjaeran]

With my regular partner we open 2NT with 22+-24, and have put the 20-21(22-) NT in the 2♣ opening.

 

Our responses to 2♣ are:

2♦=waiting

2M=natural, suggestion to play vs 20-21NT (opener not forced to pass w/20-21).

2NT=transfer to ♣, opener accept with 20-21 (responder could have a bust)

3♣=transfer to ♦, as 2NT

3♦/♥=transfer, positive, KJTxxx or better suit, opener's accept is slam inv

3♠=GF w/55m

3NT= 9-11 balanced (3334/3343) max 1 control

 

We use 3♣ as 2nd negative after 2♣-2♦-2M.

We have thus removed a lot of hands from the 2nd negative, and are able to play 2M vs 20-21NT when appropriate - applies very seldom, but gains whan that happens.

[kenberg]

Last year I agonized about this for a few months. I asked a lot of excellent players what they thought. Many great players advocated 2h negative. I am willing to believe them. A few excellent players thought a second negative was better, and what the heck, I'm willing to believe them too. What everyone agreed on was this: That a bad agreement is better than no agreement and that you have to have a way to show a total bust. Hope that's of some use.

This seems very sensible. You need to be able to say when you have nothing, when you have a bit, and when you have more. Partner needs to be able to understand which of these things you are saying. Finding a system that does more than this is tough. If there was a clear winner, everyone would be playing it.

 

 

Too much complexity for infrequent hands is dangerous, especially with partnerships that don't play together regularly. With one partner I play control responses (A=2, K=1, the responses to 2C indicate the total). Unfortunately I forgot. Partner opened 2C, I had values and a decent club suit so I responded 3C, which shows a control total of 4. Partner looked at his three aces and three kings and decided that unless the deck held five kings I couldn't have 4 controls. He took a shot at 6N which made on the nose. If he had one fewer(!) kings we probably would have been in 7. Leave the complexities to Meckwell, play something that works well enough most of the time, and that you remember.

[Stephen Tu]

The reason for the super negative rather than just 0-7 negative, is that it allows opener to get out below game when that is right.

It also allows opener to not have to explore for slam when opener is huge because it precludes responder possessing a king.

 

This is superior to ch. minor 2nd negative how? There's plenty of room below game to find if responder has a king or not anyway, and hands where opener is one trick shy of slam are extremely rare. The only advantage I see here is that you can keep the suit quality requirements for a 3c natural response fairly high, since responder is under less pressure to show clubs right away. But I've always thought that high requirements (2 top 3 honors) for suit positives are counterproductive, because this makes the response far too rare. It's more common for the really strong hand to be looking at 2 supporting honors in the suit than for responder to have 2.

 

The "step" responses based on HCP are the most useless... I am sorry if I have offended your pet convention. It may seem logical to you, but quacks to the 2C bidder are generally useless information, unless the 2C bidder is balanced.

 

I'm not advocating pure point step responses, which I don't think anyone good likes. I'm suggesting requiring responder to make positive noise with 8+ and 2+ controls (so don't make positive on just QJ/QJ/J/J, it's not about passing info on quacks), rather than bidding 2d which as most people play might only be one ace or 2 Qs, enough for game but not really encouraging slam. If you bid only 2d with the stronger hand type, you have an extra potential trick that can sometimes become awkward to show, and don't know if that is sufficient for slam. This isn't my "pet convention"; it's a treatment I saw recommended by Marshall Miles in Bridge World. Note that Fred Gitelman also uses a bal pos response, though he uses both a double negative 2H & moves the bal pos to 2S.

 

If opener is balanced, opener will rebid some number of NT indicating HCP and responder can place the final contract, so responder's immedate HCP count is not needed. If opener is unbalanced, after a fit is established opener usually needs control info (A, K, singleton, void) and HCP is again useless.

 

On balanced hands, an immediate double neg 2h response interferes with using Kokish, forcing 25+ bal to jump to 3nt. On unbalanced hands, knowing whether responder can or cannot have that extra ace/K or not can make the decision to go beyond game easier. It also allows responder to back off in 3nt without a fit, without having underbid his hand by a trick.

 

The space taken away by step responses is needed to find a fit below game level. This is particularly true if opener is minor oriented.

If opener is minor oriented, his bid after 2d will be 3m. A bal pos below 2nt doesn't interfere with that at all.

 

By usually responding 2D, opener can rebid 2M with a major oriented hand, thus re-gaining the strong 2 bids lost by weak-2. If responder bids 2H with 4-7, opener is required to bid 3H with a heart hand, responder now bids 4H to show a fit. Now opener has to make a critical guess: Does that 4-7 HCP include any aces or kings? If not, the 5-level may not be safe. But passing may risk missing a playable slam.

I'm not advocating a 4-7 response, I'm advocating an 8+ response, that guarantees a K (+ at least another A, or K+Q). After 2c-2h-3h, responder can just start cue bidding implying support, or can bid NT without.

 

Mainly I'm disputing your statement that "2d = 0-7" (w/ ch. min 2nd neg) is a poor treatment. I think it's quite playable, and putting an upper limit on how good responder can be is a useful inference at times. 2d = 4+ doesn't tell you quite as much.