new suit responses to 2C

[shevek]

Partner opens 2♣ as 6+, no 4cM, 10-14.

When does responder bid 2M and what happens then?

 

2M is not usually played as forcing, so where does it lie along the line of corrective - constructive - invitational?

 

If ♠KQTxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣x is okay, then opener will be doing a lot of passing.

 

If ♠AQxxx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣xx is acceptable, opener will need to rip with shortage. If so, is 2NT invitational or to play?

 

After 2♣ - 2♥ when does opener bid 2♠. Is it a 3-1-3-6 (3-1-4-5) minimum?

 

Also, should the same treatment apply after 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♣/♦?

Or is 2M best as forcing?

This is more problematic if 2♣/♦ does not deny a 4cM.

[the hog]

We played it as 7-11, 5+ suit. I would just marginally pass your first example.

secondly 2NT should NEVER be to play. A lot of work has been done by theorists on this. When one hand has a 6 card suit, you are unlikely to make exactly 8 tricks. You can play 2NT a variety of ways, 6-4 ms, a max hand with C (3C is a min with C and no fit).

 

After 2♣ - 2♥ when does opener bid 2♠. Is it a 3-1-3-6 (3-1-4-5) minimum? No we played this as a min, but with 3 card H support and a S fragment eg 3316

[Apollo81]

Speaking as someone who regularly plays the 2♣ opener more or less as described by the OP:

 

1. I think it's important to be able to play in 2M, so I prefer 2M "NF" 5+

 

2. 2♣-2♥-2♠ is 3-1-4-5 with very good clubs or 2-1-4-6, allowing responder to pass with a 5 card spade suit or correct to a diamond suit. We would usually respond 2♥ if weak 5-5-2-1, for instance. Opener doesn't have to have a minimum to make this call.

[Stephen Tu]

I've always thought transfers would work better in this situation w/ no 4 cd major possibility. Need to work out rules for openers acceptance/super-accept/rebid suit/rebid 2nt. And move your artificial relay to 2S. Given the more constrained opener I don't think you need 2d for this purpose, and besides the transfer will give more options for the strong responding hands.

[blahonga]

We play 2m as 6+ 11-15 or 5m4om 12-15 and denying a 4cM. The 2M response over 2♣ or the 2♠ over 2♦ shows 9-12 with a five card suit or 9-10 with a six card suit.

 

After this we play

 

pass min with 2card support

2NT min, short in partners major and 4 in om.

3m min, short in partners major and 6+m

3om max, short in partners major and 4 in om.

oM max with 2card support.

3M min with 3card support.

3N max with short in partners major and 6+m.

jump in new suit splinter raise

4m max, 6m3M(22)

 

According to this 2♣ - 2♥ -; 2♠ would be a max hand with 2 hearts for us.

[keylime]

Larry and I play xfers over our 2C, and have found that it opens a lot of avenues for us. Our 2C does not promise a major at all (otherwise we open the major).

[samuelgl]

I remember that Sabrina Precision use transfer responses to 2C.

 

2D=H,

2H=S,

2S=ASK,

others forgotten :-(

[PrecisionL]

Larry and I play xfers over our 2C, and have found that it opens a lot of avenues for us. Our 2C does not promise a major at all (otherwise we open the major).

Yes, we do. But, someday ACBL is going to object as I can not get approval since 2♣ is a natural bid.

 

Accept the transfer with xx or better in the suit.

 

Without transfers, 2♥/♠ = a good 6 to bad 10 hcp with HHxxx or better. Opener can pass. All Game Invitational hands go through 2NT asking Min or max. 3♣ = min.

 

Larry

[rbforster]

But, someday ACBL is going to object as I can not get approval since 2♣ is a natural bid.

Don't worry - they don't care (or shouldn't anyway) -

 

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2♣ or higher.

[PrecisionL]

But, someday ACBL is going to object as I can not get approval since 2♣ is a natural bid.

Don't worry - they don't care (or shouldn't anyway) -

 

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2♣ or higher.

Well, they do care! That GCC statement is NOT interpreted by ACBL Directors as allowing transfer responses to a natural 2♣ opening less than 15 hcp - I have a 2007 e-mail disallowing transfer responses to a Precision 2♣ opener.

 

Larry

[jdonn]

But, someday ACBL is going to object as I can not get approval since 2♣ is a natural bid.

Don't worry - they don't care (or shouldn't anyway) -

 

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2♣ or higher.

Well, they do care! That GCC statement is NOT interpreted by ACBL Directors as allowing transfer responses to a natural 2♣ opening less than 15 hcp - I have a 2007 e-mail disallowing transfer responses to a Precision 2♣ opener.

 

Larry

Can you post that? It seems in direct contradiction with the GCC. There is no room for interpretation - the statement from #7 is quite clear.

[blackshoe]

email from whom?

 

Appeal it. To the BoD if necessary. If the quote above from the GCC is accurate, and your email interpretation is also accurate, then the interpretation directly contradicts the regulation.

[ccw]

Larry and I play xfers over our 2C, and have found that it opens a lot of avenues for us. Our 2C does not promise a major at all (otherwise we open the major).

 

 

This is interesting b/c it will give responder lots of extra options... But don't you worry that defenders will be know too much about declarers hand? the acceptance implies at least two cards and the original opening implies six...

 

Collins

[PrecisionL]

email from whom?

 

Appeal it. To the BoD if necessary. If the quote above from the GCC is accurate, and your email interpretation is also accurate, then the interpretation directly contradicts the regulation.

July 7, 2006   e-mail from rulings@acbl.org

 

Dear Larry,

 

According to the ACBL General Convention Chart, this agreement would not be allowed. All conventional responses to artificial opening bids are allowed, but, if 2C is natural, then, transfer responses are not allowed.

 

If you were playing in a game in which the ACBL MidChart was permitted, which would be the case if you were playing in a Flight A event or the top bracket of a KO where the minimum average holding of the lowest team in the bracket was 1000 points, this agreement would be permitted.

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

Mike Flader

 

[Question:  Can transfer responses be used in reply to an opening bid of 2 clubs which is natural (5 good clubs or better, no 4M) and 11-15 hcp?]

[blackshoe]

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2♣ or higher.

 

That is a direct quote from the current version of the GCC posted on the ACBL website. It is item 7 under "allowed responses and rebids". I can find nothing elsewhere on the GCC that contradicts this allowance. Therefore, while I don't often disagree with Mr. Flader, I maintain that in this case he is wrong.

 

Perhaps he can be persuaded to state on what basis he says it's illegal.

[PrecisionL]

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2♣ or higher.

 

That is a direct quote from the current version of the GCC posted on the ACBL website. It is item 7 under "allowed responses and rebids". I can find nothing elsewhere on the GCC that contradicts this allowance. Therefore, while I don't often disagree with Mr. Flader, I maintain that in this case he is wrong.

 

Perhaps he can be persuaded to state on what basis he says it's illegal.

If 2♣ is natural, then transfer responses can NOT be used is Mike's conclusion. Transfer responses are allowed to weak 2 bids (not that many would want to play such a poor convention) but NOT where it would be really useful, in response to a Precision 2♣ opening.

 

Larry

[PrecisionL]

Larry and I play xfers over our 2C, and have found that it opens a lot of avenues for us. Our 2C does not promise a major at all (otherwise we open the major).

 

 

This is interesting b/c it will give responder lots of extra options... But don't you worry that defenders will be know too much about declarers hand? the acceptance implies at least two cards and the original opening implies six...

 

Collins

No, I don't worry about the defenders in this case. There are still 5 cards unknown. This approach solves the G.I. hand with a good 5-card or 6-card major which is a Major problem with the Precision 2♣ opening.

 

Larry

[awm]

So Flader is saying that:

 

(1) If 2♣ is weak with 5-6 clubs (i.e. a weak two bid) then transfer responses are fine.

 

(2) If 2♣ is intermediate with 5-6 clubs (i.e. precision two) then transfer responses are not okay.

 

This seems bizarre, in addition to contradicting what is clearly stated on the general chart, it would be the only example where responses to a bid showing 5-10 hcp are more permissive than responses to a bid showing 10-15 hcp with the same distributional requirements. This is quite nonsensical, since there is much more danger of shenanigans (i.e. psyching a transfer, showing a good hand on zero points to talk opponents out of the auction) opposite the weak variant.

 

One can also ask, what lets you play 2♦ as "invitational or better relay" over a precision 2♣? Obviously this is allowed (it is part of almost every standard precision system) but generally you can't have an "inv+ relay" response to an opening call. The rule which allows this on the general chart is exactly the same rule which allows transfer responses, and which Flader is trying to argue doesn't apply to precision 2♣....

[blackshoe]

If 2♣ is natural, then transfer responses can NOT be used is Mike's conclusion. Transfer responses are allowed to weak 2 bids (not that many would want to play such a poor convention) but NOT where it would be really useful, in response to a Precision 2♣ opening.

I am aware that is his conclusion. I question his logic.

 

As to weak two bids, Mike didn't say anything about them in the email quoted upthread, so I don't know where you get that idea (although transfer responses to weak twos would be allowed under the same provision under which I maintain that transfer responses to a Precision 2♣ are allowed).

[blackshoe]

One can also ask, what lets you play 2♦ as "invitational or better relay" over a precision 2♣? Obviously this is allowed (it is part of almost every standard precision system) but generally you can't have an "inv+ relay" response to an opening call.

I think you need to be careful here, as I infer that you are referring to the prohibition against "relay systems". By the definition of the quoted term (at the top of the GCC, item 3, iirc) the prohibition only applies to opening suit bids at the one level.

[PrecisionL]

I forgot my solution to the ACBL prohibition against transfers by responder to a 2♣ Precision Opener promising 5+♣ and maybe a 4-card major.

 

Since Dwayne and I do NOT open 2♣ with a 4-card Major (Hxxx+), we have used a 2♦ response as asking for a 3-card major suit (maybe Hx in a strong hand). Thus, the adjunct is that 2♣ (p) 2M = constructive, but not forcing and less than G.I. values.

 

We will probably get called on this sometime this year.

 

Larry

[blackshoe]

Frankly, if I were playing such a method, and "got called on it", I'd ask the director to show me the pertinent regulation. In writing.

[jdonn]

Frankly, if I were playing such a method, and "got called on it", I'd ask the director to show me the pertinent regulation. In writing.

Frankly if I were the director, I'd say no. :P

[blackshoe]

When I was learning how to be a director, I was taught that one should always read rulings "from the book". I don't always do it because, around here, players have no patience for it. But if a player asked me to do it, I would never refuse. I've heard several excuses from directors as to why they can't read some ruling or other from the book. "I don't have a book here." "It's in the car." Blah-blah-blah. Such a director is either incompetent or lazy, or both.

 

Directors make wrong rulings. They're human. But they won't learn to make the right rulings if they aren't called on their mistakes. If I asked a director to read something "from the book" and he refused, I would appeal. I feel strongly that this particular ruling is wrong, and that I would be wrong to just let it go. YMMV.

[jdonn]

When I was learning how to be a director, I was taught that one should always read rulings "from the book". I don't always do it because, around here, players have no patience for it. But if a player asked me to do it, I would never refuse. I've heard several excuses from directors as to why they can't read some ruling or other from the book. "I don't have a book here." "It's in the car." Blah-blah-blah. Such a director is either incompetent or lazy, or both.

 

Directors make wrong rulings. They're human. But they won't learn to make the right rulings if they aren't called on their mistakes. If I asked a director to read something "from the book" and he refused, I would appeal. I feel strongly that this particular ruling is wrong, and that I would be wrong to just let it go. YMMV.

Oh I agree it's wrong. I also don't believe the director is under any obligation to show you diddly. You of all people, Mr. Stickler for the laws, should agree unless you can find a rule that says he has to.