Over a negative

[Echognome]

I guess they are the same except I am limited to one jack with my queen, but you can have up to four. You win on jacks!

Yes and you can also positive on jacks alone.

 

Of course everything it is ultimately judgment.

 

JT98xx JT9xx x x would be a positive for me.

 

Qx Jxx Jxxx xxxx

 

would not.

[pclayton]

In Vegas, I positived on JT9xxxx xx QJT Q. Its probably clear to do so, but its also the weakest positive I think I've ever made.

[Finch]

I haven't replied to the poll because I have never played this "2H super negative" thing.

 

But it seems obvious that 3H has to be forcing. You open 2C because you have a game forcing (or very strong balanced) hand. If you suddenly make non-game suit bids non-forcing, it rather ruins the point of having a game-forcing opening to begin with. How else are you going to bid very strong 2-suiters?

[mike777]

agree 2h non super negative ....simple deny A or k but unlimited tiny points.....

 

 

 

responder strains to rebid........yes this is vague but.............

[SoTired]

One reason for defining 2H super negative to be less than K+, QQ, or QJJ, but not JJJJ (according to the original article I read from Mike Lawrence) is it allows opener or responder to bail in a part-score in certain sequences. This allows you to open 2C on slightly wider range of hands, particularly those that have spades. 2C-2H-2S-2N/3x-3S is NF

 

Playing 2nd super negative with same weakness definition, responder can also bail on non-Kokish 2C-2D-2H-<2nd neg>-3H or Kokish 2C-2D-2H-2S-3H

[pclayton]

I've had partners pass me in 2♥ twice. Both times I had five hearts and a stiff. Fortunately we didn't make 6 lol.

 

On a slightly related topic, with several of my So Cal partners we play a 2♦ opener as a balanced 20-21 and 2♥ as a negative response. We have had beaucoup good results passing 2♥ (when the field toiled in 2N) so I suppose the principle can be extended to 2♣ - 2♥.

 

Personally I don't think 3♥ should be forcing either, and I think Frances' concern about two suiters is outweighed by the much more frequent 20 count with just hearts. Furthermore, unless the hand is a flat-out monster, its opened with a one bid.

 

A 2♣ opening has become lighter in the last five years (agree?), so perhaps some some sort of forcing call after 2♣-2♥ would be helpful.

 

Perhaps 2♠ could be artificial which would allow you to play 2N, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥ as all NF. David Chuan had a bit in the ACBL bulletin a few months ago about playing 2♠ as Kokish-esque (spades or a big NT), and I think he's on the right track.

[blackshoe]

I haven't replied to the poll because I have never played this "2H super negative" thing.

 

But it seems obvious that 3H has to be forcing. You open 2C because you have a game forcing (or very strong balanced) hand. If you suddenly make non-game suit bids non-forcing, it rather ruins the point of having a game-forcing opening to begin with. How else are you going to bid very strong 2-suiters?

How else, indeed? :P

 

NA players have some problems: in SA (and its variants, like 2/1) the range of a 1X bid is very wide (12-21 HCP), and 2♣ has to cover a lot of hand types. Combine that with the fact that many B/I players don't know what "negative" means in this context (i.e., that "unless you have significant extras I don't believe we have a slam") and the fact that such players are taught not to open 2♣ with a two suited hand (!) and you have our situation. The "solution" in NA to the wide range 1 bid problem is to open more hands - hands that aren't truly FG - 2♣, and to make the sequence (in "standard B/I") 2♣-2♦-2M-3♣ (second negative)-3M non forcing. Now the expert "2♥ double negative" is trickling down to the B/I level, and when opener rebids ♥ at the 3 level, the B/I responder "remembers" that is non-forcing. They also, btw, forget to alert the 2♦ response, which is FG. :)

 

When I learned strong 2♣, many years ago, the only passable sequence was 2♣-2♦-2NT. Now we have more passable sequences (and playing 2♥ "double negative" this one is not passable) and people don't talk about how to deal with all that stuff.

[pclayton]

You open 2C because you have a game forcing (or very strong balanced) hand. If you suddenly make non-game suit bids non-forcing, it rather ruins the point of having a game-forcing opening to begin with. How else are you going to bid very strong 2-suiters?

Perhaps this is part of the problem. 2♣ for anyone that know of, is not, and has never been, game forcing.

[Finch]

You open 2C because you have a game forcing (or very strong balanced) hand.  If you suddenly make non-game suit bids non-forcing, it rather ruins the point of having a game-forcing opening to begin with.  How else are you going to bid very strong 2-suiters?

Perhaps this is part of the problem. 2♣ for anyone that know of, is not, and has never been, game forcing.

This certainly seems to be a NA thing.

 

For me, and for everyone I know, 2C is either 23+ balanced or game forcing. Sometimes we don't always agree on whether a hand is "worth" forcing to game on or not, but no-one ever suggests stopping short of game having opened 2C.

 

So, no, I don't agree that 2C openers have been getting weaker.

 

I don't agree that a 2C opening may be a 20-count with hearts. A 20-count with hearts is opened 1H or 2NT (if balanced). Or, of course, an Acol 2H if available.

 

(yes, OK, I would open AKx AKJ10xxx AJ10x - with 2C but that obviously isn't the point)

 

Is the whole of NA now playing Benji two-bids?

[helene_t]

Is the whole of NA now playing Benji two-bids?

Lol, I suppose whole NA is strugling with defining the forcing character of follow-ups to 2♣, as in this thread for example :)

[Lobowolf]

You open 2C because you have a game forcing (or very strong balanced) hand.  If you suddenly make non-game suit bids non-forcing, it rather ruins the point of having a game-forcing opening to begin with.  How else are you going to bid very strong 2-suiters?

Perhaps this is part of the problem. 2♣ for anyone that know of, is not, and has never been, game forcing.

This certainly seems to be a NA thing.

 

For me, and for everyone I know, 2C is either 23+ balanced or game forcing. Sometimes we don't always agree on whether a hand is "worth" forcing to game on or not, but no-one ever suggests stopping short of game having opened 2C.

 

So, no, I don't agree that 2C openers have been getting weaker.

 

I don't agree that a 2C opening may be a 20-count with hearts. A 20-count with hearts is opened 1H or 2NT (if balanced). Or, of course, an Acol 2H if available.

 

(yes, OK, I would open AKx AKJ10xxx AJ10x - with 2C but that obviously isn't the point)

 

Is the whole of NA now playing Benji two-bids?

I play 2♣ openers as forcing to within 1 trick of game. Balanced 20-counts aren't the problem; the problem is hands that might easily make game when partner has a hand that would fail to respond to an opening 1♥ bid, and it's quite normal to open those hands 2♣ (in the USA, anyway). If you don't have 10 tricks, you don't have 10 tricks, but you get too many 170's opening 1♥ when all you need is a king and a fit.

[Lobowolf]

Is the whole of NA now playing Benji two-bids?

Lol, I suppose whole NA is strugling with defining the forcing character of follow-ups to 2♣, as in this thread for example :)

Which is why all of these threads sort of read to me, when push comes to shove, like: "Why big club systems are superior, Part x+1"

[blackshoe]

ROFL! Much truth to that, Lobo. :)

 

Of course, big club systems are susceptible to preemption. Which is why Romex is now a "two card" system: play Romex (at mps) when vul and "Romex Forcing Club" when not vul.

[kenrexford]

In the end, I think that natural systems with a strong 2♣ have a problem that a strong 1♣ mitigates.

 

However, I think a strong 1♣ approach has a problem that natural systems mitigate.

 

Old fashioned strong two's mitigate both problems incredibly well, at the cost of weak two's.

 

I think a blending of two strong openings (2♣ and 2♦) is the best of all worlds, if the two strong openings are the right to strong openings definitionally.