Ignoring the side major

[han]

Yesterday I picked up

 

AQx

Axxxx

xx

Kxx

 

Partner opened 1S and I bid 2C, gameforcing. The idea is that there is no need to introduce hearts unless partner has 4. Would you do the same?

 

It reminded me of a hand from Boston that a Swedish friend gave me:

 

A10x

AQxxx

A109xx

-

 

Partner opens 1S, do you bid 2H or 2D? His argument was that 2D will get you to either red 5-4 fit and is therefore superior. That makes sense but that queen of hearts seems an even bigger reason to bid hearts instead. What do you think?

[kenrexford]

Yes.

[han]

Of course I knew I'd have your support on the first hand Ken. What about the second question, do you think 2D is clearly better?

[kenrexford]

Of course I knew I'd have your support on the first hand Ken. What about the second question, do you think 2D is clearly better?

That hand was discussed in another post, actually.

 

On it, I noted uncertainty. On the one hand, 2♦ has the advantage of allowing the weird hand (my hand) to control the auctiuon better if the other hand (Opener) bids hearts first, because my hand will know of the 5-4 fit. I liked that.

 

On the other hand, 2♥ has the advantage of enabling a clear cue of the heart King when spades will end up being the final contract.

 

I think I ended up liking 2♦ most, but I cannot remember. I think I would do either at the table depending on my mood.

 

Actually, I just checked -- you started that post!

 

I'd also add that I kind of like the reasoning that bidding 2♦ allows you to simultaneously check on two different 5-4 fits before committing to spades.

 

Count me for 2♦ -- I'm sold.

[helene_t]

Maybe 2♠ should show a GF hand with exactly three spades. Then you could bid 2♦ with four spades, since a natural diamond respond is not needed (with diamonds you respond 2♥ ).

[han]

Actually, I just checked -- you started that post!

 

True, I did, and you were the only one who made a serious response.

[cherdano]

It depends on agreements. I would like to bid 2♥. If we have a double fit, I would like to know about it, not because it makes slam great, but because it tells me I have to worry about a third round heart loser.

However, if I can't show a spade fit over 1♠ 2♥ 3♥, then 2♣ is probably better.

 

I think I have convinced myself to bid 2♣ playing with Han (well our agreements for 1S-2C make it even more attractive), and 2♥ playing pickup 2/1.

[han]

Another advantage of 2C is that it allows partner to bid 2D, which gives you more information at a lower level and gives you the option to set trumps at the 2-level.

 

Our auction (not with cherdano) started with 1S-2C-2D-2S-3D-3H, by now we had exchanged much more information than we would have if I had responded 2H. I think ace-empty fifth is not such a good suit to tell partner about if you are not really interested in playing in it.

[MarkDean]

Yesterday I picked up

 

AQx

Axxxx

xx

Kxx

 

Partner opened 1S and I bid 2C, gameforcing. The idea is that there is no need to introduce hearts unless partner has 4. Would you do the same?

 

It reminded me of a hand from Boston that a Swedish friend gave me:

 

A10x

AQxxx

A109xx

-

 

Partner opens 1S, do you bid 2H or 2D? His argument was that 2D will get you to either red 5-4 fit and is therefore superior. That makes sense but that queen of hearts seems an even bigger reason to bid hearts instead. What do you think?

On the first hand, I would definitely bid 2H. I actually prefer methods where 2m shows 5+. The problem I see is partner falling in love with KJxxx xx Axx AQx or the like. I think misconveying your hand like this is generally a bad idea unless you forsee taking over and making the final decision.

 

Perhaps I am just a simple guy, but I tend to bid my long suits.

[han]

Well you can want all you want but we weren't playing a natural 2NT response or something equivalent so basically 2C has to show 3 (it would be automatic on AQx Axxx xxx Kxx). So it wouldn't be a misdescription. From my point of view 2C showing 5+ is very non-standard (by which I don't mean to say that it isn't a good method) so basing your answer to my bidding question on your methods when it is absolutely clear that I was not playing such methods is rather useless.

 

Perhaps I am just a simple guy, but I tend to bid my long suits.

 

Fair enough, certainly something to be said for that approach.

[jdonn]

I prefer 2♥ on the first hand because I am far more interested in partner's heart holding than his club holding (I know, he could discount a singleton, but still...) Since I'm a minimum game force with good controls, a slam could be based on running two suits even if we are short in high cards. While it's true 2♣ is not a misdescription in the sense that the partnership allows it on a three card suit, I think it fails to make a better description. But there is no doubt 2♣ could save space in the auction, although that's of less utility than usual since at least one aspect of my hand (the fifth heart) would not get shown after starting with 2♣ no matter how much space is available.

 

It's worth noting I tend to explicitely agree that 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ is natural support, not a cuebid. I don't know what your agreement was, but if you can't support spades naturally there then there is a world more reason to start with 2♣.

 

On the second hand, I have to admit 2♦ would never have occured to me. Your partner convinces me a little, but not enough to actually have me seriously consider bidding anything but 2♥.

[mike777]

Very interesting thread.

 

I would have bid 2h on deal one and two but then I play partner can rebid 3 of a minor without showing extras(not a majority viewpoint).

 

 

As a side note I emailed an edited version(1s=2h=3h=3s) of this around and here is one response:

 

"This shows 3 or more spades, establishing a double fit.

 

You cannot cuebid in partner's suit at your first opportunity here.

 

I play a specialized structure here, by the way.

 

3N=No extra values but stuff to cuebid (non-serious 3N)

4C, 4D=Cuebids showing extra values

4Major=Nothing to cuebid and nothing extra (to play)

4N=6 keycard, 2 queen blackwood

 

Some play the cheapest new suit is double fit blackwood (rather than 4N)."

[kenrexford]

Echo Han that 2♣ is not remotely a mis-description if it is systemically allowed.

 

I would also note that I am not that concerned about not showing the five-card heart suit, but that is because of the methods advantages when, as did occur, spades can by agreement be set at the two-level.

 

The auction start Han had was:

 

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♠

3♦-3♥

 

At this point, the partnership has not even reached 3♠, despite two bids of some meaning (depending on what the meaning was), which is a lower start than...

 

1♠-2♥

something-3♠

 

This seems good to me.

 

All that said, though, what to respond seems to be a function of what tools you have. If the general tools are pattern bidding, then patterning back and forth with generally quantitative takes and rough fit/non-fit analysis would be helped best by bidding 2♥. If the style is control-focused, then 2♣ seems right. To each his own.

 

BTW -- I absolutely hate any agreement where 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ is anything but a cue. I think it is HORRIBLE to exclude the ability to show what may be the most important card in Responder's hand for consideration of a heart slam.

[mike777]

Ken I guess I just have found that the following has not been an issue:

 

1s=2h

3d(no promise of extras)=3s(3 spades) or

 

1s=2h

3h=3s(3 spades)

[jdonn]

BTW -- I absolutely hate any agreement where 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ is anything but a cue. I think it is HORRIBLE to exclude the ability to show what may be the most important card in Responder's hand for consideration of a heart slam.

Now I know I'm not going to change, I make a point to avoid any cuebidding agreements that Mr. Rexford approves of!

 

Seriously though, don't you have to admit it's all in the context of system. For example, if you are a weirdo who responds 2♣ with five hearts and three clubs, then on hands where you respond 2♥ you obviously won't be so interested in other suits.

[kenrexford]

Ken I guess I just have found that the following has not been an issue:

 

1s=2h

3d(no promise of extras)=3s(3 spades) or

 

1s=2h

3h=3s(3 spades)

Huh?

 

The problem is not when you DO have a spade fit.

 

The problem is when you DO NOT have a spade fit.

 

As a simple real-world example, I'll give you Responder's actual hand in a bidding problem that occurred for someone. ♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx. Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts. Now what?

 

As partner is KNOWN to have five spades, would it not be of obvious importance to Opener whether you do or do not have that missing honor that could or could not fill in his nice suit?

[the hog]

If 2C is a game forcing relay, then that is what I bid. Otherwise i would make the normal 2H bid. How else is partner to know how to value to KQ of H?

[mike777]

Ken I guess I just have found that the following has not been an issue:

 

1s=2h

3d(no promise of extras)=3s(3 spades) or

 

1s=2h

3h=3s(3 spades)

Huh?

 

The problem is not when you DO have a spade fit.

 

The problem is when you DO NOT have a spade fit.

 

As a simple real-world example, I'll give you Responder's actual hand in a bidding problem that occurred for someone. ♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx. Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts. Now what?

 

As partner is KNOWN to have five spades, would it not be of obvious importance to Opener whether you do or do not have that missing honor that could or could not fill in his nice suit?

ok

 

As I said I have never had this problem but it seems I have two choices.

4h=minimum, which I have(2h is big bid for me)(no minor suit cuebid)

3nt(serious 3nt, very often looking for some club cuebid)

[kenrexford]

Ken I guess I just have found that the following has not been an issue:

 

1s=2h

3d(no promise of extras)=3s(3 spades) or

 

1s=2h

3h=3s(3 spades)

Huh?

 

The problem is not when you DO have a spade fit.

 

The problem is when you DO NOT have a spade fit.

 

As a simple real-world example, I'll give you Responder's actual hand in a bidding problem that occurred for someone. ♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx. Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts. Now what?

 

As partner is KNOWN to have five spades, would it not be of obvious importance to Opener whether you do or do not have that missing honor that could or could not fill in his nice suit?

ok

 

As I said I have never had this problem but it seems I have two choices.

4h=minimum, which I have(2h is big bid for me)(no minor suit cuebid)

3nt(serious 3nt, very often looking for some club cuebid)

I think you just made my point:

 

"I have two options. I either show that I have serious interest or I show that I have a dead minimum with no interest."

 

LOL

[han]

On the second hand, I have to admit 2♦ would never have occured to me. Your partner convinces me a little, but not enough to actually have me seriously consider bidding anything but 2♥.

Unfortunately this guy is not my partner.

[MarkDean]

Well you can want all you want but we weren't playing a natural 2NT response or something equivalent so basically 2C has to show 3 (it would be automatic on AQx Axxx xxx Kxx). So it wouldn't be a misdescription. From my point of view 2C showing 5+ is very non-standard (by which I don't mean to say that it isn't a good method) so basing your answer to my bidding question on your methods when it is absolutely clear that I was not playing such methods is rather useless.

 

Perhaps I am just a simple guy, but I tend to bid my long suits.

 

Fair enough, certainly something to be said for that approach.

I would still bid 2C in standard, but I agree telling you what I would do in my pet system is useless...and I always get aggravated when people do it to me.

[awm]

On the first hand it is kind of a style thing. I like a treatment where 2♣ is bid on many balanced hands (start of GF relay or something) but without this agreement partner will usually consider 2♣ to show a suit. This can lead to evaluation problems like Mark pointed out, despite the fact that it is always possible that 2♣ was bid on three cards (it's not frequent if you don't bid that way on canape hands like this). It is also possible that bidding 2♥ will set up "two suit keycard" later in the auction which could be quite useful, and bidding 2♥ right off also helps determine whether partner has extras (i.e. makes a high reverse) which can help in slam bidding too.

 

On the second hand, most of the time your auction is going to start 1♠-2RED-2♠. What's the next call? It seems like you are probably going to bid either 3♠ or 4♣ in this case (depending on how much you like to splinter). Wouldn't you rather have started with 2♥ (tell partner ♥K is a huge card) rather than 2♦?

[brianshark]

I like to bid my 5 card suits because it's a useful thing to show in slam auctions, even if that suit is not going to be the trump suit. Even if you have the agreement that 2♣ is a semi-natural GF bid, it tends to deny the ability to GF by showing a good 5-card red suit, so it's still a misdescription. In the case of hand 1, the suit wuality is borderline, but I think I'll still bid it.

 

Agree with Adam about the second. Bidding 2♥ means you don't find find out about a 9-card heart fit, but you find out about 8+ card heart fits which are almost as useful and a lot more common.

[whereagles]

Just wanted to say that when a 2/1 if game forcing, the "usual" rules for showing suits kind of shift. The idea of altering priorities therefore has merit.

 

What to alter is, however, a different story. The ideas presented here are just the beginning. Discussion is encouraged.

[maggieb]

Well let us hear about that story of yours smart guy!

 

As for me, I would always bid 2H at the table but I can see the merits of 2C. It's just not something I would ever do.