Ignoring the side major

[benlessard]

Its normal that when holding semi-balanced hands that you are more interested in what partner hold than making a descriptive bid. Its just that if your system isnt built for it the benefits are probably marginal, in the example partner will often raise to 3C giving little information while if you bid 2H and partner raise you are much better placed.

 

If you often bid 2C on fake suit that partner will bid 2 red with a 4 card suit instead of raising you.

 

If youre often tempted to bid 2C often on fake suit why not just play a relay system im sure youll like it.

[gnasher]

♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx. Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts. Now what?

I bid 3 non-serious notrumps. If you play 3NT as serious, now you have another reason not to.

[whereagles]

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

I haven't given it any thought yet. Sorry :D I just think it's worth considering.

[kenrexford]

♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx.  Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts.  Now what?

I bid 3 non-serious notrumps. If you play 3NT as serious, now you have another reason not to.

That does little, IMO, to further the story. When you have three key cards, plus the Queen of trumps, that's fairly big, IMO. When you add in that you have all three internal honors (and hence partner has no heart honors, which will discourage him) and the one side key card is in the one spot partner will care about most (spades), this is HUGE.

 

Give partner ♠KQxxx ♥Jxx ♦Axx ♣Ax, and is he supposed to get frisky at this point, opposite a "non-serious" hand? All that 3NT as non-serious has accomplished is to divide into two bids your options to underbid this hand. An egregious underbid, and a lousy underbid.

 

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

[jdonn]

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

May I humbly suggest the reason that auction is easier is because no one seems to define what last train actually shows, some people just seem to bid it any time it's available to bid. It's there, we are in a cuebidding auction, I'll bid 4♦!

[Winstonm]

The answer to the basic question: there are not sufficient raises available under most structures to describe 3-card forcing hands. The decision would not have to be made under some kind of decent raise contruct (See Better Bergen Bidding).

 

Secondly,

 

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?

 

Why is it that we are the only ones who should know what is going on? If I bid 2D, then subsequently raise 2H to 3H I am the only one who knows it is a 5/4 fit. What is that value? However, if I bid 2H the first time, not only will I get a raise when partner has 4, but also when he has 3 and no other good bid. The fact that partner has a fit with my 5-card suit m-a-y be important (or do we make all those fit-bid jumps just to dazzle our opponents?).

[kenrexford]

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

May I humbly suggest the reason that auction is easier is because no one seems to define what last train actually shows, some people just seem to bid it any time it's available to bid. It's there, we are in a cuebidding auction, I'll bid 4♦!

If 3♠ shows a double fit, then I have two options with this hand:

 

1. 4♥ showing complete disinterest (apparently)

2. 3NT, showing either serious interest (an overbid) or non-serious interest (an underbid).

 

I show nothing more than interest.

 

If 3♠ shows a control, I have three options:

 

1. If partner now bids 3NT as serious, I have it.

2. If partner now cues 4♣, I can distinguish my general interest as above with the additional info of that spade control.

3. If partner now bids 4♦, I don't care that I have great values -- we lose two club tricks.

4. If partner now bids 4♥, I don't care because he has a dog. We may go down one.

 

I also have more options that are not apparent when 3♠ shows a control. That is, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ all specifically deny the spade honor, which is huge.

[mikeh]

I am late to the thread.

 

I am no longer surprised, but still mildly puzzled, by the number of posters who seem to view bidding questions as if the only person engaged in the decision-making process is themselves.

 

I see that several posters advocate 2♣, on the first hand, and 2♦, on the second, because IF partner bids 2♥, they will know that a 9 card (or better) fit exists.

 

Sure.. I will grant you that.

 

But, partner won't! Let's look at some of the consequences of his rebidding 2♥:

 

1. He will believe you have 5 card support only if he also believes you to be 5=6 in your suits.. not something that is likely to happen or, should it happen, be conducive to accurate evaluation by him

 

2. You will never show your primary spade support.. after all, I assume you are going to raise hearts next. While 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ is natural, 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ 4♦ (say) 4♠ is a cue bid (or kickback if that is your preference)

 

So your choice of 2♣ will render partner incapable of ever understanding the key features of your hand. This is wonderful if your partner is a moron, and you are able to read through the backs of his cards. It is woeful if he is a bridge player.

 

And what if he doesn't rebid 2♥? Surely that is the most probable outcome? Say he rebids 2♦? Now, you can reach spades okay, but he will never appreciate that, for example, KJxxx KQx Axxx x is a wonderful hand.. that his short club (opposite your ostensibly natural, but 'could be 3' 2♣ response was a positive feature) and that he probably has 5 heart tricks available!.

 

And what if he is 5=3=1=4... again, you can get back to spades, but his evaluation will be horribly distorted. And so on.

 

Let's take another look at our 2♥ response.

 

If partner holds 4 card support.. guess what? He knows it. While you 2♣ bidders are so wrapped up in trying to make sure that YOU know about the fit, you forget that partner may actually be able to bid intelligently if HE knows about it.

 

And when no heart fit exists, we still show our spade fit, and now he knows much more about our hand.

 

On the second hand, I accept that there is a valid reason for considering a 2♦ response.. but it has nothing to do with hearts.

 

if we respond 2♦, we will back into a 5-3 spade fit, and we won't much care about the missed 5-3 heart fit, most of the time. We still have issues about his valuation, and about convincing him, should he bid 2♥, of the nature of our hand. But the real issue is that 2♥ over 1♠ poses a very real risk of losing the diamond suit.. it is fairly easy to posit hands on which diamonds is the best suit for slam or grand slam possibilities, and yet find that it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to get there after a 2♥ response.

 

However, while this is a real issue, in my view, it is low in frequency and I would prefer to keep partner involved, and not create the impression in his mind that I consider myself to be the only intelligent member of the partnership.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, Mike, I think your analysis missed the fact that some of us actually catered to your basic issue, in a sense.

 

I think you will acknowledge that any decision, any route taken, may leave one partner better informed and the other less informed. When you make a descriptive bid, you expect partner to be better informed and you yourself less informed, trusting parter to move correctly. If you make an asking bid, you will be more informed and partner less so.

 

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy. Obviously, most of us would bid 2♥ in response to a 1♠ opening usually. However, these two hands are discussed as exceptions because, IMO, these two hands, because of their unusual shape and immediate knowledge of the spade fit, seem to merit handling in such a way as to essentially grab captaincy.

 

This is not so say that captaincy should always be grabbed.

 

When you do grab captaincy, the result is possibly that partner is in the dark.

 

The question is whether your hand is one where more descriptive action is calculated to lead to good decisions by partner because you can fully describe your holding, or whether inducing partner to describe will leave you better able to seize captaincy even if partner is scratching his head.

[Winstonm]

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy

 

Ken,

 

IMHO the issue of captaincy is vastly overrated, incredibly overused, and mostly misguided unless one wishes to play a strict relay/captaincy system.

[kenrexford]

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy

 

Ken,

 

IMHO the issue of captaincy is vastly overrated, incredibly overused, and mostly misguided unless one wishes to play a strict relay/captaincy system.

OK. I accept that as your position. :P

[mikeh]

 

The issue with these hands and the decisions made with them is one of captaincy.  Obviously, most of us would bid 2♥ in response to a 1♠ opening usually.  However, these two hands are discussed as exceptions because, IMO, these two hands, because of their unusual shape and immediate knowledge of the spade fit, seem to merit handling in such a way as to essentially grab captaincy.

 

This is not so say that captaincy should always be grabbed.

 

When you do grab captaincy, the result is possibly that partner is in the dark.

 

The question is whether your hand is one where more descriptive action is calculated to lead to good decisions by partner because you can fully describe your holding, or whether inducing partner to describe will leave you better able to seize captaincy even if partner is scratching his head.

captaincy is a concept often invoked by those who mastermind.

 

Captaincy is a valid and sometimes important concept.. it underlies relay bidding (and even standard involves some forms of relay... blackwood, stayman are relay bids, for example)

 

But captaincy is a concept that involves mutual understanding. Both partners need to know when captaincy has been assumed.

 

The making of a 2/1 gf response in 2/1 gf is not a captaincy bid. Opener has no reason to assume that the 2♣ bid was an assumption of captaincy and captaincy cannot be exercised unilaterally. It can be asserted, or surrendered, unilaterally.. but only by a call or sequence of calls that, within the partnership methods, announces the assumption or relinquishment of captaincy.

 

Captaincy does not apply when partner doesn't understand that it has been invoked. Most importantly, I completely reject the notion that captaincy auctions should EVER have partner scratching his head in puzzlement. That is, to me, the most obvious distinction between masterminding and captaincy.

 

When we assume captaincy, partner makes descriptive bids and, until and unless we relinquish captaincy, respects our decisions. If we assume then relinquish captaincy, we need to have bid in such a way as to allow partner to readily infer why we have bid as we have. i could give you examples from relay auctions in which relayer broke the relay after several rounds because, as partner could infer, another relay ran the risk of a (coded) response taking us past the level of safety. Or examples from a J2N auction in which after coded responses, responder started cue-bidding rather than asking via keycard or signing off in game... indicating that opener's responses to date left open the possibility of slam but that responder felt that collaborative bidding, rather than ask-and-answer bidding, was the way to go.

 

Ken, I am not surprised that you don't understand this. Your post on your director issues, after psyches (I sympathized with your situation, btw) was revealing in that you posted that it was your responsibility to keep your team 'afloat'. While you have some interesting ideas, your discussions of auctions almost always seem (to me) to have you as the central decision maker. Of course, the fact that hands are posted as they are tends to make all of us post answers that have that tendency... the hand is posted BECAUSE a decision has to be made, and that decision will often involve some captaincy issues.. but not as frequently as many posters seem to think.

[keylime]

Mike,

 

Your last post, I have printed and put on my bulletin board here. Lots of meat to chew on.

 

FWIW, 2♥ with me, since it's a five card suit headed to an honor.

[jdonn]

How much easier if you simply cue 3♠, partner makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, and you last train with 4♦.

May I humbly suggest the reason that auction is easier is because no one seems to define what last train actually shows, some people just seem to bid it any time it's available to bid. It's there, we are in a cuebidding auction, I'll bid 4♦!

If 3♠ shows a double fit, then I have two options with this hand:

 

1. 4♥ showing complete disinterest (apparently)

2. 3NT, showing either serious interest (an overbid) or non-serious interest (an underbid).

 

I show nothing more than interest.

 

If 3♠ shows a control, I have three options:

 

1. If partner now bids 3NT as serious, I have it.

2. If partner now cues 4♣, I can distinguish my general interest as above with the additional info of that spade control.

3. If partner now bids 4♦, I don't care that I have great values -- we lose two club tricks.

4. If partner now bids 4♥, I don't care because he has a dog. We may go down one.

 

I also have more options that are not apparent when 3♠ shows a control. That is, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ all specifically deny the spade honor, which is huge.

If the point of that post is to convince me that 3♠ showing spade control makes the auction easier when you want to show (or deny) spade control, you didn't have to work so hard to convince me! Personally I won't bother with the same effort to convince you that 3♠ showing spade support makes the auction easier when you want to show (or deny) spade support.

 

Other than that, two quick things:

- Since when is there any space between serious and nonserious slam interest? Isn't your choice (let's say when spades are trumps) generally between showing one with a 3NT bid or the other with a cuebid? I don't believe it's possible for one to be an overbid and the other to be an underbid at the same time.

- Given that you want 3♠ to be a cuebid, have you considered switching 3♠ and 3NT so that 3♠ shows serious (or not) slam interest and 3NT is a spade cuebid by either player?

[kenrexford]

But captaincy is a concept that involves mutual understanding. Both partners need to know when captaincy has been assumed.

This one little snippet captures that with which I most disagree (or the application of which I deem flawed), rendering the rest of what you wrote, necessarily reliant upon this concept, inapplicable to my perspective.

 

I believe that there are many auctions that are effective when each side thinks they will be best-suited to take control and hence act "captainlike," as are there auctions where each person is simply cooperating with partner in the event that partner will assume captaincy, with neither ultimately ever doing so.

 

This has nothing to do with who is on what side of the table. In fact, most 2♣ calls, for instance, on short suits to facilitate lower setting of trumps is done for the purpose of helping Opener (partner) decide what to do (and, hence, "anti-captain").

 

On the second hand (3550), the reason for considering 2♦ is that Responder (1) most likely has the most wild abnd unbiddable shape and (2) has immediate knowledge of the first fit (partner does not yet) and more rapid knowledge of a possible superior second fit in a double-fit scenario (will know at Opener's next call -- Opener will not know this at that point). Hence, Responder has wild informational superiority over his partner, and he does not even have a route to share that information if he wants to. Thus, he can fairly prepare for captaincy.

 

On the first hand (3523), the reason for bidding 2♣ is actually to more rapidly and effectively cater to Opener (not you, but your partner) seizing captaincy, should he be so inclined. The only fit that can be established at the two-level is in his suit, and only if you start with 2♣. This maximizes your ability to cue controls FOR HIM. Granted, you cannot cue a trick source oin this manner, but an entire level of cuebidding is more important in the methods I use. For others, not as much. I also can show trick sources, but, as Han noted initially, Ace-empty is not a suit good enough for my "trick source" bids. Interpretation of this as masterminding is silliness. This has nothing to do with masterminding. This is instead a result of making a call that best facilitates my ability to make the largest number of cooperating cues in the quest to help partner decide what to do, in the context of the cue style used.

[kenrexford]

Other than that, two quick things:

- Since when is there any space between serious and nonserious slam interest? Isn't your choice (let's say when spades are trumps) generally between showing one with a 3NT bid or the other with a cuebid? I don't believe it's possible for one to be an overbid and the other to be an underbid at the same time.

- Given that you want 3♠ to be a cuebid, have you considered switching 3♠ and 3NT so that 3♠ shows serious (or not) slam interest and 3NT is a spade cuebid by either player?

As to the first, I can agree that it makes sense to actually treat 3♠ as a double-fit bid and 3NT as a call that shows extras without ability to make any other cue (hence, COV in hearts and spades). Where I think this fails is actually a bit more obscure, namely in that you lose a lot of options as to extremely cooperative actions. In other words, perhaps the use of 3♠ as a double-fit indicator, IMO, creates [--this much--] definition when there is no double-fit, whereas skipping that restriction on 3♠ enables [-------this much-------] definition, and I personally think that the difference, whatever that is, outweighs whatever perceived gain there is to showing the double fit, as I cannot even fathom how that double fit showing is worth much if anything at all.

 

On the second, I am not opposed to switching 3♠ and 3NT, in principle. In this auction, though, the question is somewhat strange. As it currently is (3♠ is just a cue), Opener will tell is he is serious or not, with that information about the spade card available, and Responder will only be able to express immediate seriousness or lack thereof if he also lacks a spade card. The switch would allow Responder to express seriousness or lack thereof whether he has the spade card or not, but he would only cue the spade card if he does not have serious interest. A rough estimate of the sums suggests that keeping 3♠ as the cue and 3NT as the serious call is best, because the cue is so critical. Reversing order stresses "seriousness" before the presence or lack of that spade card. So, in this specific event, I don't think switching works. If a spade cue were a cue of a side suit, in some other auction, then reversing the meanings makes more sense.

[jdonn]

As to the first,

That and what followed it look like a response to the part of my post that you didn't quote, but you didn't say anything about the first part of the portion that you DID quote.

 

On the second, I am not opposed to switching 3♠ and 3NT, in principle.  In this auction, though, the question is somewhat strange.  As it currently is (3♠ is just a cue), Opener will tell is he is serious or not, with that information about the spade card available, and Responder will only be able to express immediate seriousness or lack thereof if he also lacks a spade card.  The switch would allow Responder to express seriousness or lack thereof whether he has the spade card or not, but he would only cue the spade card if he does not have serious interest.  A rough estimate of the sums suggests that keeping 3♠ as the cue and 3NT as the serious call is best, because the cue is so critical.  Reversing order stresses "seriousness" before the presence or lack of that spade card.  So, in this specific event, I don't think switching works.  If a spade cue were a cue of a side suit, in some other auction, then reversing the meanings makes more sense.

Can I shorten that to say you believe the ability to cuebid or not in partner's main suit is the most important information because it let's partner decide if he is serious or nonserious more accurately? If that's what you're saying then I see your point, but in that case why not play the following?

 

1♠ - 2♦ -

2NT - 3♠ -

 

3NT = Diamond cuebid.

4♣ = (Non)Serious slam try (same by partner over 3NT)

4♦ = Club cuebid

4♥ = Whatever combination of heart cuebid / last train you normally use.

[whereagles]

There's a nice book on capitaincy by Denis Klein. One of the things he argues is that capitancy isn't just one thing, but several. There's capitaincy with respect to shape, to level, etc.

 

After, say, a 2NT opener, responder is capitain with respect to level, but opener is allowed to make decisions after responder's level suggestions. I.e. if responder makes a slam try, some capitaincy is transferred to opener.

[han]

Here is a sarcasm-free response:

 

I see that several posters advocate 2♣, on the first hand, and 2♦, on the second, because IF partner bids 2♥, they will know that a 9 card (or better) fit exists.

Nonsense, that was not the reason and surely you can read better than that.

 

So your choice of 2♣ will render partner incapable of ever understanding the key features of your hand.

 

I think that having a gameforcing balanced hand with spade support is the key feature of our hand, not the ace-fifth of hearts.

 

This is wonderful if your partner is a moron, and you are able to read through the backs of his cards. It is woeful if he is a bridge player.

 

There we go again, can't we just have a bridge argument in which you don't state that those who disagree with you are not experts or disrespect partner? On the first hand I was playing with Justin who I think is a very strong player. I believe he agreed with 2C and he certainly wasn't offended. He asked some other very strong bridge players what they would do with my hand, if I call correctly Joe Grue said that 2C is obviously better than 2H. The second hand was given to me in Boston by a very good Swedish player. I said I would bid 2H and he made a very good effort to convince me that 2D is better with this shape.

 

And what if he doesn't rebid 2♥? Surely that is the most probable outcome? Say he rebids 2♦? Now, you can reach spades okay, but he will never appreciate that, for example, KJxxx KQx Axxx x is a wonderful hand.. that his short club (opposite your ostensibly natural, but 'could be 3' 2♣ response was a positive feature) and that he probably has 5 heart tricks available!.

 

It is a wonderful hand but slam is very poor (no play after a diamond lead, and otherwise you'll need the club ace onside and hearts splitting). I'd say that short clubs opposite our Kxx in clubs is not a positive feature.

 

And what if he is 5=3=1=4... again, you can get back to spades, but his evaluation will be horribly distorted. And so on.

 

Change the minors and slam is much better, indeed, and fortunately that is what partner will expect. If we respond 2H then partner will not know. Of course we will be thrilled when we bid 2C and partner splinters in diamonds.

 

And when no heart fit exists, we still show our spade fit, and now he knows much more about our hand.

 

I disagree, I don't think that it is significantly more descriptive to bid 2H and then raise spades. Partner will not expect a balanced hand with a poor heart suit that is very suitable to play opposite shortness. We'll also be a level higher when we respond 2H and partner will often not be able to show his key features.

 

About the second hand:

 

if we respond 2♦, we will back into a 5-3 spade fit, and we won't much care about the missed 5-3 heart fit, most of the time. We still have issues about his valuation, and about convincing him, should he bid 2♥, of the nature of our hand. But the real issue is that 2♥ over 1♠ poses a very real risk of losing the diamond suit.. it is fairly easy to posit hands on which diamonds is the best suit for slam or grand slam possibilities, and yet find that it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to get there after a 2♥ response.

 

This is what I wrote in my opening post, condensed into one short sentence.

 

However, while this is a real issue, in my view, it is low in frequency and I would prefer to keep partner involved, and not create the impression in his mind that I consider myself to be the only intelligent member of the partnership.

 

I try to make the bid that I think is best rather than worry about the impression my bids make in partners mind. If we change the hand slightly to A10x A109xx AQxxx - then I think that 2D is better than 2H and I would bid it, not worrying to much about what partner would think about me.

[gnasher]

♠Ax ♥AKQxx ♦xxx ♣xxx.  Partner opens 1♠ and then raises hearts.  Now what?

I bid 3 non-serious notrumps.

Give partner ♠KQxxx ♥Jxx ♦Axx ♣Ax, and is he supposed to get frisky at this point, opposite a "non-serious" hand?

You can prove almost anything with a properly constructed example, but you do actually have to construct it properly. Which slam would you like to be in with these two hands?

 

(Sorry about the hijacking Han.)

[H_KARLUK]

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?

Sorry Han, really curiosity.

 

AQx

AKxxx

xx

xxx

 

Would you bid 2 ♥ (same shape/only ♣ K interchanged. Maybe th idea is "good heart suit" or not.)

 

Imo, missing hearts is no big deal. Even if three small with my p I can hope to concede 2 and bring 3 tricks with 3-2 layout when it's settled as trumps. Moreover, what's wrong with :

1♠ > 2♥

say 3♥ received. (5+3 fit found. Double fit understood by responder of opener at an early stage.)

 

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

 

Hamdi

[Winstonm]

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.

Let me ask you a non-sarcastic question. When holding a flat, featureless, minimum game-forcing hand, what is the reason for misdescribing suit lengths in order to save bidding room?

 

I appreciate the consideration that Axxxx of hearts is not a great suit, but if I bid my natural length and then support spades, at least I have conveyed some degree of shape and partner knows I hold no more than 5 minor-suit cards.

 

If I bid 2C as you suggest, then bid spades, I could either have real clubs or a balanced hand and have not accomplished much other than space savings. I am not sure if the confusion over shape makes up for the limited value of saving space on this hand.

 

And another good reason to bid your long suit is that partner may have been dealt something like Jxxxx, KJx, AKJx, x .

[jdonn]

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

Come on, seriously? If you're not even going to bother reading the thread then I don't think anyone is going to summarize it for you.

[han]

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?

Sorry Han, really curiosity.

 

AQx

AKxxx

xx

xxx

 

Would you bid 2 ♥ (same shape/only ♣ K interchanged. Maybe th idea is "good heart suit" or not.)

 

Imo, missing hearts is no big deal. Even if three small with my p I can hope to concede 2 and bring 3 tricks with 3-2 layout when it's settled as trumps. Moreover, what's wrong with :

1♠ > 2♥

say 3♥ received. (5+3 fit found. Double fit understood by responder of opener at an early stage.)

 

Can anyone give me any sound reason not to bid my natural GF suit when partner showed his own?

 

Hamdi

Yes I would bid 2H, and I don't think it is close. If we bid 2H followed by 3S then we've painted a very good picture of our hand. And if partner raises hearts then we wouldn't mind playing in hearts instead of spades.

[han]

Let me ask you a non-sarcastic question.  When holding a flat, featureless, minimum game-forcing hand, what is the reason for misdescribing suit lengths in order to save bidding room?

If you bid 2H first, partner won't know your shape. He'll know that you have 5 hearts and 3 spades, but often that's it. He'll think that a holding like Qx in hearts is a very good holding, while it isn't. Those considerations don't hold for a 2C response when you play 2C shows 3+ clubs as most of us do.

 

Mikeh gave two very good example hands for partner: KJxxx KQx Axxx x and KJxxx KQx x Axxx. You'd like to be in slam opposite the second one but not opposite the first. How do you distinguish? Well, if you start with 2C then the auctions are simple:

 

1S - 2C

2D - 2S

3H

 

Now you know partner's shape and you know that the hands fit badly. On the second hand the auction would probably start with 1S-2C-3D (splinter) and now you know that the hands fit very well.

 

But if you start with 2H then with both hands the auction would start 1S-2H-3H-3S, and now there simply is no way to sort it out. At least not for people like me who cuebid first and second round controls.

 

In general I'd say that it is more useful for the unbalanced hand to describe his pattern to the balanced hand than the other way around. Here, with a poor heart suit and a known fit, it seems more important to give partner the room to describe his hand then to show a heart suit in which you have no interest in playing.