Ignoring the side major

[Winstonm]

Twice in one week, such honor!

Alright, now you are really at the winstonm level of debating, leaving all truth behind in an attempt to win and argument.

 

No problemo - it's a technique I learned from Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Kristol, Bolton, ad nauseum...

[mikeh]

OK, Mike. You keep saying things that do not make any sense to me because you seem (I may be wrong) to keep forcing your style into the subsequent auction and offering that incorrect assumption as a means of explaining why the initial sequence with a 2♣ start will leave partner in the dark.

 

One way to reach resolution in the debate might be to actually propose hands and then see how the auctions play out. That, of course, would take a lot of time and effort and would undoubtedly break down into minutae analyses of specific bids and questioning of every tactical decision (like, for example, Han's decision to bid 3♥ in one of only two hands proposed).

 

A more theoretical approach has been attempted, but this still seems to break down into obsession with presumptions about the stylistic differences about to be unleashed. However, always lacking judgment in this sort of discussion, I plod forward with another stab at it.

 

In an auction that I would have, a 2♣ response to a major opening may be short (3-card is possible). It will typically fall into one of three categories:

 

1. Balanced

2. Real clubs

3. Frag+ with 5-3 in the majors (3-card fit, 5-card other).

 

Thus, when partner hears 2♣, he will not be surprised if any one of these three patterns later shows up.

 

You then posit the great question of how partner is supposed to participate in an informed, collaborative sequence if you start this way. Well, the simple answer is that he, upon hearing your 2♣ call, will be informed that you have one of these three hand types and will then collaborate with the rest of the auction.

 

If he, for instance, bids 2♦, and you now bid 2♠, he will be able to make cuebids. As will you. From this point forward, we will have some information exchange that will be better than your techniques, and, hence, more informative and collaborative. Other aspects of the sequence will be less so. Whereas you may know more about shape in the end, we will know more about fitting honors in the end. I will, for instance, immediately know whether Opener does or does not have two of the top three spades, whereas you may not know this until after RKCB, which may be too late. I may know exactly how many club honors he has, whereas you may have a more generalized feeling about heart honors.

 

Your claim, therefore, that you cannot have an informed and collaborative auction without stressing shape properly is biased. For, I could easily challenge your techniques as masterminding and uncooperative because you cannot possibly have an informed and collaborative sequence if you cannot tell partner about all of your cover cards, and hear about all of his.

 

When you note the inability for Opener to know that the fit is 5-4 instead of 4-4, I can rebut that after a 2♥-3♥ sequence Responder cannot know whether the fit is 5-3 or 5-4. Each time, someone is in the dark. My way, however, both of us will know that at least a 4-4 fit exists. I'd rather know for sure that a 4-4 fit exists than a second 5-3 fit, as the 4-4 (or 5-4) is often the more powerful holding. So, which is worse?

 

All that said, I don't even care as much about the 4-4 or 5-4 question, as the perhaps more pressing need is to find out about the security of the trump suit below game (which I can do whenever I can set trumps at the two-level) and about controls. I find that 2♣ calls in sequences like this are the best route to avoiding the 5-level when slam is off, a task that your methods probably will not as easily allow.

 

Besides, you finally acknowledge that here may be specialized tools to enable finding out what needs to be discovered, to solve these problems. Well, guess what?

At the risk of validating a troll-like approach... your argument seems to be that '2♣ is the correct bid if we agree that systemically 2♣ will include this specific hand type'. As a lawyer, you are familiar with the term 'tautology'?

 

I very much doubt that Han would have posted the problem if by agreement the partnership used 2♣ as you suggest: i.e as an artificial bid known to contain, as one of its meanings the precise hand in question. Had he specified that, by agreement, 2♣ could show 3=5=2=3 opening values, what other call makes sense?

 

As I have said, I have played relay methods in which, by systemic agreement, 2♣ is artificial and assumes captaincy (at least temporarily and often conclusively). But I would not dream of suggesting that the rationale for bidding 2♣ was that 'my partner will know it is a relay', nor can you answer the issues in this thread by stating that in your artificial methods, you bid such and such. Who cares about my relay methods or your 3-way 2♣ agreement? The thread is NOT about designing an effective system, but about the merits or lack thereof of a call of 2♣, within the context of a 'normal' 2/1 gf method in comparison to the alternative call of 2♥. Your 'solution' may make some sense.. I can't be bothered to analyze it.. as a new method or as an agreed-upon tweak to 2/1 but so what? How does that advance the issues raised by Han?

 

Oh sh*t, I shouldn't have used all those question marks... Ken won't be able to resist 'answering' the questions, even tho they are intended as rhetorical.

[Winstonm]

It looks to me as if the problems with these questions is that they cannot be removed from context and can only be debated in the construct of the entire structure that surrounds them.

[cherdano]

Mike, I would also find it nice if you could in future eliminate your frequent "bidding this way shows you think your partner is a moron/you don't trust your partner" arguments. You bring these up very often when someone is suggesting a bidding style different to the one you are used to.

 

Actually, I think I bring this up only when I think that the proposed bidding method represents an attempt to take over control of an auction prematurely... usually by making a non-standard bid. There are a lot of bidding methods with which I am unfamiliar, and many of them have (to me) obvious merit. Rebidding 1N with a stiff is one... responding to 1♥ via 2♣ with a gf hand and 4=4 in the blacks is another. I learn a lot from the posters who explain why they advocate methods that are new to me... but not from the posters who ignore the problems and tout only the advantages of the method, or claim that the method is good because (fill in the blank) plays it.

No, you also bring up similar points on other occasions.

What I find interesting is that neither you nor Han have tried to rebut the arguments that immediately preceded the comment that so offends you.... just how are you going to have an informed, collaborative auction with partner if he rebids 2♥ over your 2♣? Indeed, Han has agreed that this is a problem.. a problem to which he offers no solution, even tho the OP contained a specific reference to the possibility that hearts was the better trump suit if opener rebid 2♥. Be careful what you hope for, I guess.

Why should I rebut that point? I agree that it is a drawback of 2C, I thought we are trying to debate the drawbacks and advantage of 2C, not arguing who is right.

(I don't even have a strong opinion on whether 2C is right, except I would always bid 2C if I have agreed that 1S 2H 3H 3S is a cue.)

However, you are certainly overstating your case. Cuebidding with serious or frivolous 3N over 1S 2C 2H 3H will work reasonably well, even if partner thinks we may have a 3433 or 2434 hand, but can't imagine us being 3523.

[maggieb]

Never mind. :P

[awm]

To get back to making bridge arguments... it seems like there are four basic cases here:

 

(1) Opener has four (or more) hearts.

 

If you start with 2♣, presumably the auction goes 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥. If you started with 2♥, the auction would go 1♠-2♥-3♥ (or some splinter bid). If opener splinters then responder is pretty well placed (knows about the nine-card heart fit, knows about the double fit, knows about opener's shortage); this probably leaves responder better placed than 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥ after which it will be difficult to distinguish shortness controls from high card controls. If opener makes a simple raise of hearts (1♠-2♥-3♥) then 3♠ from responder reveals the double fit to opener, after which opener should be well placed to take over captaincy. I suspect that this also will lead to better auctions than 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥-cue. Also, there are a few opener hands where the slam must be played from responder's side (i.e. ♠KJxxx ♥KQxx ♦Ax ♣xx and 6♥ by responder is excellent whereas 6♥ by opener is dubious especially on an informative auction) -- bidding 1♠-2♥ lets you include "right-siding" as a criterion for picking which major to play.

 

(2) Opener has exactly three hearts.

 

If you start with 2♥, you'll get 1♠-2♥-3♥. You can now reveal the double fit to opener by bidding 3♠. This is a nice auction because opener will know that the ♥Q is a huge card. You may have "two suit keycard" available to locate it, and in any case opener will know to push for slam with ♥KQx and to back off if he discovers the queen is missing. If you had started 2♣, you will sometimes get to hear opener's entire pattern (1♥-2♣-2♦-2♠-3♥) but even then it will be extremely hard to find out about the heart queen. For example, opener's ♠KJxxx ♥KQx ♦AKxx ♣x is a great slam whereas opener's ♠KJxxx ♥Kxx ♦AKQx ♣x is a lousy slam with the same shape and strength. There are also sequences where you will never find out how many hearts opener has when you start with 2♣; opener may rebid 2♠ or 2NT for example.

 

(3) Opener has exactly two hearts.

 

If you start with 2♥, opener will frequently distinguish whether he has extra values by his choice to make (or not make) a high reverse. This can be very useful information in further bidding. If you start with 2♣ and opener rebids 2♦, then you're in an excellent spot to figure out opener's whole pattern and have a nice cuebidding auction. But it's also possible that opener will raise clubs (5224) or rebid 2♠ or 2NT (5233). In any of these cases you haven't really gained anything by starting 2♣ as you will be setting spades with your next call at the three-level, having discovered only a small part of opener's pattern and having no real information about opener's strength.

 

(4) Opener has a singleton heart (or void).

 

If you start with 2♥, opener will tell you right away whether he has extras to reverse into a minor suit. If you start with 2♣, then you get to find out opener's entire distribution (either via 2♦-2♠-3♣ or via a direct 3♥ splinter). The information about shape is slightly more useful than the immediate strength information, but both are potentially handy (and you probably need extra values to make a slam here without a magical double fit).

 

My analysis as a whole indicates that bidding 2♥ will be better when opener has 3-4♥, roughly break even when opener has 2♥, and worse when opener has 1♥. I'd judge that responding in hearts is generally better.

[Winstonm]

Yesterday I picked up

 

AQx

Axxxx

xx

Kxx

 

Partner opened 1S and I bid 2C, gameforcing

 

Legitimate question: If you had at your disposal either a natural and forcing 2N or forcing 3S raise would you still bid 2C?

[jdonn]

Yesterday I picked up

 

AQx

Axxxx

xx

Kxx

 

Partner opened 1S and I bid 2C, gameforcing

 

Legitimate question: If you had at your disposal either a natural and forcing 2N or forcing 3S raise would you still bid 2C?

It seems to me the main points behind bidding 2♣ are

 

- To save space so you can find out more about partner's hand.

- The alternative(s) is not particularly descriptive in any case.

- Doing so may cause you to miss and equal fit than the one you know of already, but never a better fit.

 

Those arguments apply just as well (or even better) to either 2NT or 3♠ as they do to 2♥ so I don't see why any 2♣ bidder would choose one of those instead. 3♠ in particular kills all your space and can miss a 9 or 10 card heart fit, so it really seems like an inferior choice.

 

Of course, someone who bids 2♣ on a hand like this will probably use 2NT and 3♠ for something else anyway.

[han]

Legitimate question: If you had at your disposal either a natural and forcing 2N or forcing 3S raise would you still bid 2C?

I think the main benefit of playing a natural 2NT is to make your 2/1 bids better defined. So yes, I would bid 2NT, not because I think 1M-2NT is such a great auction but because I would want my partner to know that I don't respond 2C on such hands.

 

I don't know what a forcing 3S bid would show. It seems a bad idea unless it shows something very close to this hand (like a balanced 12-14 count with exactly 3 spades). If it does show something like that then that could work out ok, again since some other 2/1 auctions would be better defined. Also you would have many auctions that go 1S-3S-4S, revealing much of opener's hand.

 

I think it would be bad to bid 3S on many different hands since there just isn't enough room left for either player to show much.

[Winstonm]

Legitimate question:  If you had at your disposal either a natural and forcing 2N or forcing 3S raise would you still bid 2C?

I think the main benefit of playing a natural 2NT is to make your 2/1 bids better defined. So yes, I would bid 2NT, not because I think 1M-2NT is such a great auction but because I would want my partner to know that I don't respond 2C on such hands.

 

I don't know what a forcing 3S bid would show. It seems a bad idea unless it shows something very close to this hand (like a balanced 12-14 count with exactly 3 spades). If it does show something like that then that could work out ok, again since some other 2/1 auctions would be better defined. Also you would have many auctions that go 1S-3S-4S, revealing much of opener's hand.

 

I think it would be bad to bid 3S on many different hands since there just isn't enough room left for either player to show much.

Thanks, Han.

 

I agree with what you say. The reason I asked is that I see the question of whether or not to bid 2C to be a problem with the reponse system rather than a stylistic problem.

 

As to 3S, again I agree with you.

 

So, the way I view it, the problem is not "should I bid 2C with this hand" but the problem should be "why don't I have a better way of showing this hand".

 

That is why I didn't want to get involved in a debate about whether or not to bid 2C - the debate, in my mind, is what in the system is flawed that caused me to have to make this choice?

[benlessard]

A simple way to improve 2/1 is to play that 2C show a fit and that 2Nt and over is hands with clubs. It allow to play at the 2 level with a limit raise. It allow to show a fit and show a suit or to show a suit and show a fit. Its allow 2 kind of splinters. The downside is that hands with clubs you make 2 bids in a single shot not allowing partner to make a bid between the 2.

 

1S-----???

 

2C at least 3S 10+... could be 2344 (if 15+ strong)

2D nat but could be 1444 if unsuitable for 3Nt.

2H nat

2S nat

2Nt GF balanced with clubs

3C GF clubs rebidabble

3D clubs + D

3H clubs + H

3S clubs + S fit with very good clubs

3Nt balanced 13-15 or 1444 allowed.

4C void

4D void.

 

 

1S-----2C

 

 

2D nat

2H nat

2S minimum with 6S or with S+C

 

If partner rebid 2S hes showing a limit raise. any other bid is fairly natural but tend to show a bad 5 card suits. Splinters are singleton (or a different range than the direct splinters)

[Codo]

Quite funny to follow this threat.

 

IF I understood the 2 ♣ fraction correct, they want to save bidding space so that the opener can show his shape and strength more accurately.

 

The 2 Heart bidder want to show their suit and try to describe their hand to opener.

 

I have no idea, which approach will work better, but I would like to defend against the 2 Club rebidders, because they will more often then not describe declarers hand in shape and strength quite accurately while the 2 heart bidders won't.

 

I hate these black/white arguments, but I think that the merrits of bidding the own shape are good enough to justify the 2 Heart rebid more then the 2 Club bid, which is surely playable too.

[han]

Give me an auction in which the 2H bidders describe their shape.

[mikeh]

Give me an auction in which the 2H bidders describe their shape.

1♠ 2♥ shows 5 or more hearts... some might say it is more descriptive of shape than a 2♣ response :P

 

1♠ 2♥

2N 3♠ shows 5-6 hearts and 3 spades... some might say it is more descriptive of shape than any auction after 2♣ B)

 

No-one claims that 2♥ leads to showing exact shape.. no one said that, and surely you read better than that? Cheap shot, I know :)

[keylime]

If not 2♥ with me, 2NT, and the more I have thought about it, 2NT is starting to be more appealing. If pard shows up with a stiff club, then our hand downgrades some and we can bid hearts en passant to game.

 

After 1S-2H, with the 2/1 p'ship that I have locally, we rebid 2S with any minimum hand - any bid pass the 2M point is showing extras. Now I rebid 2S, showing a more minimum hand in context. I still get to locate pard's second suit fit and or shape (my fear is if he's single suited with a three card heart fragment, since we own the AQ of trumps, that side suit may get us home at slam).

[han]

Yes.

 

Codo compares the benefits of auctions starting with 1S-2C and 1S-2H. After the first start, opener will fairly often describe his shape completely, for example in auctions starting with 1S-2C-2D or when opener splinters. However, if responder bids 2H then he will pretty much never show his pattern.

 

So I think that saying that in one auction opener describes his shape and in the other responder describes his shape is not accurate, the situations are not equal.

[han]

Another thing I was wondering, are there any hands with 3523 shape where you would respond 2C? AQx Qxxxx xx AJx? AQx xxxxx Kx KQx?

[Winstonm]

since we own the AQ of trumps, that side suit may get us home at slam).

 

I am as slam-happy as anyone around, but I have not grasped why so often in this thread slam was tossed out as an important reason behind a method - with only 3-card support, a fairly minimum 2/1, and balanced shape my partner will have to really show some life to get me interested in slam.

 

If not 2♥ with me, 2NT, and the more I have thought about it, 2NT is starting to be more appealing.

 

This is the reason I developed Better Bergen Bidding: responder would have the option in BBB of bidding 2H, 2N, or 3S depending on what he considered the best descriptive bid.

[mikeh]

Another thing I was wondering, are there any hands with 3523 shape where you would respond 2C? AQx Qxxxx xx AJx? AQx xxxxx Kx KQx?

I think that there are hands on which I would respond 2♣ to 1♠... perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are hands on which I would seriously consider doing so, since I don't recall ever making the bid outside of a method in which 2♣ was artificial.

 

But I think the heart suit would need to be extraordinarily weak... 9xxxx... I have no trouble with treating this as the equivalent of a 4 card suit, and we all (I assume) will respond 2♣, with some game-going hands, with 3=4=3=3 or the like.

 

Also, with a flat minimum hand, such as a mediocre 13 count, including 3 card support, I tend to respond with a forcing 1N and then bid 4♠ over most rebids by partner... thus Kxx Jxxxx KQx Ax, I would at least consider 1N... I play that a jump to 4minor over 2♥ by opener shows a near 2/1 response with a great heart fit... a hand that can still make slam opposite a near jumpshift by opener (I don't know how common this is, but I think it is a fairly common treatment... the alternatives of splinter and natural are relatively rare and/or of dubious utility... esp. the natural meaning). Now, I am not saying that this 1N treatment is standard, but I have seen a number of players espousing it, so it is not an idiosyncratic invention.

[keylime]

Even tho I'm minimum on high card points, I am control rich - 5 of them, and coupled with a potential double fit in hearts/spades, I'm thinking about now what the first bid is, but bid 2 and 3 here on this hand.

 

The forcing NT that Mike alludes to, does have some value here because you can hear more about pard's hand. If they rebid 2S for example, then it's a straight drive to game. If you here them rebid 2NT, then...hope you have good methods!

[kenrexford]

Not that this furthers the discussion much, but those who espouse bidding 2♥ over 2♣ are failing to cite a two other possible advantages to bidding 2♣, namely that partner might actually have a spade-club two-suiter (where the club call fills in his trick source), and more likely where Opener has a spade-diamond two-suiter (and need not bid at the three-level to show this).

 

The auction 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠ is much better than 1♠-2♥-3♦-3♠, because Opener will not know in the latter whether we have support/help for diamonds. In the former, a number of calls by Opener may allow (at least in my methods) Responder to show the stiff diamond, which would be nice for Opener to know.

 

The club-spade two-suiter auction will likely start 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠, with Opener now in on the likely secret but with prior knowledge that Responder has something of value is clubs and that red-suit calls will unambiguously be cues of controls.

[benlessard]

namely that partner might actually have a spade-club two-suiter (where the club call fills in his trick source)

 

Its big drawback to rebidding 2C is if partner has clubs.

 

1S----2C-----3C

 

1S----2H-----3C

 

In 1, 3C show 3 to 5 clubs with or without 6S with or without 3/4 H.

 

In 2, 3C show at least 4C without 3/4 H, probably without 6S unless very good clubs.

[Winstonm]

I'm not advocating here, but some methods would raise 2C with only 3-card support.

 

AKJxx, xx, xxx, AQx for example might do just such.

 

Ken, I"m thinking of this quote:

 

The club-spade two-suiter auction will likely start 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠, with Opener now in on the likely secret but with prior knowledge that Responder has something of value is clubs and that red-suit calls will unambiguously be cues of controls.

 

when I say:

 

The one thing I notice in all these ideas in favor of 2C is that somewhere along the way one of the partner's is informed - but the other is in loft in the dark and that seems umimportant to the advocator.

 

I think this really does get back to the concept of captaincy - how often one believes that principle should be used. Somewhat of an autocratic method.

 

Myself, I'm more democratic in the bidding... :)

[kenrexford]

namely that partner might actually have a spade-club two-suiter (where the club call fills in his trick source)

 

Its big drawback to rebidding 2C is if partner has clubs.

 

1S----2C-----3C

 

1S----2H-----3C

 

In 1, 3C show 3 to 5 clubs with or without 6S with or without 3/4 H.

 

In 2, 3C show at least 4C without 3/4 H, probably without 6S unless very good clubs.

I don't think you (or Winston) are getting what I am talking about at all.

 

Partner will know how many clubs he has, because he will be looking at them. He can use his fingers to count.

 

When partner does have clubs, then, our 2♣ call will help him out. If that is, in fact, his holding, something like, say, 5-5 in the blacks, then our possession of red quicks and no quacks will be easily described for him. Hence, a 2♣ call will, in that scenario, really help his analysis along. As an aside, this is a direct counter to the idea of Responder masterminding and seizing captaincy, I hope you can see. When Responder can, after the auction 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠, convert to completely cooperative cues, he can very effectively yield captaincy. Tada!

 

You then rebut, "But what if Opener only has four clubs?" Same thing. Opener will then have a lesser club two-suiter and, again, is better placed knowing that we have help for his clubs. Might he over-reach to bid a club slam because of an expectation of a 4-4 club fit (at a minimum)? He may well be interested in that possibility. This is a decent counter, but one that is not solved if 2♣ does not always guarantee 4+ anyway. The existence of the hidden heart suit possibility does increase the chances of clubs being short, of course. In the end, though, that specific rebuttal has some merit. My ultimate response is that, in auctions like this, it is Responder's duty to consider that club strain. Opener can push because of that interest, but Responder will reject that proposal, if that makes sense.

 

What about the next step down, namely that Opener might have 3-card clubs? I personally avoid 3-card raises of 2♣ bids like the plague, such that this issue is extremely unlikely. I think 3-card raises cause a huge problem when Responder does have 4-card clubs. It seems horrible to not have at least one of us have assuredly real clubs, and I see tons more in the way of justification for Responder having flexibility, at the two-level, than Opener, at the three-level, especially when Opener will almost always have some alternative. If an exception exists, fine. At least we know that we each have 3+ clubs and will need values in clubs, or a trick source with which to pitch club losers, and I do not expect that trick source looking at my hand. In other words, the bid-raise of clubs does actually focus us properly on a "help suit" basis for a spade slam.

[Winstonm]

I don't think you (or Winston) are getting what I am talking about at all.

 

Partner will know how many clubs he has, because he will be looking at them. He can use his fingers to count.

 

Sorry, Ken, but I thought I was clear. I thought I said this - that one player will know. Sure opener will know about the club fit, but responder won't know how good of fit it is.

 

I contend that all responder knows is that opener had what he thought was a club raise - 6 cards, 5 cards, 4 cards, and yes even - rarely - 3 cards.

 

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them, and even if I do bid them I wrong side the best game contract.

 

The old fashioned auction would get to the right contract from the right side of the table and both partners would have been informed: 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H.

 

I don't know if this is simply an accident of this particular hand or a symptom of the reason I am resisting the idea that 2C is better.

 

I know I'm too lazy to figure it out, for sure.