Response to strong 2C

[jillybean]

Hi. Before I go starting a new thread, has there been any recent discussion on responses to a strong 2C opening? Gwnn? :)

[TylerE]

2♥ bust, with 2N showing hearts. 2♦ A/K+ (2 Q is NOT a 2♦ bid).

 

Simple. Done. Add in a few toys like Kokish Relay for more fun. Please don't play step points or some such rubbish.

[jillybean]

Too simple, what about the positive responses ? I am interested in comments regarding the idea of "2♥ trash" and making all other bids positive

ie 2♠ response on KQxxx, xx, xxx, xxx

[TylerE]

Suit positives should remain the classic 2 of the top 3, 5+ suit, with 6 preferable in the minors. Generally, it is much more important for opener to have room to describe his hand. Another idea with some merit is to drop suit positives, and run all GF hands 2♦ and play 2♥ as a non-descript bust, and suits as no A/K, 6+ suit.

[jjbrr]

I don't have much to add except that I don't like this 2♥ requires an A or K business. When I have enough to GF, I like to GF and not try to catch up later.

 

I'd rather bid 2♥ rarely and reserve it for hands that actually are garbage, like a Q and a J maximum, since we're already using up so much bidding space as it is.

 

When I was playing in the Red Ribbon pairs years ago, the opponents had some auction that was like 2♣ 2♥ (denying an A or K), 2♠ 6NT or something silly like that because she had 11 in Qs and Js. It seemed like a retarded auction back then, and my opinion about it hasn't changed.

 

I recall seeing threads about responses to 2♣ recently, so I suspect some digging would turn up something useful.

[TylerE]

The reason I like A or K is that A: it clarifies the control situation for slam auctions and B: It can often be useful in other situations... I had a hand recently where we were one of only 2 pairs in a field to avoid an obvious 3N with Qx opp. xxx in a suit, and instead played 5m making on the nose.

[zasanya]

2♥=0-3 which does not include a king.

2♦=3+ denies 1 and half trick (an ace and a king OR AQ in same suit) if unbalanced; unlimited if balanced without a 5 carder ,

2NT=5 card ♥ promising 1 and a half trick

All others natural 5 carders promising 1 and a half trick

Kokish relay is a very useful gadget

Problem hand 4-4-4-1 positive .Best to respond with 2♦

[blackshoe]

When I learned this from a local expert, 2♦ was "a couple of queens" or better, GF, 2♥ was "not good enough for 2♦", and suit responses (2NT showing ♥) were "two of the top three and at least 5 cards". Seemed to work okay the one time it came up. After we quit playing, I went back to partners who were still stuck in 1960, so "2♦ waiting, others show suits (as above), 2NT is 8+ balanced".

[mike777]

way way too complicated...see first post

 

2h deny a or k.....but can be many tiny points

 

responder strains to rebid....

[gnasher]

Before I go starting a new thread

Too late.

 

This thread and the fourth hand in this thread demonstrate a problem with Kokish. I still quite like my suggested solution, although I've never actually played it.

 

If you play 2♥ double-negative, it's ridiculous to require a king for 2♦. Three queens could be the difference between going down in game and making a grand slam. Aces and kings are easy to find via cue-bidding or Keycard; queens and jacks are not.

 

I think that the standard requirements for a suit positive make them too rare. With such a disparity of strength, it's better for the weak hand to describe when it can do so sensibly. Requiring a good suit is sensible; requiring loads of controls isn't.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that we haven't defined what "a strong 2♣ opening" looks like. That would probably affect the response structure some. :)

[jillybean]

It occurs to me that we haven't defined what "a strong 2♣ opening" looks like. That would probably affect the response structure some. :P

I didn't realise that there were different versions of strong 2♣.

22+, 8.5 playing tricks.