2C-?

[Zelandakh]

Many possibilities, such as:

 

2♣ - 2♠;

3♦ - 3♥;

4♣ - 4♠;

4NT - 5♦;

5♠ - 7NT

 

The initial response does not seem too important, for example:

 

2♣ - 2♦;

3♥ - 4♠;

4NT - 5♦;

5♠ - 7NT

 

is essentially the same thing.

[gnasher]

Our spade suit seems to have improved since the original post.

 

Anyway, after 2♣-2♠ it's trivial:

2♣-2♠

3♦-3♥

4♥-4NT

5♦-6♠ *

7♥

 

* When partner asks for kings and you have an unshown king in his first suit, he should obviously be willing for you to go past six of the trump suit.

[Cyberyeti]

My eyesight isn't what it used to be, so I may have misread your post.

 

Are you suggesting that I was posting on how to respond to 2♣ with Q109xxxxxx KQ void KQ??????

 

If so, please point me to where I mentioned that pipedream fantasy of a hand in my post?

 

You're apparently from the UK. I have no idea who you really are, and no interest in knowing, but I suspect you have limited, if any, experience in NA or playing against a lot of NA experts. My view is that if you had two NA experts sit down for a game, with little experience playing together and a discussion of '2/1, strong 1N', most would expect that a positive suit response would show a 5 card suit with 2 or 3 of the top 3 honours.

 

The fact that in the UK a similar pair would assume that the requirements would be different isn't, despite your personal views of the matter, proof that your way is the better.

 

There will be hands on which one approach works better than the other and vice versa. Indeed, had you actually understood my post, I suspect that you might have seen that I recognized that this hand type was one on which the UK approach might well be more effective.

 

The OP asked a question. Andy made a post that reflected what I took as a standard UK type of method. I pointed out that one couldn't actually answer the OP unless one understood what agreements were in place, which seemed and seems to me to be an appropriate point since other posters had clearly been of the view that a positive response promised 2/3 top cards.

 

Where you get from my pointing out that there are regional variances in standard agreements to imagining I was describing my approach holding 8 or 9 spades to the Q109 and two side KQ holdings is beyond my ability to discern.

 

You pointed at it obliquely by saying you'd bid 7N with the hand missing the ♠A, hence I can't respond 2♠ on the hand I posted.

[Hanoi5]

I really thought the 2/3 honours when giving a positive hand over a 2♣ opening was carved in stone. I didn't know experts carved some agreements on ice, especially one so specific.

 

Over 2♣ the space is limited and so the information given should be very clear. Or so I thought. I've had problems myself when openeing or responding to 2♣, for example:

 

- After a positive response, does opener's NT show a balanced hand or merely a lack of fit?

- A 2NT response might be used by responder to show a good (8-11- HCP's) hand with at least 3 controls (A=2, K=1), but what are the continuations?

 

And now you tell me that I can bypass the requirement of 2/3 high honours if I consider it right. The world has gone loco.

[PhilKing]

The BWS 2001 poll was very strongly in favour of 2M responses promising 2 of the top 3 when holding a 5-card suit (74% of experts), but lower requirements were assumed when holding six (there was no follow up poll on this issue, though).

[cherdano]

The BWS 2001 poll was very strongly in favour of 2M responses promising 2 of the top 3 when holding a 5-card suit (74% of experts), but lower requirements were assumed when holding six (there was no follow up poll on this issue, though).

I think the poll was pretty clear - only 26% of experts were in favour of stronger requirements than "at least 6, or 5 headed by two honours".

 

Anyway, I think it's very inferior to mandate a two-top honour requirement. There are so many hands where the chances for slam depend on the quality of the fit, and not being able to respond 2S with a shapely hand with values like the one we have here just delays the chance to find out about this.

[PhilKing]

I think the poll was pretty clear - only 26% of experts were in favour of stronger requirements than "at least 6, or 5 headed by two honours".

 

Anyway, I think it's very inferior to mandate a two-top honour requirement. There are so many hands where the chances for slam depend on the quality of the fit, and not being able to respond 2S with a shapely hand with values like the one we have here just delays the chance to find out about this.

 

26% preferred weaker requirements. The 74% referred to those who wanted at least the requirements above - 18% wanted even more restrictive requirements, to the point where one wonders why bother responding anything other than 2♦.

[mikeh]

If the main reason not to allow a 2♠ response is, because opener might bid slam by jumping 4 or more bidding levels in a game forcing situation, then this argument sounds weak to me.

 

<snipped>

 

Rainer Herrmann

Why do you think that this is the 'main reason'?

 

I simply pointed out that if one has the agreement that a bid means something specific, regardless of WHY it carries that meaning, it is foolish to make the bid with a hand that does not match the agreement.

 

I'm baffled by the response to my first post on this thread. All I ever did was to state something that is patently true, and surely obvious to the meanest bridge intelligence: that to decide how to bid the responding hand one had first to know what one's agreements were.

 

Were I to sit down with a European expert, undiscussed, I would bid 2♠ because my understanding is that this would be viewed as standard in Europe. Were I to do it with a NA expert, I would bid 2♦. Philking's reference to the old BWS poll supports my assertion, and I suspect (from my own experience) that the 2/3 top card approach is more popular in some parts of NA than others. Where I play, 2/3 is almost universal amongst the better players when they play a standard based method.

 

Nowhere did I assert that either method was inferior to the other. There seem to me to be solid arguments on both sides.

 

I happen to be more familiar with the 2/3 top honour approach, but in my serious partnerships we use 2♠ to show a balanced hand of 7-10 hcp, so we couldn't bid 2♠ anyway. I didn't mention that, nor how I would bid the hand in my partnerships, because I was only trying to make a point about requiring or assuming agreements in order to know what might be appropriate.

[Hanoi5]

I simply pointed out that if one has the agreement that a bid means something specific, regardless of WHY it carries that meaning, it is foolish to make the bid with a hand that does not match the agreement.

 

I totally agree with this. But I think the others meant that even though you have an agreement you can sneak out of it and that it is responsibility of the partner to verify it.

 

Say you hold a hand good enough for 3NT, no majors in front of partner's 1NT opening. But you think bidding 3NT would be better if you find out partner holds 4 hearts. So you bid stayman and partner shows 4 hearts but when you bid 3NT goes to 4♠. And you go down either passing 4♠ or bidding 4NT, would you blame partner for by-passing your 3NT?

 

I think if you play that 2♠ shows 2 of the top three you CAN'T bid 2♠ with the mentioned hand. If you agree to show 2/3 or very good six, then I have no issue with it. But I too might jump to 7NT if you show me 5 cards to 2 honours and by pass a question I don't need to ask.

[gnasher]

Sometimes we bid a three-card suit, even though it shows four. That risks being raised and not being able to escape, but we do it anyway because the benefits justify the risks.

 

Sometimes we open 1NT with a singleton, even though it shows a balanced hand. That risks playing in an inadequate trump suit, or playing in notrumps when we should be in a suit, but we do it anyway because the benefits justify the risks.

 

I don't see this situation as any different. The benefits of bidding 2♠ are significant. If the only risk is that partner happens to have ♠KJx in an otherwise solid hand and eschews Keycard, it seems quite a reasonable risk to take. I'd bid 2♠ even opposite MikeH, if I were ever lucky enough to find myself playing with him.

[Hanoi5]

I agree it is normal to take detours in certain situations because of the possible benefits. However, I'd call it a psych, very dangerous bid and probably serious error to lie about the number of key-cards you hold (even though you can 'lie' about holding the Queen) and to show a different number of controls than you have if your 1♣-16+-opening-partner asks for them.

 

There are things you can lie about and there are things you can't. Is that correct?

[aguahombre]

You can lie about anything you want to to partner when you are certain you can take over control of the auction to its absolute final conclusion. There is rarely an occasion where you would want to do that.

 

For instance, asking for Kings when missing an Ace is not a good idea because partner might forego answering Kings and just bid 7 because of an unexpected side source.

 

You can lie about your shape with a NT opening if you are willing to complete a Texas Transfer.

 

When you lie about the agreed suit quality of a 2M response to 2C, you run the risk of Partner thinking she knows all she needs to know.

 

QTXXXX

KQXX

X

KX

 

K

Ax

AKQJXXXXX

A

 

P-2C

2S-7N

[mikeh]

Sometimes we bid a three-card suit, even though it shows four. That risks being raised and not being able to escape, but we do it anyway because the benefits justify the risks.

 

Sometimes we open 1NT with a singleton, even though it shows a balanced hand. That risks playing in an inadequate trump suit, or playing in notrumps when we should be in a suit, but we do it anyway because the benefits justify the risks.

 

I don't see this situation as any different. The benefits of bidding 2♠ are significant. If the only risk is that partner happens to have ♠KJx in an otherwise solid hand and eschews Keycard, it seems quite a reasonable risk to take. I'd bid 2♠ even opposite MikeH, if I were ever lucky enough to find myself playing with him.

If you were ever unlucky to play with me (some friends nicknamed me 'short straw' for a reason), I'd never expect you to promise 2/3 top honours, so we'd be safe on this hand.

 

More to the point: I think your analogies are flawed.

 

For one thing, I suspect that on most occasions when you bid a 3 card suit that is ostensibly 4 or more, it would be in a situation in which your partner is aware of the possibility. For your analogy to be apposite, we'd have to imagine something like a stayman auction in which opener bid 2M on a 3 card suit, promising 4. I have never seen that intentionally done nor can I conceive of a hand on which it would be the best choice.

 

The same is true of 1N with a stiff. When we perpetrate that action, it is because we have a hand that is unbiddable should a commonly foreseeable situation arise.

 

By contrast, responding 2♦ on a positive hand with QJ10xxx in spades creates no obviously insoluble problem. I admit that it leaves us poorly placed, by comparison to those able to make a looser 2♠ response, should opener rebid 3m, but being relatively poorly placed is not at all the same as facing a rebid problem on K AQJx KQxx Jxxx and hearing a 1♠ response to our 1♦!

 

At the same time, should opener rebid 2N, partnerships with solid, complex agreements will be in excellent shape...at least as good as if they had responded 2♠. I should make a disclaimer: I cannot show a major at the 2-level, since I use 2M for artificial purposes, as per Fred G. This does make it more useful for me to narrow the definition of a major positive since I can't show the suit below the 3-level. I am not basing my arguments in this thread on that fact.

 

Meanwhile, and independent of my particular methods, there are powerful arguments in favour of keeping positive suit responses narrowly defined, and these arguments are NOT principally based on allowing opener to leap to 7N!

 

I am not going to go into them, since doing so would take a lot of space, and I am not in this thread attempting to persuade anybody to adopt the method. Frankly, I suspect that if Andy and his regular partner bid 1000 (appropriately cooked) hands using his approach and I mine, the difference would be due to the skill level of the players far more than the intrinsic pros and cons of the different methods.

 

My point remains: if you agree that 2♠ delivers a certain holding, then don't distort.

[rhm]

Why do you think that this is the 'main reason'?

 

I simply pointed out that if one has the agreement that a bid means something specific, regardless of WHY it carries that meaning, it is foolish to make the bid with a hand that does not match the agreement.

 

I'm baffled by the response to my first post on this thread. All I ever did was to state something that is patently true, and surely obvious to the meanest bridge intelligence: that to decide how to bid the responding hand one had first to know what one's agreements were.

 

Were I to sit down with a European expert, undiscussed, I would bid 2♠ because my understanding is that this would be viewed as standard in Europe. Were I to do it with a NA expert, I would bid 2♦. Philking's reference to the old BWS poll supports my assertion, and I suspect (from my own experience) that the 2/3 top card approach is more popular in some parts of NA than others. Where I play, 2/3 is almost universal amongst the better players when they play a standard based method.

 

Nowhere did I assert that either method was inferior to the other. There seem to me to be solid arguments on both sides.

 

I happen to be more familiar with the 2/3 top honour approach, but in my serious partnerships we use 2♠ to show a balanced hand of 7-10 hcp, so we couldn't bid 2♠ anyway. I didn't mention that, nor how I would bid the hand in my partnerships, because I was only trying to make a point about requiring or assuming agreements in order to know what might be appropriate.

I do not argue that if you have an agreement you should follow your agreement at the table with few exceptions.

It is generally better to follow inferior agreements at the table than violating them.

But if there are agreements there is hardly anything to argue, is there?

You mentally look at your rulebook and do as you have agreed upon just like a robot.

However, the opener did not specify any agreements.

So it must be allowed to discuss which agreements are helpful and which are not, even when they are popular in certain regions of this planet.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

I cannot conceive of a 2D 'waiting" bid on this hand. This is a 2S response. If you are not going to bid 2S on this, what are you waiting for..13 spades?

[the hog]

 

I'm surprised at this post. You REALLY can't see any advantage? Then let me teach you a thing or two.

 

First, you usually want the strong hand to describe and declare,

 

Snipped. Declare, "yes", describe "no".

Let me teach you a thing or two. Anyone who at any stage in their bridge playing life has ever played a relay system will be aware that the strong hand has MORE to show. Therefore the weaker hand should show and the strong hand ask. This is also common sense. Here you have a positive and a 6-4, a hand that is relatively easy to describe, so keep it at a lower level and bid 2S. IF you have the agreement that a positive shows 2/3 hons, then that is your problem. I don't like it.

 

Second, how about when opener has a balanced hand? You wrong-side the contract, and possibly get the partnership too high.

 

More stuff snipped. Yes and you might be hit by a truck when you walk into the street. You have a 2 suiter for heaven's sake. If opener has a bal hand, he bids 2NT and now you bid as per your system.

 

 

Third, even if opener has a minor hand (which seems likely), the auction isn't an issue if it goes 2♣-2♦, 3♦. When I bid 3♠, partner knows I have 5+ Spades,

More stuff snipped

Yes, except he has NO idea of your strength.

 

Next time before you attempt to teach someone something, perhaps you should think first.

[aguahombre]

I cannot conceive of a 2D 'waiting" bid on this hand. This is a 2S response. If you are not going to bid 2S on this, what are you waiting for..13 spades?

Oh, you can conceive of a waiting bid on this hand because you can read the posts. You and your partner don't have to agree with those posts, and we don't have to agree that this "IS a 2S response". We accept that it IS a 2S response for you, however.

 

What are we waiting for? Again you can read; we are waiting for a suit which matches our agreements.

[Winstonm]

I doubt anyone can seriously doubt that in Standard methods the 2C opening and response structure is a glaring weakness. To think about hand types, there simply isn't enough room for a 2C opener to describe all hand types, so what makes the most sense is to cater to frequency. Basically, the most common types of big hands are NTs and 1-suiters. I would submit that a 2C system should be built around responding to those hand types.

[aguahombre]

I doubt anyone can seriously doubt that in Standard methods the 2C opening and response structure is a glaring weakness. To think about hand types, there simply isn't enough room for a 2C opener to describe all hand types, so what makes the most sense is to cater to frequency. Basically, the most common types of big hands are NTs and 1-suiters. I would submit that a 2C system should be built around responding to those hand types.

 

And ...... For some of us those are pretty much the ONLY hand types. I conclude from your summary of what we know that you are in the "get out of opener's way" camp for first responses. Rigid top-honor requirements for a 2M response often assist opener in counting tricks and begin an accurate probe for specific controls.

 

A somewhat related observation: At the club level and on-line, I estimate there are 2-3 times as many opening 2C bids as there are in respectable competition. There, I doubt whether either the "get busy" or the "get out of the way" philosophy matters; the partnership will still be screwed a significant percent of the time.

[the hog]

Oh, you can conceive of a waiting bid on this hand because you can read the posts. You and your partner don't have to agree with those posts, and we don't have to agree that this "IS a 2S response". We accept that it IS a 2S response for you, however.

 

What are we waiting for? Again you can read; we are waiting for a suit which matches our agreements.

 

You are going to be waiting a looooong time agh. Tell me, how many positives do you get in a year?

[aguahombre]

You are going to be waiting a looooong time agh. Tell me, how many positives do you get in a year?

Not relevant. What is relevant is whether we need to show those positives immediately, whether our agreements about suit quality are random, and whether we can resolve strain later if partner is the slightest bit interested in the lengths of our suits. The answers depend on the discipline of the 2C bid itself and our agreed methods ---not on someone else's opinion based on their own methods.

[the hog]

Actually I think it is relevant as otherwise you have sequences that you use too infrequently to make them worthwhile.