2C--2D (GF at least 1K or 4-5 pts)

[benlessard]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dd2hp3cp3sp4sp]133|100[/hv]

 

2D set up a GF showing at least a K or 2Q or 5pts.

 

What is the range of the 4S raise ?

 

Would 4D be COG or good S raise ?

[CamHenry]

This is the difficulty in opening strong 2-suiters with 2♣. Even though your first round is quite efficient, by the time opener has shown his two suits you're at 3♠ already.

 

I think 4♥ and 4♠ each set trumps; 4♣ probably emphasises clubs, and 4♦... well, it can't really be looking for a stopper for NT, and therefore probably IS choice-of-games. I'd therefore suggest that 4♠ is quite wide-ranging, but what you need to discuss is whether 4♦-4♥-4♠ is stronger or weaker than a direct 4♠. My suggestion would be for a stronger hand to go that way, since you can bid on after 4♦-4♠.

 

Presumably responder has already denied primary ♥ support, and therefore a direct 4♥ shows a very poor hand for spades.

[Zelandakh]

For me, 4♦ would be a slam try in spades and 4♠ shows a minimum. That is also the generic default for the fourth suit at the 4 level in auctions where there is no alternative way of raising partner's last suit below game and slam is possible.

[kenrexford]

I recently analyzed an aspect of bidding theory/thinking that seemed incredibly basic and perhaps pointless expect as a way of understanding why certain bids mean certain things. In the context I gave, a fair analysis might have been, "Sure, but how useful is that to know?" This auction, however, makes me think that the concepts were more valuable than I though.

 

The most basic point of the thing was that there is a strong reason for a change of level bid in a major to show a 5-card suit but that a non-change of level only promises a four-card suit. This works well at the one-level and is fairly obvious. At the three-level, this is tough to apply. But, if the start is at the two-level, this principle seems to have good application.

 

I also consider Walsh good thinking.

 

This is a unique auction for me, because I would like Kokish here, or "Rexfordized Kokish" perhaps (see my blog), so I do not usually have natural auctions here. But, consider two alternatives:

 

Alternative A: Responder needs a 5-card spade suit to introduce them directly after Opener's 2♥. The downsides to this are that (1) a 4-4 spade fit is not discovered until this problem emerges, and (2) there is no convenient way to raise either minor by Responder below 3NT. The upside is that a 5-3 spade fit can be found more rapidly.

 

Alternative B: Responder introduces a 4-card spade suit if he has one directly over Opener's 2♥, even with a longer minor. The downside is that a 5-3 spade fit takes more time to spot and that Opener often will need to make a waiting 2NT call next to see if there is some minor worth mentioning or a spade suit worth repeating, and some ambiguity might arise. The upsides are that (1) a 4-4 spade fit is found rapidly and easily, and (2) this enables a convenient way to agree the minor below 3NT (Opener bids 3♠ artificially).

 

My "Rexfordized Kokish" solves all problems best, IMO, but the alternative of allowing a 2♠ call with 4+ seems decent and better than Alternative A to me.

[Winstonm]

If you break down the differences between forcing 1C and strong 2C openings, the difference is 6 bids. Bidding is an exchange of information so what is ultimately lost in 2C structures are the lower end of good hands (16-21 thereabouts) and the ability to describe many hand types.

 

What is found is that some limits on types of hands that can be opened 2C is a sacrifice that must be made to create a more seamless system. The problem I see with using 2D as a game-force response is that it leaves many negative responses available and that is not always best use of space.

 

IMO, trying to answer questions about 2C always resolves back to questions about best structure of the system in its entirety. It is hard to know what to do with hand "x" without questioning the entire 2C structure.

[awm]

4♦ should be slam try in spades. If I held 3-2 in the majors and no diamond control, I'd just bid 4♥. Partner will know this is not a real fit (I'd raise to 3♥ immediately with 3-card support). I am not that worried about trying to select the better of a 4-3 vs. a 5-2 fit in this auction; much more important to limit strength.

[benlessard]

I agree with AWM, a while ago ive picked 2 hands with similar auction.

 

xxx

x

xx

KJxxxxx

 

AKxx

AKxxx

Ax

AQ

 

Both 5C and 4S were good, even 6C but tough to bid.

 

the other hand 4D as a good S raise would have worked better.

[benlessard]

I also agree with Ken that we should learn to bid 4M canape style when the bidding start high,

 

If after a strong club its totally normal to bid 4M instead of 5m 1C-1D-??? why not after 2C-2D ???