2C -2H/2S in precision

[bob100147]

How do most precision pairs play 2C-2H and 2C-2S? We play it as nonforcing, which I think is a fairly standard agreement. We have had some lousy results, however, when we open 2C and responder has a good hand with a major. Here is today's fiasco:

 

North

S Qxx

H Qx

D Ax

C A9xxxx

 

South

S AKJTxx

H AKxx

D xxx

C -

 

The auction went 2C - 3S - 4S - pass. 7 makes fairly easily but would be hard to find. We certainly should be in 6 but I can't see how we should have bid differently given our methods. East could have cue bid after opener bid 4S but was worried about three quick diamond losers. It would have been much easier if 2C - 2S was forcing for one round.

[johnu]

You have 2 ways to show a game forcing hand with a major(s). Jump to the 3 level in your suit which you did, or start off with 2♦ and then bid your suit. If you use 2♥/2♠ as forcing one round, what do you do with invitational hands with a major? Force to the 3 level? Invitational hands are going to be dealt a lot more than slam invitational ones.

 

In any case, North has a clear 4♦ cue bid with 2 aces, queen of partners strong suit, and 2 possible ruffing suits. Was North waiting for an invitation to cue bid?

[Zelandakh]

The standard structure involves using 2M as constructive but not forcing and 2♦ as a forcing relay but others are also possible. I personally use transfers - a GF hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts is bid by responding 2♦ (4+ hearts) and then, in this case, bidding 2♠ over 2♥ and 3♠ over 2NT. This gets you to a similar spot as starting with a 2♦ relay in the most common method. All of the structures have advantages and disadvantages so work out what you can and cannot live with and choose the one that matches your preferences the best.

[awm]

Sam and I play 2M forcing (which we got from Berkowitz-Cohen). This does get us a level higher when we have exactly an invite and opener has a min with exactly 2-fit. But it helps a lot on two-suited invites and on some strong hands.

[dhsackett]

We play that two D introduces invitational hands and 2N is a game force. This has not been perfect for us but it gives you a good chance on the hand you had

[bob100147]

You have 2 ways to show a game forcing hand with a major(s). Jump to the 3 level in your suit which you did, or start off with 2♦ and then bid your suit. If you use 2♥/2♠ as forcing one round, what do you do with invitational hands with a major? Force to the 3 level? Invitational hands are going to be dealt a lot more than slam invitational ones.

 

In any case, North has a clear 4♦ cue bid with 2 aces, queen of partners strong suit, and 2 possible ruffing suits. Was North waiting for an invitation to cue bid?

 

We don't have an agreement that 4D there would agree on spades. It would show something like 6-5 in the minors.

[johnu]

We don't have an agreement that 4D there would agree on spades. It would show something like 6-5 in the minors.

 

OK, I don't start looking for a trump fit at the 4 level after starting with 3♠.

[etha]

You might want to consider not opening 2c whenever possible. You can for example open that hand 1d maybe if you play short enough 1d. Now you have a lot more room and you should be fine. There are of course some hands where you can't raise diamonds which you might have wanted to do playing this way.

[phoenix214]

Zel's Transfer structure is pretty interesting to play. Have tried it and liked it.

On the given methods you should have a meta rule although. On the auction 3♠ sets trumps unless responder bids 3N or 5C. That means that other bids have to be supporting for spades. In that case you just start a normal cuebidding sequence.

Compare this to natural - 1♣-1♠, 2♣-3♠ for example- IMO here, it applies similarly.

[kwiktrix]

Assuming 2♣ = 6+♣

2R are transfers (5+M), super accepts including 2N with doubleton, 3♣ rejects (singleton M), otherwise GF available after xfer.

2♠ is GI+ with 3+♣ [helping to decide between 3N and 5♣, or slam invitational], asking for suit quality and shortness

then 2N = max (GF), good clubs, then 3

♣

asks, 3suit = singleton, 3N = no singleton

3

♣

= minimum, then 3

♦

(if responder GF+) asks for shortness, 3M = singleton, 3N = singleton

♦

3suit = max (GF), ratty clubs, shortness in suit

3N = max (GF), ratty clubs, no shortness

2N is GI+ without clubs - balanced (doubleton♣) or singleton♣, and no 5+M

then 3

♣

shows min

3suit shows max, singleton

3N shows max, no singleton

3♣ is preemptive

3♦ is to play

 

This can also be played with 2♣ showing 5♣ and 4M, with the appropriate modifications to 2♠ and 2N for club length.

[Zelandakh]

This can also be played with 2♣ showing 5♣ and 4M, with the appropriate modifications to 2♠ and 2N for club length.

The main modication you need is to allow 2red on a 4 card major. The bidding space is very tight but there is just enough space to get almost everything in.

[PrecisionL]

Assuming 2♣ = 6+♣

2R are transfers (5+M), super accepts including 2N with doubleton, 3♣ rejects (singleton M), otherwise GF available after xfer.

2♠ is GI+ with 3+♣ [helping to decide between 3N and 5♣, or slam invitational], asking for suit quality and shortness

then 2N = max (GF), good clubs, then 3

♣

asks, 3suit = singleton, 3N = no singleton

3

♣

= minimum, then 3

♦

(if responder GF+) asks for shortness, 3M = singleton, 3N = singleton

♦

3suit = max (GF), ratty clubs, shortness in suit

3N = max (GF), ratty clubs, no shortness

2N is GI+ without clubs - balanced (doubleton♣) or singleton♣, and no 5+M

then 3

♣

shows min

3suit shows max, singleton

3N shows max, no singleton

3♣ is preemptive

3♦ is to play

 

This can also be played with 2♣ showing 5♣ and 4M, with the appropriate modifications to 2♠ and 2N for club length.

 

Yes, an approach that is workable (assuming you do NOT open 2♣ with a 4-cd Major).

 

We play the transfers as conditional: If opener has zero or one card he rebids 2NT or 3♦ with a maximum, otherwise rebids 3♣.

 

With a maximum and 3-cd support opener can jump accept.

 

I have played this scheme for 5 years in two Precision Partnerships.

[bob100147]

Zel's Transfer structure is pretty interesting to play. Have tried it and liked it.

On the given methods you should have a meta rule although. On the auction 3♠ sets trumps unless responder bids 3N or 5C. That means that other bids have to be supporting for spades. In that case you just start a normal cuebidding sequence.

Compare this to natural - 1♣-1♠, 2♣-3♠ for example- IMO here, it applies similarly.

That sound like a very sensible way to handle this kind of hand. Thanks very much.

[kwiktrix]

The main modication you need is to allow 2red on a 4 card major. The bidding space is very tight but there is just enough space to get almost everything in.

 

I do not like any strong club flavor that allows a 4cM in a 2♣ opening. Open these with the nebulous 1♦ or use 4cM/canapé.

 

However, assuming that this is what the 2♣ opening shows, a transfer response with only 4cards in the major will not be viable, since opener with 3cards in that major will not know whether you have 4 or 5. This is particularly confusing when responder is 44 in the majors and hits an opener with 4=3=1=5.

 

While you can show 45 and 54 with a transfer and switch, you can't differentiate between 4cM and 5cM and will end up in a Moysian fit, when a better contract is available.

[Zelandakh]

I do not like any strong club flavor that allows a 4cM in a 2♣ opening. Open these with the nebulous 1♦ or use 4cM/canapé.

 

However, assuming that this is what the 2♣ opening shows, a transfer response with only 4cards in the major will not be viable, since opener with 3cards in that major will not know whether you have 4 or 5. This is particularly confusing when responder is 44 in the majors and hits an opener with 4=3=1=5.

 

While you can show 45 and 54 with a transfer and switch, you can't differentiate between 4cM and 5cM and will end up in a Moysian fit, when a better contract is available.

I agree wholeheartedly that taking the 4 card majors out makes the 2♣ opening better but it has a negative effect elsewhere. Whether it is worth it depends on how the system is built - in the case of my system I decided it was not, partly because the 1♦ opening is real and not nebulous.

 

Transfers with a minimum of 4 cards are fully viable. I have posted the structure here many times so a simple search should yield the appropriate results. 4-4 majors are no problem, you first bid 2♦ and then continue with 2♠ if Opener shows 0-2 hearts. In the case of Opener holding 4=3 in the majors they rebid 2♠ and the correct fit is discovered. The most difficult case with both majors is actually 5♠4♥ invitational, for which I have taken the luxury of using a specialised 2NT response. There are some other problem cases too but differentiating between 4 and 5 card majors is generally not an issue.

[lexlogan]

How do most precision pairs play 2C-2H and 2C-2S? We play it as nonforcing, which I think is a fairly standard agreement. We have had some lousy results, however, when we open 2C and responder has a good hand with a major. Here is today's fiasco:

 

North

S Qxx

H Qx

D Ax

C A9xxxx

 

South

S AKJTxx

H AKxx

D xxx

C -

 

The auction went 2C - 3S - 4S - pass. 7 makes fairly easily but would be hard to find. We certainly should be in 6 but I can't see how we should have bid differently given our methods. East could have cue bid after opener bid 4S but was worried about three quick diamond losers. It would have been much easier if 2C - 2S was forcing for one round.

 

I prefer 2♣-2♥/2♠ to be forcing. Forcing bids cover a much wider range of hands. Now and then responder will pass 2♣ when standard bidders would find their major suit fit, but that is more than offset by the excellent results from opening the descriptive and semi-preemptive 2♣.