2C I suppose

[kenberg]

Bbo, Imps, everyone vul, pass-pass -your call.

[hv=pc=n&s=saj5ha3dak86532ca&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp]133|200[/hv]

 

My thinking was that I did not much care for an auction that begins 2C-2D(waiting)-3D-3M. So I opened 1D. I might have thought a little more before doing this, because whatever I think of 2C-2D(waiting)-3D-3M, I am even less prepared to cope with the likely, and actual, 1D-1M.

 

As it happens, the hands are

[hv=pc=n&s=saj5ha3dak86532ca&n=skq976h965d7ck753&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1dp1sp5dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Spades are 4-1, diamonds 3-2, so the hand is cold for 7S. I had no trouble taking 12 tricks in diamonds. Partner felt she should have raised 5D to 6D and perhaps that's so, but really I gave her an insoluble problem with this auction. +620 was +3.4 imps, beyond explanation.

 

Of course if I open 2C, the hands could be [hv=pc=n&s=saj5ha3dak86532ca&n=sq9762h965d7ck753&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2c]266|200[/hv]

or even less.

 

It can be a mistake to revise your strategy to fight the last war, but I think next time I open 2C. While there is no guarantee that diamonds are running in NT, and here they are not, there is also no guarantee that they are not running. If the auction starts 2C-2D-3D-3M, I will still have to judge what to do but I suppose 3NT would be, in general, the best shot. On the layout directly above, 4S would be nice.

 

Bridge is 90% judgement and the other half is conventions. And some good luck doesn't hurt.

 

Posted for general interest, comments welcome, tact unnecessary.

[Cyberyeti]

You need a gadget if you're going to open 1♦.

 

We would bid this:

 

1♦-1♠

2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)

3♦-3♠(I have a 5th one)

 

And now it's pretty simple, the big hand finds out partner has ♠KQxxx and ♣K so 7 looks very good.

 

What is 1♦-1♠-4♦ for you ?

[wank]

you have 9 tricks in your own hand and stops in every suit. that's obviously a 2c opener, because it adds up to 3NT on its own.

 

but 5D was the real crime in your auction (it's a sequence i never saw before and for good reason) - aside from the impossibilty of bidding slam after that, 4S or 3NT will often be a better game.

 

of course not opening 2C has got you into a pickle, but rebidding 5D isn't the way to solve that. you have to manufacture a forcing bid - 2H one presumes.

[Stefan_O]

You need a gadget if you're going to open 1♦.

 

We would bid this:

 

1♦-1♠

2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)

....

 

If 2NT shows unbal, this looks like more than a "gadget", since you then need a way to bid 18-19 balanced, etc.

Such "gadget" is pointless, unless you explain the whole structure.

 

Otherwise, I have a better "gadget" for you:

  1D-1S-1NT = 20+, 3-2-7-1, and 4 aces

:)

[kenrexford]

A curious sequence thought, perhaps.

 

Suppose you take Wank's suggestion and rebid 2♥, which seems reasonable. It occurred to me that this 2♥ call functionally is parallel to a sort of strange Checkback Stayman call initiated by Opener rather than Responder. I mean, Opener bids something that could well be artificial, with Responder expected to have as his primary options either (1) showing four cards in the other major or (2) showing an extra card in the original major. The only difference is a false difference. The difference is that Opener is supposedly showing something, whereas in reality he is not, because we all know that 2♥ could be a manufactured call.

 

Well, extrapolating further, why not just go all in? Why not define 2♥ in this sequence as "Checkback Stayman?" Or, some other term (Clarifying Checkback?). If the end result of any sequence is the same, functionally, then perhaps redefining the call for what it really is might be more accurate.

 

Moreover, divorcing from the concept of natural completely, to make this artificial in nature, might trigger some innovative ideas. When a call acts like an artificial bid despite being loosely defined as natural, there is a tendency to be somehow tied to the natural meaning in your thinking, even if the naturality is false. Going all in might liberate new thoughts.

 

This sequence is unique, I think, to two sequences:

 

1♦-1♠-2♥

 

1♣-1♥-2♦

 

In each, Opener has only one reverse available, and in each Responder may well be 5-4/4-5 in the majors.

 

In the sequence 1♣-1♠-2red, there are two reverses available, which makes the sequence not precisely the same. There are some neat options here, but that gets complicated. Suffice it to say that 2♦ as merely checkback would free 2♥ for other fun purposes.

 

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

If 2NT shows unbal, this looks like more than a "gadget", since you then need a way to bid 18-19 balanced, etc.

Such "gadget" is pointless, unless you explain the whole structure.

 

Otherwise, I have a better "gadget" for you:

  1D-1S-1NT = 20+, 3-2-7-1, and 4 aces

:)

 

Easy, we play a weak no trump and wide range 15-bad 19 1N rebid, with a good 19-21 2N, so don't need the 2N rebid for a balanced hand.

 

Edit: Not so easy over 1♠, but Gnasher proposes using 1m-1♥-2♠ for a similar purpose

[Stefan_O]

(deleted)

[kenberg]

you have 9 tricks in your own hand and stops in every suit. that's obviously a 2c opener, because it adds up to 3NT on its own.

 

but 5D was the real crime in your auction (it's a sequence i never saw before and for good reason) - aside from the impossibility of bidding slam after that, 4S or 3NT will often be a better game.

 

of course not opening 2C has got you into a pickle, but rebidding 5D isn't the way to solve that. you have to manufacture a forcing bid - 2H one presumes.

 

I considered getting inventive but I remembered the old saw, when you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging. Not that I am defending 5D. My thinking, roughly, was that having screwed this up by opening 1D I think I will go with 5D. It will make more often than not, and if diamonds don't run I am not dead. In NT, I might be.

I guess I am saying that while I agree that my bidding was awful, I rate the 1D opening as being worse than the 5D rebid.

 

A further word about philosophy. On bbo I play a lot without having detailed agreements. Part of my approach is to forego anything too inventive. While partner certainly can be thinking I might have lost my mind with that 5D call, she will have no doubt that I want to play in diamonds. If, by chance, she holds five spades (she does) and four hearts (she doesn't) and I rebid 2H I don't want her to have to try to figure out whether I do or do not mean it with that 2H call. Since I hold only two hearts, putting a hypothetical four hearts in partner's hand is not unreasonable.

For that matter, I would be reluctant to test partner with a 2H call even in a regular partnership.

 

But anyway, yes, I needed to open that 2C. We probably reach 7S. Not a certain contract, diamonds need not split 3-2, but maybe it still comes in if spades are 3-2. 2C-2S for starters. Even if this does not promise two of the top three, and I think that with her it does, we should be able to get there; 2C-2S-3S and then later I can use rkc to be sure of the KQ. I suppose 7S is not on ice looking at the two hands but it is pretty good.

 

Back to the mundane. Most often, giving pard a random hand, it will start 2C-2D(waiting)-3D. We are now pretty high and I know nothing about partner's hand. I don't usually have a second negative available after this beginning. After 2C-2D-3C, I play 3D as weak and artificial but after 2C-2D-3D I treat both 3H and 3S as natural. or maybe "more or less natural" meaning that partner has to bid and is doing his/her best.

 

If diamonds run I have ten tricks in NT, if one diamond must be lost I have nine tricks unless they have five tricks first.

 

So yes, 2C. I realize there have been a lot of advances in responses to 2C since c.1960 but we weren't playing them. And here, that would have been fine. 2C-2S and there we go.

 

So I am curious. With bidding agreements as described, so that often after 2C it will go 2C-2D-3D-3M, is the consensus to go with 3NT?

 

Added: I agree that 1D-1S-5D might be a new auction in the history of bridge.

[Stephen Tu]

I feel fairly strongly that after you open 2c and rebid 3d, you must raise 3M with 3 cards, and responder should not introduce 4 cd suits. If you want to find 4-4 fits, play the 3M rebid= major diamond canape gadget.

 

You can rebid 3n if partner doesn't bid your 3cd major.

 

With your spade hand should get to slam easily after spade positive response to 2c.

[johnu]

of course not opening 2C has got you into a pickle, but rebidding 5D isn't the way to solve that. you have to manufacture a forcing bid - 2H one presumes.

 

Years ago in the Bridge World, there was a Master Solvers hand where opener was something like 3=1=8=1? (or maybe 3=8=1=1???, sorry, don't remember the details, maybe somebody else does) with jump shift strength with 2 singleton aces. The 100% score after a start of 1♦ - 1♠ was a jump shift to 3♣. The comment that stands out after all these years was along the line of never having a bad result by jumping in the lower ranking of your singleton aces.

[Stefan_O]

The comment that stands out after all these years was along the line of never having a bad result by jumping in the lower ranking of your singleton aces.

And what was the rationale for that?

[The_Badger]

hi Kenberg,

 

As much as you probably dislike this comment, but I'm going to say it: I find it totally bizarre that players employ a 2♦ waiting bid over a 2♣ opener.

 

I'm not sure how and when this deviation (for want of a better word) came in, but to me personally there's absolutely no logic in employing it. The one thing you don't want is confusion when bidding, especially with one big hand opposite a lesser hand.

 

That's perhaps where the problem lies: you're trying to bid on behalf of your partner not knowing exactly what he's got.

 

Does the Jimmy Cayne team have this problem? Of course not, because they use controls response to a 2♣ bid. Given that control responses were invented by Blue Team (?), I think they have stood the test of time.

 

I will concede that occasionally a control response will wrongside the contract, but there's no guarantee that a waiting 2♦ bid will rightside a contract too.

[Winstonm]

U pays U money; U takes U chances.

[wank]

Does the Jimmy Cayne team have this problem? Of course not, because they use controls response to a 2♣ bid. Given that control responses were invented by Blue Team (?), I think they have stood the test of time.

 

 

i presume you men jimmy cayne himself. i can't imagine any of his pros choosing to play control responses. even garozzo has admitted it's a bad idea. i can't think of any of the modern strong club pairs who play them these days either. they're a really bad idea (oops said that already, but well, it's doubly true). they eat space for very little benefit.

 

the strong hand normally has some shortages. anything opposite a void is obviously not pulling its weight and similarly for kings opposite singletons

[Stefan_O]

Given that control responses were invented by Blue Team (?)

 

No, control responses to 2C were deployed already back in the Neolithic Era... (1930'ies or so)

 

Blue Team used them over strong-1C opening, where you have much more bidding room, thus is quite a different animal.

[kenberg]

hi Kenberg,

 

As much as you probably dislike this comment, but I'm going to say it: I find it totally bizarre that players employ a 2♦ waiting bid over a 2♣ opener.

 

I'm not sure how and when this deviation (for want of a better word) came in, but to me personally there's absolutely no logic in employing it. The one thing you don't want is confusion when bidding, especially with one big hand opposite a lesser hand.

 

That's perhaps where the problem lies: you're trying to bid on behalf of your partner not knowing exactly what he's got.

 

Does the Jimmy Cayne team have this problem? Of course not, because they use controls response to a 2♣ bid. Given that control responses were invented by Blue Team (?), I think they have stood the test of time.

 

I will concede that occasionally a control response will wrongside the contract, but there's no guarantee that a waiting 2♦ bid will rightside a contract too.

 

I have played controls.

 

 

History of 2D waiting: My reference to c.1960 was not totally off the wall. I have the Bobby Goldman book, Aces Scientific. The copyright is 1978 but he is discussing the methods of the Dallas Aces, evolving from 1968. Page 42, discussing the 2D response to 2C: 'Two diamonds is neutral, showing the inability to make any specific positive response. This response is used about 80% of the time". I am more than willing to believe that 2D waiting came before the Aces, but I don't know that.

 

 

Now 1978, the copyright, not to mention 1968, the founding of the Aces, is a long time ago. So no doubt there have been improved techniques. But I see it this way: It's simple, and if it was good enough for Wolff, Goldman, Lawrence, and so forth I am comfortable enough with it. In my partnerships there re many many things that are not optimal. That's ok. When I get a bad result the reason, maybe one time in ten, probably not that often, might be from not playing the optimal system. Far more often, it is from me not playing optimally. I don't much care for home grown systems, but something played by a reasonable number of high level players is fine.

 

Controls seems to bring out strong opinions in players. On the had we actually had, I suppose it begins 2C-2H(the bid for 2 controls, yes?) and then I bid 3D. Probably we find our spade fit and use rkc to find we have all the key cards including the Q, but 2C-2S makes it easier.

 

I have not found controls to be either particularly useful nor particularly harmful. I play them if partner wishes.

[ggwhiz]

Ugly problem especially since we respond 2♦ to 2♣ even with the north hand on the principle that the most common rebid by opener is 2nt and then we can transfer, or in a shapely big hand the most likely shortage is in spades where a 2♠ response can be beyond awkward.

 

So, 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ is pretty much out of bounds for us.

 

After 1♦ - 1♠ I've narrowed it down to 2♥, 2nt, 3♣ or RKC and tilting towards the latter since our response with zero is 5♦ (float?) and with one and no Queen even a 4-3 fit has a play for slam. I can try to park it in 6♦ after a 5♣ response (1 kc) and a queen ask of 5♥ where partner will bid 5♠ if they don't have it.

 

I know this is colored a bit by seeing the hands and I might do any of the above at the table depending on my mood.

[The_Badger]

No, control responses to 2C were deployed already back in the Neolithic Era... (1930'ies or so)

 

Blue Team used them over strong-1C opening, where you have much more bidding room, thus is quite a different animal.

 

I'm glad that I've opened up a small can of worms over the 2♦ waiting bid: perhaps it deserves a forum question all of its own. Thanks to wank, Stefan O and kenberg for your replies.

 

The reason why I bought this up is that the Larry Cohen response seems simplistic. 2♦ waiting except if you have 8+ HCPs and a good 5 card+ suit with 2 honours then bid it. Happens all time - not! :(

 

More often than not responder has anything from a Yarborough to something that may be useful but isn't substantial. (And yes, the Yarborough can be useful if it has the right shape.)

 

I have also noticed in the Cayne games that hands where many players would open 2♣ just on points and controls, especially with a minor suit holding, are opened with 1♣ or 1♦.

 

And that inconveniently brings us back to another question: 2♣ or 1♦? The jury's out.

[msjennifer]

You need a gadget if you're going to open 1♦.

 

We would bid this:

 

1♦-1♠

2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)

3♦-3♠(I have a 5th one)

 

And now it's pretty simple, the big hand finds out partner has ♠KQxxx and ♣K so 7 looks very good.

 

What is 1♦-1♠-4♦ for you ?

And what does he bid if he does not have the fifth spade.?How do you propose to continue the bidding further ?

[msjennifer]

inspite of the fact that most responders will bid 2D if partner opens 2 C, I would like to insist that it is a bad policy to make it a waiting bid.If one has a positive hand,say 8plus HCP and 2 controls,and a five carder biddable major or minor it is best to bid it immediately.Whereas a 2D bidder has to make two bids to show such a hand(5 card major)It is best to adopt Precision system responses! .If one uses such responses opener immediately,with a fit,will know responder has KQxxx.It now does not matter which King he has, as any will do,7 Spades is not difficult to bid with this information.

[rmnka447]

I have no problem with OP opening the hand 1 ♦ instead of 2 ♣. That's because with most of my partner's a 2 ♣ openers promise no more than 3 losers for a minor suit hand or 4 losers for a major suit hand. So I'd open it 1 ♦ myself.

 

After 1 ♦ is bid and responder bids 1 ♠, opener needs to force responder to bid again because ♠ have become a possible strain for the contract. So, a "hasty" 2 ♥ reverse looks like the logical bid. It gives the opportunity to hear something further from responder before committing to any game and keeps the bidding relatively low.

 

Let's say you play 2 NT as natural or the start of a signoff after the reverse. If responder bids 2 NT, then you could jump bid to 4 ♦ to show a ♦ hand just below an opening 2 ♣ bid.

 

OTOH, partner may show a positive hand and give you some valuable information. With the actual hands, responder would rebid 2 ♠ and identifies an 8+ card ♠ fit. But it's also possible that responder might raise ♦ which would set you on an exploration for a ♦ slam.

[Cyberyeti]

And what does he bid if he does not have the fifth spade.?How do you propose to continue the bidding further ?

 

I've shown 6+ diamonds and an enormous hand with 3♦, so I'm in a similar place to 2♣-2♦-3♦ except I've shown the 6th diamond, he's shown me 4+♠ and values and I'm limited by the failure to open 2♣, so wherever we go, I'm in a better place.

[rmnka447]

I'm glad that I've opened up a small can of worms over the 2♦ waiting bid: perhaps it deserves a forum question all of its own. Thanks to wank, Stefan O and kenberg for your replies.

 

The reason why I bought this up is that the Larry Cohen response seems simplistic. 2♦ waiting except if you have 8+ HCPs and a good 5 card+ suit with 2 honours then bid it. Happens all time - not! :(

 

More often than not responder has anything from a Yarborough to something that may be useful but isn't substantial. (And yes, the Yarborough can be useful if it has the right shape.)

 

I have also noticed in the Cayne games that hands where many players would open 2♣ just on points and controls, especially with a minor suit holding, are opened with 1♣ or 1♦.

 

And that inconveniently brings us back to another question: 2♣ or 1♦? The jury's out.

Cohen's suggestion isn't so much about frequency as about providing useful information to partner when you make a positive response to 2 ♣ by setting some parameters as to what the response means. I've seen many, many opponent's 2 ♣ auctions go awry because of undisciplined positives being bid.

 

Take the present hand. Using Cohen's criteria, over 2 ♣, responder has enough to make a 2 ♠ positive response. Now go back to OP's hand. By knowing responder has 5+ ♠ to 2 honors (which must be KQ), opener ought to be able to already visualize at least a small slam in ♦ or ♠ at this point in the auction. Those kind of insights are very powerful for really effective bidding.

[rmnka447]

duplicate deleted

[kenberg]

inspite of the fact that most responders will bid 2D if partner opens 2 C, I would like to insist that it is a bad policy to make it a waiting bid.If one has a positive hand,say 8plus HCP and 2 controls,and a five carder biddable major or minor it is best to bid it immediately.Whereas a 2D bidder has to make two bids to show such a hand(5 card major)It is best to adopt Precision system responses! .If one uses such responses opener immediately,with a fit,will know responder has KQxxx.It now does not matter which King he has, as any will do,7 Spades is not difficult to bid with this information.

 

I am not sure what you are saying here. Going back to Aces Scientific, again on p42, we are told that 2C-2M shows 5+ cards headed by at least the KQ. "Waiting" does not mean "always waiting", it means that there is a list of non-2D responses with specific meanings and the 2D call means the responder's hand is not in that list.There is, for example, a meaning assigned to 2C-2NT. Balanced, no ace, no suit worse than Jxx. Not an everyday call, but when it comes up opener can usually place the hand exactly at his next turn. It is not even necessariy wrong sided since the opening lead will or can ride to the hand with the queens and jacks.

 

Of course one could play that 2C always requires 2D. Indeed this would seem wrong to me. Even if the Aces approach is seen as wanting, surely there should be some list of hands where the response is not 2D. Whatever the case, with the partner I had, I am confident that had I opened 2C she would have responded 2S. I might never find that she has the club K as well, but if I, or rather she as declarer, can establish diamonds with one ruff I have six diamonds and five spades so two tricks from the outside aces suffices. No system handles every hand, if such a system existed we would all be playing it. But the system we were playing would have handled this hand if I had simply opened 2C. Of course opening 2C could lead to problems if responder's hand were different, but it wasn't.