why are good hands so hard to bid properly

[billw55]

If 2NT = negative, those two lovely queens now give me a big maximum. 4♥ feels like an underbid opposite a solid 2♣ style.

[Dinarius]

After your first negative of 2♦️, partner has shown lots of tricks with ♠️ as trumps. Fine.

 

So, why not 3♠️ as your second negative?

 

It says, “I have practically zip, but I have something in ♠️; over to you, partner.”

 

Isn’t that as it should be? Any forward move should be by S, I think.

 

D.

[Dinarius]

Ps. If S bids 4❤️ over my 3♠️, I bid 5❤️.

 

D.

[johnu]

After your first negative of 2♦️, partner has shown lots of tricks with ♠️ as trumps. Fine.

 

So, why not 3♠️ as your second negative?

 

It says, “I have practically zip, but I have something in ♠️; over to you, partner.”

 

Isn’t that as it should be? Any forward move should be by S, I think.

 

D.

 

What if you have absolutely zip and nothing in spades? Do you still use 3♠ as a 2nd negative?

[Dinarius]

What if you have absolutely zip and nothing in spades? Do you still use 3♠ as a 2nd negative?

 

I bid 2NT with zip and nothing in ♠

 

I think that 3♠ describes this hand better than 2NT.

 

But, I think that both are negatives.

 

FWIW, I play 2♦ as strictly 0-7.

 

Any suit response is 5 card or more and 8 or more points. (Probably how many people play this.)

 

2NT response to 2♣ would be 8+ and no five card suit.

 

So, 3♠ here says, "Over to you partner. I've nothing more to add."

 

That said, a subsequent noise in ♥ from partner is encouraging with this hand.

 

D.

[HardVector]

I just wanted to interject one small comment. This forum is "Expert Class" bridge. I know of no expert that uses 2n in the modern game to show the true negative hand. THAT is the problem in this hand.

[johnu]

I just wanted to interject one small comment. This forum is "Expert Class" bridge. I know of no expert that uses 2n in the modern game to show the true negative hand. THAT is the problem in this hand.

 

OK, suppose the auction was

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p2cp2dp2sp3cp3hp]133|100[/hv]

 

where 3♣ is the negative bid. How does that change responder's bidding problem?

[HardVector]

OK, suppose the auction was

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p2cp2dp2sp3cp3hp]133|100[/hv]

 

where 3♣ is the negative bid. How does that change responder's bidding problem?

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed. The responder's hand, however, is not a negative hand. You have 2 queens, one of which is in the suit partner has promised a good 5 cards in. It would be a mistake to bid 3c (negative).

[johnu]

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed.

 

Yikes :o

[mikeh]

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed. The responder's hand, however, is not a negative hand. You have 2 queens, one of which is in the suit partner has promised a good 5 cards in. It would be a mistake to bid 3c (negative).

Well, I would be very surprised if any of my expert partners were to pass in that auction, not that it would ever arise since I refuse to play cheaper minor second negative.

[cherdano]

I think it's closer to 6♥ than 4♥.

[HardVector]

Well, I would be very surprised if any of my expert partners were to pass in that auction, not that it would ever arise since I refuse to play cheaper minor second negative.

So, you're telling me that with 4 432 5432 65432 you are obliged to raise to 4h???? Your partners only open 2c when they have game in their hand?

[mikeh]

So, you're telling me that with 4 432 5432 65432 you are obliged to raise to 4h???? Your partners only open 2c when they have game in their hand?

 

 

The issue is pretty straightforward.

 

Playing the sequence of opener, having started with 2C, bidding 2S then 3H as non-forcing caters to only those hands on which opener cannot make game opposite a negative responding hand that has a preference but no real support for hearts.

 

That can happen, but is both uncommon and aims at a very narrow target.

 

Bear in mind that most experts will strain to open 1S with any 2-suiter, rather than 2C, because of bidding space issues with the latter start. However, I concede that there will, nevertheless, be hands on which the best we can hope to achieve is +140 or -50/100 in 3H.

 

Maybe AKQxx AKJxx Ax x opposite x xx Jxxxx xxxxx, altho even here 4H has some play and not everyone would open 2C.

 

 

Meanwhile, there will be another small family of hands in which, indeed, opener has game in his own hand....and in which in some cases slam is attainable even opposite a second negative (this latter subset will be very small).

 

However, maybe opener needs to be able to show his shape below game without risking a pass. So playing 3H as forcing allows for these hands to be bid more effectively, economically, than were opener required to jump to (a clearly non-forcing) 4H.

 

FWIW, my metarule for 2C openings, which all partners with whom I have discussed this have agreed without dispute or doubt, is that 2C is forcing to 2N, 3H, 3N, or game above 3N

 

Sure, once in a while we will get a small minus when, had we been able to pass earlier, we might have got a small plus. I don't actually remember such a result ever arising, but we are discussing a very small set of hands and memory is imperfect.

 

If one opens 2-suiters lighter then most, then one will have more occasion to play 3H as nf, but to my mind the solution isn't to adopt 3H as nf, but to increase the requirements for opening 2C with a 2-suiter.

 

Everything ripples through one's system design, if the design is coherent. My style (which, I stress, is not 'my' invention, but the style I have learned playing with a wide range of very good players....some very good indeed) is to stretch to respond to partner's 1 level opening. If one needs 6 hcp to respond, then by all means open 2C on more hands than do I....but I'd advise lowering the threshold for a response to a 1-level opening as an alternative, for a host of reasons.

[HardVector]

 

FWIW, my metarule for 2C openings, which all partners with whom I have discussed this have agreed without dispute or doubt, is that 2C is forcing to 2N, 3H, 3N, or game above 3N

Yes, that's the same kind of rule that I'm familiar with. So the auction has gone 2c, 2s, 3h by opener with partner showing a bust. You are at 3h, one of your stopping points. Why is everyone shocked that I'm suggesting you can stop here?

 

As I've said repeatedly, the example hand listed at the start of this conversation, is NOT a bust. All you have to do is tell partner you are not a bust, then raise 3h to 4h and let them take charge if they have the right kind of hand. Committing to a 5 level contract by bidding 5h, to me, seems silly.

[mikeh]

Yes, that's the same kind of rule that I'm familiar with. So the auction has gone 2c, 2s, 3h by opener with partner showing a bust. You are at 3h, one of your stopping points. Why is everyone shocked that I'm suggesting you can stop here?

 

 

 

It seems that you haven't read my post. You just repeat yourself. Read my post, and I expect that you may gain some insight into why it appears, in my admittedly limited experience, to be standard expert practice to play 3H as forcing.

 

I say limited, because (a) this exact auction hasn't come up often, if at all. I have played long enough that I expect it has happened, but so infrequently that I have no memory of it, and (b) while I have had detailed partnerships with several very good experts (multiple national titles, one player in the Canadian Hall of Fame, etc) and have played with players such as Grant Baze (not as a client)m, I confess that my discussions have never gone beyond an agreement on the meta-rule, with no discussion, that I can recall, as to 'why' everyone involved agrees with that approach.

 

I can also say that I have played against some of the top players in the world, but that this sequence has never arisen as far as I can recall, so I can't say, from experience, that they all play the way I do. I don't know who you are: I don't mean that as a criticism....only that it is possible that my exposure to expert practice is different from yours. If you have broader experience and that leads you to think that many experts play your way, so be it....I am always happy to learn when I am wrong. That is the best way to improve :)

[HardVector]

 

Maybe AKQxx AKJxx Ax x opposite x xx Jxxxx xxxxx, altho even here 4H has some play and not everyone would open 2C.

 

So, I'm guessing that your post is centered around this idea. You recommend that this is a 1s opener, I disagree. I'd open 2c, rebid 2s. If partner shows a bust, however, I would NOT put the onus on a bust partner to continue bidding after 3h, though, I'd bid 4h. 3h, as we've already agreed, is a stopping point. Say's I can only take the 9 tricks I promised by opening 2c. Pick a suit and I'll take my 9 tricks and move on. Opening this 1s is asking for a p-p-p continuation when 4h is a slam dunk.

 

Now, make the 2 suits minors, and I'll open at the one level.

[mikeh]

So, I'm guessing that your post is centered around this idea. You recommend that this is a 1s opener, I disagree.

 

what part of my post gave you that idea? While I am one of the more conservative 2C openers I know, I would see this as a minimum 2C opening bid, precisely because all I need is a tripleton in one major to have some play for game.

 

Make it AKQxx AKJx Ax xx, and same hcp, but roughly a trick weaker, and I open 1S. Make it AKQxx AKJx Axx x, and I am on the fence, and suspect that I'd open 2C if vulnerable and 1S otherwise (at imps), and I play some science with 5=4 major hands which would make it a bit easier than perhaps some others might find it (I can distinguish between 4 and 5 card heart suits on the second round).

 

You seem to read my posts in a manner that meshes with your views, rather than trying to understand that I'm trying to express my views, which seem in fact to be different from yours. Anyway, I suspect that we'll simply agree to disagree.

[smerriman]

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed.

It may be playable, but it's certainly not standard. Every reference online I can find about cheaper minor second negative says a new suit by opener is forcing:

 

https://www.betterbridge.com/misc/StandardArticles/Standard200507.pdf

 

The only time responder can pass below game after making a negative rebid is if opener rebids the same suit.

 

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/general-approach-2c-opening-part-2

 

After the "double negative," if opener bids a new suit, that is forcing.

 

http://www.bridge7.com/xbric5.aspx

 

Once you have bid your cheapest minor, you may pass if partner next rebids the same suit. But if partner bids a new suit you must bid again..

[HardVector]

I don't want to get off track here, the title of this is why are good hands so hard to bid. I don't want to get into what is a 2c opener or not. You've clearly stated that 2c is forcing to 3h...except when it's not. Let's leave it at that.

 

Good hands are hard to bid because people have not clearly defined A) what is a negative hand, and B) how do I show that negative hand, and C) if I don't show a negative, what do bids after that show and are they forcing?

 

A) I've usually gone with the understanding that a negative hand is a hand that has no ace, king or 2 queens. In other words, you don't have a card that is a clear trick. Subsequent bidding by the opener may change the valuation of your hand, but for now, it stinks.

 

B) There have been a number of suggestions already, I'm not going to rehash them.

 

C) Once you have denied a negative, you are in a game forcing auction. There is now no reason to jump the bidding unless you have something special or unusual.

 

On the original hand in question, you have 2 queens, it is NOT a negative hand opposite a 2c opener. Calling it a negative, now puts you in a position that further bids after that are difficult because you have lied to your partner and are now attempting to rectify it. I would bid the hand as a positive, then simply raise 3h to 4h to show a minimum positive. Now you have shown your hand and partner can bid further.

[HardVector]

It may be playable, but it's certainly not standard. Every reference online I can find about cheaper minor second negative says a new suit by opener is forcing:

 

https://www.betterbridge.com/misc/StandardArticles/Standard200507.pdf

 

 

 

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/general-approach-2c-opening-part-2

 

 

 

http://www.bridge7.com/xbric5.aspx

Thanks for the references, I stand corrected.

[msjennifer]

Sirs,please pardon me for entering the EXPERT area, which I am not.However I humbly feel that my suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) may possibly be worth a at least a cursory look.We dislike the ambiguous 2D "waiting bid " reply.We use the 2D bid as showing less than 8HCP AND/OR less than one and half "Tricks"'A second denial shows less than 3 HCP.With a few regular partners I play the "BLUE TEAM CLUB" bids as made on their strong 1C opening which, of course all experts know.

[lorantrit]

About the only possible bids are 4♥ and 5♥. The latter could lead to down one. Much as I like 5♥, I might bid only 4♥ depending on the form of the game, how the day was going, and who is vul. With a weak pard, 4♥ for sure.