Partner opens 2c

[661_Pete]

Please tell me I didn't do anything wrong!

Game all, dealer W: I hold this pile of junk:

[hv=pc=n&w=s74hj965d8754cj85]133|100[/hv]

2♣ is GF. I'd have thought the bidding would be straightforward. Obviously I can only respond 2♦, partner bids 2♠ - what next?

 

My idea was to make the lowest possible bid, 2NT. If partner bids a second suit I can show preference. If he repeats ♠ I raise to 4. Simples!

 

But this isn't what happened. Partner raises me to 3NT. Oh well, that's game, I have to trust him don't I....?

 

Except that this is what partner holds:

[hv=pc=n&w=s74hj965d8754cj85&e=saqjt92hktdackqt6]266|100[/hv]

Lead was a ♦. Although the ♠ finesse was good, as you can see I cannot get into hand to take it, and once the defence get the lead they can mop up the ♦ and pretty much everything else.

 

What possessed my partner not to re-bid ♠, I'll never know...

 

Incidentally, I'd not have opened 2♣ GF with the East cards. Playing Benji, I might have opened a non-GF 2♣. Otherwise it would have to be 1♠.

 

Sorry about the rant.

[hrothgar]

2!D is a perfectly reasonable bid, presuming that you use this to show the worst possible response. (There are other agreements, but lets ignore them for now)

 

Most pairs who use 2!D to show a negative response couple this with "cheaper minor = second negative".

 

As such, the right bid with your hand would be 3♣

Your 2NT shows values because you failed to bid 3♣

[rmnka447]

2 ♦ for most people is neither negative nor positive, but just a waiting bid. It doesn't deny anything except the ability to make a positive response in other suits. It's entirely possible it could be anywhere from 0-20 HCP.

 

So, that bid is fine.

 

Most people then have a second negative defined for bad hands. The original default for that was 2 NT. But more recently, most people now play either cheapest suit or cheapest minor suit as the second negative drop dead bid. The second negative is something you and your partner need to agree upon. Once you make a second negative, partner needs to understand that UNLESS partner makes another forcing bid you can pass the next bid partner makes.

 

Over partner's 2 ♠ rebid, you need to make the second negative bid whatever that is. As Hrothgar said, partner probably took your 2 NT bid as showing values rather than a bust believing 3 ♣ to be the bid that showed that. If you had shown a bust, partner should have rebid 3 ♠.

[pescetom]

Agreeing totally with the preceding posts, the bidding should logically have gone either:

2♣ 2♦; 2♠ 3♣; 4♠ p

or:

2♣ 2♦; 3♠ 4♠; p

 

Bidding 1♠ p; would be masochistic IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

The old fashioned second negative is indeed 2N although most use 3♣ now. 2♣-2♦-2♠-2N-3♣ would be a reasonable start, now you can bid 3♠ (you'd have raised initially with 3) and partner bids 4. I'd have opened 1♠, this is not good enough to GF.

[The_Badger]

The other commentators have rightly said that players might not distinguish between 2NT and 3♣ as a second negative, but that's by agreement. What the problem is (as Cyberyeti says) is that this hand is a borderline 2♣ opener that could be opened 1♠ but I could see many players opting for 2♣ as partner needs very little for game to be viable.

 

But the awful thing is partner - if partner saw 2NT as a second negative, pile of junk, etc, or even moderate values - raising to 3NT with a 6214 hand. That is just lazy bidding.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=s74hj965d8754cj85&e=saqjt92hktdackqt6&v=B&d=W&a=PP2C(G/F)P2D(NEG)P2SP2NP3NPPP]300|220| I hold this pile of junk: 2♣ is GF. I'd have thought the bidding would be straightforward. Obviously I can only respond 2♦, partner bids 2♠ - what next?My idea was to make the lowest possible bid, 2NT. If partner bids a second suit I can show preference. If he repeats ♠ I raise to 4. Simples! But this isn't what happened. Partner raises me to 3NT. Oh well, that's game, I have to trust him don't I....?Except that this is what partner holds [West hand]Lead was a ♦. Although the ♠ finesse was good, as you can see I cannot get into hand to take it, and once the defence get the lead they can mop up the ♦ and pretty much everything else.What possessed my partner not to re-bid ♠, I'll never know...Incidentally, I'd not have opened 2♣ GF with the East cards. Playing Benji, I might have opened a non-GF 2♣. Otherwise it would have to be 1♠

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

IMO, Partner's 2♣ opening is OK and the rest of the auction isn't bad.

Partner might bid 3♣ or 3♠ over 2N.

Game is poor but 4♠ is better than 3N and perhaps one of you should have bid it.

Had your hand been ♠ 8 x ♥ x x x x ♦ x x x x ♣ J 9 x

then 4♠ would have been a reasonable contract.[/hv]

[Winstonm]

I think the wrong question is being pursued. The real issue is when to open 2C.

[ahydra]

All those lovely intermediates and just three losers make this a 2C opener for me, though a minimum one.

 

Clearly there was some misunderstanding over 2NT, but in any case it seems clear for the strong hand to rebid 3C. As Badger said, simply signing off in 3NT is lazy and a misdescription when you have a 6-4 shape which wants to play in a suit much more than it does in NT. After 3C it then goes 3S-4S.

 

ahydra

[GrahamJson]

Playing with a partner with whom you have no agreements 2NT is perfectly reasonable. I would not assume 3C to be the second negative unless agreed so. Personally I think 2NT is preferable as the second negative as it allows opener to rebid 3C, which he should certainly have done on this hand. Hence, if you rate the hand a 2C opener, which is boarderline but reasonable, bidding should go 2C - 2D -2S- 2NT - 3C - 3S - 4S.

[hamish32]

I dont open 2!C on that plie of junk. Ok. It is a nice hand but you are missing 3 key cards it has only 19 points. If you open 1!S you will get a second chance to bid and now a high reverse shows 18-20 unbalanced at least 54 which is what you have.

 

I avoid bidding 2NT its just way to easy to wrong side the contract. I might bid 3NT on the next round if i had no better description but here we will end up in some number of !S. Its not clear that you want to play game in !S and thats what makes the 2!C opening poor.

 

I disagree with those that say 2NT or 3!C above is a second negitive. It is only when you have that agreement and you dont.

 

Finally i disagree with 3NT that is a kazy bid even if you had a 2NT bid which you dont 3!C then 3!S or 4!S is a better description. Here trying to hode the shape to score top for 3NT was a poor option.

 

So all in all. I think every bid was terrible. Except your 2!D that was perfect.

[nekthen]

Perfect hand for my style.

2♣ 2♠

pass

 

2♣ may include 8 playing tricks in a major

2♠ I cannot contribute any tricks opposite a strong hand with spades as trumps (but I do have a trick opposite hearts)

 

Assuming "normal" methods I would not open 2♣, for me this does not have game on its own as clearly demonstrated.

 

If 2♣ has been debased then there has to be a get out option, like

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 2N

3♣ 3♠

pass

[msjennifer]

Sir, you did nothing wrong at all.All your bids stand correct as per your partnership understanding.After seeing your partners hand all I can say is that his 2C opening bid was far too optimistic.

[joris999]

Easy 4SP rebid. PD i have nothing.

[fromageGB]

@ Pete

Trusting partner means that you expect him to have a 6+ card spade suit, so even though he may be 6332 and feels he should rebid 3NT, you have a clear-cut return to 4♠. An opener rebidding a second suit may have only 5 cards in each, but a balanced opener with a mere 5 card suit will be rebidding NT at his second turn, and not spades.

[GrahamJson]

I have to disagree with the last two posts. I prefer to bid my own hand, not partner’s. If 4S is a better place opposite a bust with no support then partner should bid it. There is certainly no guarantee that he has six spades. With some partners he might not even have five. He could have a hand too good to limit himself to limit himself on the second round by bidding NT. He might even be 4144 (again, with some partners).

[Vampyr]

I am very surprised that so many people use a second negative. I thought that had gone out of fashion years ago.