Difference of Opinion

[FelicityR]

On the first board of the evening, at love all playing MPs, my partner - who slightly overvalues hands occasionally - opens 2♣ strong. Next hand passes. I have a positive response in my hand but feel I can respond in a number of different ways to show my hand. Here's how we play:-

 

2♦(Waiting) - Can be a poor hand (0-6) or a positive hand (7+) where responder saves bidding space by 'Waiting'.

 

2♠ - Shows a 5 or longer card ♠ suit in a positive hand.

 

2NT - Shows 8-10 balanced.

 

3NT - Shows 11-12 balanced.

 

My thought processes were as follows:

 

a) 2♦ saves space but it might be hard to catch up later in the auction. If you bid 2♦ partner bids 3♣.

b) 2♠ shows a 5 card ♠ suit but the suit is poor but it does have an honour, but the hand is balanced so partner might expect a better suit, and/or a more unbalanced hand. Again, if you bid 2♠, partner says 3♣ next.

c) 2NT - Downgrade the hand slightly due to the number of small cards.

d) 3NT - It's a balanced 11 count with an honour in each suit, so the bid is descriptive and meets our criteria.

 

What do you feel is the best bid given the circumstances? And as always, thank you for your replies in advance. Here is the hand:-

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk7632ha64dqj6cj7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

EDIT: We're playing basic 2/1 (three weak twos) with the 2♣ opening bid as a virtually unconditional Game Force, requiring responder to have very little to make game.

[TylerE]

If you don't bid 3N on this hand take all that crap off your card. I don't really see the problem here.

 

A sound general principle is that making a general bid when more specific bids are readily available denies having a hand one of the more specific bids would show. So your 2♦ should be balanced only if <7 or >12

 

But really find some better 2♣ responses.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk7632ha64dqj6cj7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp]133|200| FelicityR writes 'On the first board of the evening, at love all playing MPs, my partner - who slightly overvalues hands occasionally - opens 2♣ strong. Next hand passes. I have a positive response in my hand but feel I can respond in a number of different ways to show my hand. Here's how we play:-

-- 2♦(Waiting) - Can be a poor hand (0-6) or a positive hand (7+) where responder saves bidding space by 'Waiting'.

-- 2♠ - Shows a 5 or longer card ♠ suit in a positive hand.

-- 2NT - Shows 8-10 balanced.

-- 3NT - Shows 11-12 balanced.'

I rank

1. 2♠ = NAT, descriptive, and economical.

2. 3NT = NAT and descriptive. Consumes more space but is fine if we can still find a 5-3 ♠ fit

3. 2NT = NAT but a master-minding underbid.

4. 2♦ = ART Waiting. But we seem to have no compelling reason to take control.

[/hv]

[rmnka447]

I would bid 2 ♦ and see what partner has to say. If partner finds a natural 2 ♥ rebid, then you have an easy maximum 3 ♥ raise. If partner finds a 2 NT rebid, you can still show your ♠ suit via a transfer and subsequent NT bid.

 

But I will admit a very strong prejudice toward disciplined responding to 2 ♣ bids. With my partners, a positive M response shows 5+ to 2 honors and 1 1/2 QTs, while a 3 level positive m response shows 5+ to 2 of top 3 honors and 2 QTs. So when we make a positive response, 2 ♣ opener gets some important information about responder's hand.

 

If you don't like 2 ♦, then 3 NT should be your response. Let partner try to figure it out from there. Be true to your agreements whatever they are.

[smerriman]

The only thing I've ever seen bidding notrumps in response to 2♣ do is make it far harder for partner to describe their hand and find the correct contract. I would never do it.

[TylerE]

The only thing I've ever seen bidding notrumps in response to 2♣ do is make it far harder for partner to describe their hand and find the correct contract. I would never do it.

 

Normally I'd agree, but I mean, we're playing this dumb system and we have the hand, so we should. Not making the bid should deny the hand. If partner can't figure out what do to when I've shown strength in such a narrow range what we bid doesn't really matter.

[Winstonm]

Although you have described responses, you have not explained your 2C requirements other than "strong". Without knowing that, it is impossible to know what to respond.

[FelicityR]

Although you have described responses, you have not explained your 2C requirements other than "strong". Without knowing that, it is impossible to know what to respond.

 

The original post has been edited to reflect our system on the night. My apologies.

[gordontd]

If you don't bid 3N on this hand take all that crap off your card. I don't really see the problem here.

The problem here is finding spades when you need to.

[shyams]

If your agreement includes 3NT as a response showing 11-12, then I hope you also have agreed continuations that follow a 3NT bid.

 

Surely 3NT is forcing on opener as you are in slam territory so what are opener's choices with balanced hand OR a strong single suited hand (not clubs) OR strong with good club suit?

[fromageGB]

I will add my agreement to Tyler's initial sentiment. Extract the language and a powerful argument remains. Your methods must be holistic, and where you have multiple choice bids you need to have mapped continuations. I can't see how it helps to start constructive bidding at 3NT, but you haven't given us that part of the system yet.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

2D.

 

2S should show a better suit, 2D still allowes to find a possible 53 fit,

assuming partner rebids 2NT.

2NT has the advantage, that is showes the bal. nature of your hand, and

if partner has a single suiter, he knowes, he has a fit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I understand, that the system bid is 3NT, but 3NT buries the spade fit.

[hrothgar]

Obvious 2♦

 

rmnka447 said it best

[danhputnam]

The only thing I've ever seen bidding notrumps in response to 2♣ do is make it far harder for partner to describe their hand and find the correct contract. I would never do it.

 

I had a partner who felt the same way. We finally agreed that 2♣-2NT meant three kings and nothing else. :rolleyes:

[pescetom]

I had a partner who felt the same way. We finally agreed that 2♣-2NT meant three kings and nothing else. :rolleyes:

 

Sabine Auken's convention card once listed this sequence as meaning "I don't want to play in this partnership any longer".

[Cyberyeti]

I would respond 2♠. There is no way that I'm going to be able to get over that I have 5 spades to a top honour and 11 points if I don't (but I'm not used to the sequences after a waiting 2♦, we play it negative and although can be better than most if bal, not as good as this).

 

Over 3♣ I bid 3N (which for us is natural but forcing to 4N unless a suit is known to be open)

[miamijd]

I have to admit I hate your treatments over 2C. Simply awful. Get some better ones.

 

That being said, most hands should respond 2D waiting over a 2C bid. A bid other than 2D should show something very specific. Much of the time the 2C bidder has the 22+ balanced hand, and you want to retain your system over 2NT. The rest of the time, the opener generally has a long major, and you don't want to bid 2NT and have to start at the 3-level.

 

I would respond 2D here. If partner bids 2H or 2S, you have an easy raise to 3 and will end up in slam. Same if partner bids 3D. Just raise to 4D and proceed from there. If partner bids 2NT, you can transfer to spades and then bid 5NT, telling partner to pick a slam.

 

As it is, you said partner bids 3C. Not what we really wanted to hear, but just bid 3S. Partner knows you don't have a great spade suit, because you didn't make a positive response. So if he doesn't raise, then support clubs and see what happens. Probably you end up in 6NT.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[Cyberyeti]

I have to admit I hate your treatments over 2C. Simply awful. Get some better ones.

 

That being said, most hands should respond 2D waiting over a 2C bid. A bid other than 2D should show something very specific. Much of the time the 2C bidder has the 22+ balanced hand, and you want to retain your system over 2NT. The rest of the time, the opener generally has a long major, and you don't want to bid 2NT and have to start at the 3-level.

 

I would respond 2D here. If partner bids 2H or 2S, you have an easy raise to 3 and will end up in slam. Same if partner bids 3D. Just raise to 4D and proceed from there. If partner bids 2NT, you can transfer to spades and then bid 5NT, telling partner to pick a slam.

 

As it is, you said partner bids 3C. Not what we really wanted to hear, but just bid 3S. Partner knows you don't have a great spade suit, because you didn't make a positive response. So if he doesn't raise, then support clubs and see what happens. Probably you end up in 6NT.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

I find this reply interesting. I suppose it's a different style, my approach is to bid 2♠ first and then bid 3N (forcing for us, we play after a positive to 2♣, the auction is F4N unless a suit is known to be open) over 2N. To me this shows an indifferent but not terrible 5 card spade suit in a 5332 most of the time.

 

Btw do most people play 2♣-2♠-2N-3♣ as clubs or asking ?

[acfromatl]

2 D keeps the bidding low allows pard to bid his suit, warns him that when u bid spades on ur second bid that the suit is ragged and leaves room to find a fit before u settle for no trump. What could go wrong?

[Cyberyeti]

2 D keeps the bidding low allows pard to bid his suit, warns him that when u bid spades on ur second bid that the suit is ragged and leaves room to find a fit before u settle for no trump. What could go wrong?

I don't see that 3♠ shows 5.

 

Do you play a second negative over 3♣ ? you probably should if 2♦ can be 0-11 and that is almost certainly 3♦.

 

What do you bid with KQxx, xxx, xxx, xxx where 3N is an option but only if partner has the spades open not a red suit or KQxx, xxx, xxxxx, x where anything could be right and you're snookered if 3♦ is unavailable.

[dsLawsd]

Sabine agrees with my 2 NT then- except that I don't want to play this system at all pard- please let's do something better including defining 2♣ more rationally.

 

Some choices include using Aces Scientific, using 2♦ as something with 2♥ as a second negative (and Kokish or Birthright as ways to distinguish hearts and balanced 23+).

 

And I have seen many pairs do well by bidding controls.

 

And though I hate 2 NT bids, it does put us in the slam zone and partner can bid naturally without fear on the next round knowing that I did not have a singleton in hand.

 

Some pairs do not use 2♣ enough by not counting extra length enough because of nebulous responses in use.

 

Edgar Kaplan in the K-S system has some pretty good ideas to consider also of course.

[Winstonm]

The original post has been edited to reflect our system on the night. My apologies.

 

Thanks. My general thoughts on strong 2C in 2/1 is that it is so imprecise that pairs using it must be willing to accept a degree of error in their bidding or narrow their range of hand types that are allowed to be opened 2C.

 

When BobH was alive, we went over and over this and decided that the most likely hands to be held for 2C were of 2 basic types: strong NT, strong 1 suiters. We created a system that was quite precise for these hands (and for 2-suiters of 5/5 or longer). It turned out to be a semi-relay method.

 

With that said, playing in your system I would place my emphasis on the waiting bid, 2D, because it is more important for the 2C opener to describe that hand type than it is for responder to identify his hand type. Someone else said something similar and I agree - quite strict requirements for responding in a suit or NT and heavy use of 2D wait. This is even more true the stronger is the 2C opening requirement

[Stephen Tu]

I disagree. I think it is better for responder to describe. If responder can show 5cd suit and slam values it will be easier for opener to subsequently take captaincy and count tricks. It works worse imo for responder to wait in the weeds then guess where/how many opener's winners are; opener has too many features to describe in the space available.

 

And in my experience, strict suit quality requirements works against you, since kxxxx responder vs aqx opener seems more likely than aqxxx responder vs kxx opener.

[marklaf]

Making a positive response over a 2 club open should show more than a ragged 5 card suit. It surprises me that so many responders want to take control of this hand. Bid 2 diamonds and wait.

[miamijd]

I don't see that 3♠ shows 5.

 

Do you play a second negative over 3♣ ? you probably should if 2♦ can be 0-11 and that is almost certainly 3♦.

 

What do you bid with KQxx, xxx, xxx, xxx where 3N is an option but only if partner has the spades open not a red suit or KQxx, xxx, xxxxx, x where anything could be right and you're snookered if 3♦ is unavailable.

 

2H immediate double negative is a much better option than cheaper minor (which is just dreadful). A common set of agreements in the USA is:

 

2D: waiting; game force

2H: double negative

2S: positive in H (either 6+ H, but not a 3H or 4D bid, or else five good hearts)

2NT: positive in S (either 6+ S, but not a 3S or 4H bid. or else five good spades)

3C/D: positive in the suit

3H/S: a one-loser six-card suit with nothing outside (maybe a J or so)

3NT: a running seven-bagger (any suit headed by AKQ)

4x: a one-loser seven-card suit in the next highest strain (clubs shows diamonds, etc. - 4S shows clubs) with nothing outside

 

Cheers,

Mike