Posted 2012-September-18, 08:17
This is an interesting problem to me.
First of all, the definition of a 2♦ response as natural by a passed hand is somewhat unclear. I mean, at the top end, style is somewhat importnt. With a good 5-card diamond suit and working 11 HCP hands, like the one given, I personally would open 1♦ (actually 1♣ because I play 1♦ as unbalanced, but I am getting off point). 11 HCP working plus a good 5-card suit is a balanced minimum opening, IMO.
Additionally, as to top end, if you use a struct Rule-of-20 for openings, then an 11-count must be 5332, as with a sixth diamond (perhaps impossible if Weak 2♦ available, unless points external) or with a 5-4 holding in two suits, you would have enough to open with 11 HCP.
Furthermore, if 5332, the pattern is assuredly with doubleton in Opener's major.
As to low end, 2♦ seems to be a constructive call. Some might think 10-11 is the range (a vestige of Standard American by a non-passed hand, perhaps), but already a 9-11 range is suggested, and I would have imagined 8-11 (albeit with the 11 severely restricted by my opening style).
In any event, it seems like 2♦ is predictably 9.5 HCP with usually 5332 shape and doubleton in Opener's major.
Thus, it does seem that most bids should be forcing, except Opener repeating his major. But, does that make sense? Why be forced to play 2M or 2♦ if Opener has, say, a 5-card holding in his major, 1-2 diamonds, stuff in both side suits, and a minimum opening? Why would you not want to play 2NT, especially at MP? To have 2NT be forcing seems really dumb. I don't care what conventional wisdom, expert treatment, or force of tradition says, the inability to hear an incredibly descriptive bid and select 2NT to play seems really poor logic.
I am also thinking about 3♦ as forcing. I agree. Even if only one-round forcing, where you could stop at 4♦ if Responder is on the 8.5 to 9 HCP holding, forcing one round makes sense. That said, this does not really help much in unwinding what is going on, at least in this situation. So, maybe 2NT as forcing solves this problem at the cost of not being able to play 2NT?
Then I started thinking, in light of the bizarre discussion about the new major being non-forcing as a possible treatment. When Responder is just about known to have 3235 shape after a 1♥ opening in 3rd/4th seat, why bid 2♠ naturally? Showing 5♠/6♥? Sure, that is possible, but then maybe that rare situation should result in a JUMP to 3♠, forcing, to allow 2♠ to serve a potentially more useful meaning, like agreeing diamonds. The same parallel might not exist for 1♠ openings, as 5♠/5♥ is much less remote than 5♠/6♥.
In the specific situation of P-1♥-2♦, using 2♠ as forcing and artificial would solve a lot of problems. First, it is cheap enough to not bpass 3♣ when Opener has slam interest and a diamond fit. Second, it allows Opener to bid 2NT to play.
So, what if we add in this new call? (After P-P-1♥-P-2♦ or P-P-P-1♥-P-2♦, Opener rebids 2♠ as artificial and forcing, implying a diamond fit.)
Now, it seems that perhaps cuebidding (my way) works as well as anything.
2NT would deny good diamonds (not two of the top three diamonds). 3♣, instead, would confirm good diamonds and show a club control (Ace or King). 3♦ would confirm good trumps, deny a club control, but show really good diamonds (Ace, King, Queen). 3♥ would confirm good trumps (two of the top three), deny a club control (not Ace or King), deny all three top diamonds, but show the Ace, King, or Queen of hearts. 3♠ would confirm good trumps, deny a club control, deny all three top diamonds, deny a heart card, but show a spade control. 3NT would confirm good trumps, deny a club or spade control (no Ace or King), deny a heart card, and deny good diamonds (hence Quacks abundant).
If Responder bids 2NT (not great trumps), Opener could bid 3♣ to show a club control, and the same type of structure occurs (with 3NT either denying a control or possibly only a club control).
If Responder bids 3♣ (club Ace or King and two top diamonds), he has already shown at least 8 HCP already (club King, diamond King-Queen), and possibly more. So, 3♦ waiting by Opener would allow Responder to show the heart Queen or King, deny the same but show the spade King or Queen, or deny any of these by bidding 3NT.
Stuff like that seems really good.
So, how would this play out with the actual hands?
P-1♥
2♦-2♠!
3♣(two top diamonds, plus club Ace known by Opener))-3♦(anything else?)
3♠(I don't have the heart Queen to fiull in your suit, but I do have the King or Queen of spades)-?
Opener would now visualize ♠Qxx ♥xx ♦KQxxx ♣Axx, because Kxx in spades would surely mean a 1♦ opening.
Thus, for the actual hands, Opener using these methods would strangely be able to decipher Opener's exact pattern and every precise card held. Granted, other hands might bnot be so easily described. Take, for example, switching the black cards (♠Kxx ♥xx ♦KQxxx ♣Qxx). Now:
P-1♥
2♦-2♠!
3♠!
In that sequence, Opener would know that Responder held KQxxx in diamonds, plus the spade King (as Opener is looking at the Ace), without the Qx in hearts. Opener would also know that Responder did not have the club Ace (although the Queen is possible). Hence, Responder might have:
♠Kxx ♥xx ♦KQxxx ♣Qxx, or
♠KJx ♥Jx ♦KQxxx ♣xxx, or
♠KQx ♥xx ♦KQxxx ♣Jxx, or
Any number of similar hand types.
But, we would be a lot closer to unwinding Responder's hand.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.