[onoway]

I like 2♦ waiting as it keeps the way as clear as possible for declarer to get his hand out there. Saying responder has an ace or a king somewhere seems somewhat less helpful as it doesn't tell declarer WHERE,so seems more of a distraction than anything. If declarer tells where his strongest suit is then responder can then see if his points are actually going to be of any major help or not.

Gave up on 2♥ negative when it seemed as though I always ended up as responder with a hefty 5+ card ♥ suit, so it became a problem. That said, the second neg cheapest minor has also sometimes been a problem when I've had semi decent ♣suit as the only biddable suit in my (responder) hand, but it isn't good enough to mention off the top. So still looking for a way to show a bust hand that isn't a pain in the neck.

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2012-December-11, 15:59, said:

I like 2♦ waiting as it keeps the way as clear as possible for declarer to get his hand out there. Saying responder has an ace or a king somewhere seems somewhat less helpful as it doesn't tell declarer WHERE,so seems more of a distraction than anything. If declarer tells where his strongest suit is then responder can then see if his points are actually going to be of any major help or not.

Gave up on 2♥ negative when it seemed as though I always ended up as responder with a hefty 5+ card ♥ suit, so it became a problem. That said, the second neg cheapest minor has also sometimes been a problem when I've had semi decent ♣suit as the only biddable suit in my (responder) hand, but it isn't good enough to mention off the top. So still looking for a way to show a bust hand that isn't a pain in the neck.

I don't think you'll ever find a satisfactory substitute for cheaper minor second negative, and that stems from basic bidding concepts. You simply don't have room.

As for your worry about losing the natural 2♥, response, I'd commend a slightly more sophisticated set of responses. The idea is that if you know that you have game+ values AND you have a narrow range for positive suit responses, you can afford to consume some additional bidding space.

So my preferred scheme, that owes its good features to Fred G. (tho I'm not saying this is what he plays...just some of it is), is:

2♦: any hand with a K or an A, other than as below. Definitely ALL 'complex' positive hands. So all 2-suiters, and all hands with significant extras go through 2♦, just as does, say xxx Axx xxxx xxx.

2♥: denies an A or a K. Otherwise unlimited

2♠: balanced 8-11. How one proceeds thereafter is something for you and partner to work out. I have ideas, but they are relatively untested (hint to Fred: if you are willing to describe what you play, I know of several players who would be very interested).

2N: a positive in either major. I really like this, btw. A positive is 5+ with 2 or 3 of the AKQ, and at most one A or K outside. More powerful hands (which arise rarely) go through 2♦. And this is NEVER a 2-suiter.

Opener can bid 3♣, which is either natural or asking responder to transfer into his suit. If opener 'accepts' the transfer at the 3-level, trump is established and slam exploration takes off. Note that this gets you back to exactly the same level as if responder had responded a natural 2M and been raised, except that we have right-sided the contract.

3m: natural, positive, see comments re 2N for hand/suit type.

3M: a 6+ suit that plays for one loser opposite a stiff: AKJ10xx, KQJ10xx, AQJ10xx etc with no side A or K

3N: any solid 7 card suit: AQKJxxx. Nothing outside. Btw, it's never happened, but when it does, opener can usually simply place the contract at his next call, including, and I'd love to see this, playing 7 of the suit with a void in opener's hand

I'm not suggesting this is the best possible method. I am suggesting that if you have got to the point of seeing the problems with 2♦waiting and the loss of the natural 2♥ response, then you are probably ready to invest a little more effort into optimizing your response structure. Nothing comes for free: there are NO really simple methods that work well.

[mycroft]

Mike: opposite a Precision club, I play 3NT as any solid suit, with no issues about outside stoppers. 4♣ is "controls outside your suit, please". 2♣ strong opposite a solid suit seems like it would be even more receptive to this, as pretty much there shouldn't be more than one (K) or two (A) outside controls, and the strong hand should be able to place them given the count - and 4♣ *can't* be to play.

...not that it ever comes up...

Heh, I guess I do play Gerber, sort of :-)

[kenberg]

I have been thinking a bit, not all that conclusively. I'm just going to babble a bit, thinking about the 2♥ negative. A busy person should skip over this post.

First, when the auction begins 2♣-2♦, you are ahead of the curve. It's true that opener does not know (yet) where the values are but subsequent bids can be natural since we have eliminated the need for a second negative. For example 2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦ shows diamonds. At a table where 2♦ witing is bid (very possible for this to happen since the mere possession of an Ace or King still requires the waiting bid, Imagine Pam's 2♣ opening but suppose responder has diamonds, but not diamonds worthy of an immediate 3♦ call. Same issue with 2♣-2♦-2♠. On some hands it will be nice if 3♣ shows clubs.

I think that just about whenever responder has an A or a K, being able to bid 2♦ over 2♣ to remove the need for an artificail second negative is a real plus.

The problems can arise after 2♣-2♥ neg.

On a fair number of these hands, opener will want to rebid 2NT passable, and often it will be passed. Or maybe there will be a transfer. Or Stayman, puppet, muppet, or otherwise.


Now how about when opener wants to bid a suit. Here is a thought: Any three level bid shows a six card suit. And it is forcing. This leaves 2♠ for all the rest. this may bot be so bad. If opener does not have a six card suit and does not have a 2NT rebid, he presumably has a five card suit (well, I need to think about the 4-4-4-1 monster. So 2♠ is artificial, and responder bids his lowest ranking three card, or longer, suit. I imagone that this will be a minor a good portion of the time. Opener knows that responder has at most two cards in suits beneath his call, and he can now trot out his higher ranking five card suit, or bid 3NT, as he thinks best.

Now this means that over a 2♣ opening the only way out short of game is by 2♣-2♥-2NT, but this may not be bad.

I can already think of some tweaks.

[fromageGB]

Ken, what you said about it being good if 2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 3♦ shows diamonds, and 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♣ shows clubs, applies just as forcefully to using 2♥ in place of 2♦ as the bid that shows an ace or a king. You can play 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3♦ shows diamonds, and 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ shows clubs if you like.

When your sequence 2♣ 2♥(negative) 2NT occurs, and responder has to make a game decision, is your 2NT 22-23 hcp? Does 2♣ 2♥ 3NT show 24+? A little risky, as you are unlikely to have any play whatsoever opposite nothing.

Playing the 2♦ as denying ace or king, and having opener's 2♥ normally puppeting 2♠ (you can have exceptions for exceptional hands), gives you 2♣ 2♦ 2NT = 22/23, 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT = 24/25. You have the room for better definition when partner is a poor hand - which is when you need it. Another advantage of the puppet bids are that it allows opener to show both suits in 2-suited hands and still stop short of game when opener is less than GF.

I am still waiting to hear why most prefer 2♥ as negative. What advantage does it give?

[fromageGB]

kenberg, on 2012-December-11, 20:43, said:

Now this means that over a 2♣ opening the only way out short of game is by 2♣-2♥-2NT, but this may not be bad.

I think this is bad. It means that unless opener has game entirely in his hand he has to open a 1-level bid, when his passing partner will have more than enough for game.

[fromageGB]

onoway, on 2012-December-11, 15:59, said:

So still looking for a way to show a bust hand that isn't a pain in the neck.

How about 2♦ negative, then pass if opener does not make a forcing bid?

For example, you can play a simple 2♣ 2♦ 2M puppets the next step to allow opener to bid a second suit or NT. If the second suit, or rebid of the first, is at the 3 level, you can pass. Simple and pain free.

[Cyberyeti]

This hand is well nigh impossible to bid. Partner might have J, Jx, AQxxxxxx, 109 in which case 6♣ is excellent (or 6N by partner) but even 5♦ may not make. He might equally have xx, xx, AKJ109xx, xx where 5♦ is probably where you want to be, and it may be impossible for partner to realise the difference.

Realistically you have to take a punt holding such a peculiar hand.

I would bid 4♣ over 3♦, if partner has 3 small clubs I almost certainly want to be in 6♣ and this seems to be the best way to get there. If partner bids 4♦ I will bid 4N to play and respect partner if he pulls to 5♦.

[kenberg]

fromageGB, on 2012-December-12, 06:03, said:

Ken, what you said about it being good if 2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 3♦ shows diamonds, and 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♣ shows clubs, applies just as forcefully to using 2♥ in place of 2♦ as the bid that shows an ace or a king. You can play 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3♦ shows diamonds, and 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ shows clubs if you like.

True, and I wasn't being completely clear. I was assuming that with 2♦ as waiting then 2♣-2♥ shows hearts of some length and quality rather than some control structure My current weekly f2f pard prefers controls (controls is recommended by Robibibson's Washington Standard so this is not a totally off the wall choice). It's true that with controls once the response to 2♣ is anything other than 2♦ then there is no further need for a second negative. It's intersting to speculate about how a controls auction might go with Pam's posted hand. She was not sure about the details of responder's hand but suppose it has a seven card diamond suit headed by the AK. Just suppose. With my partner the auction would begin 2♣-2NT, showing AK of the same suit and no other controls. The good news is that I would see that I am missing the ace of clubs, I don't have twelve tricks in my own hand and I have no way to get to partner's hand. The bad news is that I have no idea of his shape. He might hold four or more cards in a major. He actually has this seven card diamond suit headed by the AK that he hasn't shown it yet. On the auction Pam and her partner had, I believe he should have been able to restrain himself after Pam bid 3NT (although perhaps I could revise my opinion if if I saw his exact hand, and I have come to agree with those who say 4NT over the 4♦ sounds right) . On my controls auction,it will be harder to sort out, I think. I can well imagine him taking a shot at 6♦.

I have a bias toward keeping the bids natural. Someone opened 1♠ the other day online and I completely confused partner by raising to 3♠ with four spade, a ten count, and a bit of shape. My RHO commented, I think jokingly, that this must be a new approach that he was unaware of. But if you play Bergen raises you jave to discuss whether they are on/off over a double, and over an overcall. and opposite third or fourth hand openings. Limit raises require less discussion. Now 2♣ is not natural and has to be dealt with. I guess the main choices are 2♦ neg, 2♥neg, controls. I have Bobby Goldman's old book about the Dallas Aces approach somewhere, that has 2♦ waiting, and it addresses some of the problems and how to solve them. Mike just gave a summary of 2♥ negative, addresses some of the problems and how to solve them. I think that the "addresses some of the problems and how to solve them" is very important.

The parts of bridge that I like most are judgment at bidding and logic in card play. Systems and gadgets can be sort of fun, but I am more inclined to look for the bugs and the fixes in gadgets I already play than to look around for new ones to misplay. Si I use 2♦ waiting just because it works reasonably well most of the time.Mike makes a reasonable case for 2♥[ negative and says that in his experience it is preferable. I don't think anyone has a corner on bridge truth, but I am inclined to take him seriously.

All we really can do is say how things seem to have worked out in our experience.

[fromageGB]

kenberg, on 2012-December-12, 07:00, said:

I am more inclined to look for the bugs and the fixes in gadgets I already play than to look around for new ones to misplay.

Love this !
I assure you, you are missing out on some of the fun in life

[kenberg]

I know. It's not just that I am boring, I intend to continue to be boring. We all have our commitments.


On stubborness:
"For thirty years I have struggled with reality and I am happy to say that I have won" Jimmy Stewart in Harvey..

[fred]

mikeh, on 2012-December-11, 16:16, said:

2♠: balanced 8-11. How one proceeds thereafter is something for you and partner to work out. I have ideas, but they are relatively untested (hint to Fred: if you are willing to describe what you play, I know of several players who would be very interested).

Probably this is not anywhere close to "best" (and it is not exactly "complete"), but it is has the advantage of being simple and easy to remember. Due to relatively low frequency of this sequence (and my own personal limits in terms of remembering system), I doubt it is worth the effort (for me at least) to do anything fancy here.

- 2NT=balanced hand. Play "system on".
- New suit=strong suit that can play opposite a doubleton. Now 3NT suggests bad hand for opener's suit and anything else is a cuebid.

By the way, I have considered the idea of switching the 2H and 2S responses to 2C (and then using opener's 2S rebid after the 2H response as some kind of relay/ask). I am fairly sure that this would be an improvement, but I will leave it to you to work out the details.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

fred, on 2012-December-12, 10:02, said:

Probably this is not anywhere close to "best" (and it is not exactly "complete"), but it is has the advantage of being simple and easy to remember. Due to relatively low frequency of this sequence (and my own personal limits in terms of remembering system), I doubt it is worth the effort (for me at least) to do anything fancy here.

- 2NT=balanced hand. Play "system on".
- New suit=strong suit that can play opposite a doubleton. Now 3NT suggests bad hand for opener's suit and anything else is a cuebid.

By the way, I have considered the idea of switching the 2H and 2S responses to 2C (and then using opener's 2S rebid after the 2H response as some kind of relay/ask). I am fairly sure that this would be an improvement, but I will leave it to you to work out the details.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Thanks, Fred

Do I take it that the 2♠ response can be 5332 with a major? Else 'system on' seems to waste a few calls I had been maucking about with a method that was based on the assumption of no major, but could be 5332 with a minor. Including the major makes it simpler.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2012-December-11, 20:43, said:

. For example 2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦ shows diamonds.

Hi Ken

Let me suggest one relatively simple tweak here.

Say it has gone as you suggest: 2♣ 2♦ 3♣

Consider the range of responder's hands and the issues that various hand types raise.

In particular, consider the frequency of 4432/4333 hands for responder that don't fit a club raise and only stop one or two side suits. Included within this family will be many hands with one or two 4 card majors, and none of the family will have a 5 card suit.

What does responder bid?

A new suit ostensibly shows 5+, and opener may raise.

3N may be an underbid if you have some extra values and will often wrong-side the contract or (even worse) result in playing 3N with a side suit wide open.

And 3N may bar you from a 4-4 major suit fit.

Now think of the frequency with which you want to show long diamonds.

I suspect that you'll agree that the former family is far more frequent than the latter.

So my tweak is that you play 3♦ as ambiguous, but that opener rebids as if it were the first family. Opener bids a 4 card major. Opener bids 3N with balanced hands and at least all side suits semi-stopped, and otherwise bids 3N or 4♣, depending on how he feels about the hand so far.

[fred]

mikeh, on 2012-December-12, 10:15, said:

Thanks, Fred

Do I take it that the 2♠ response can be 5332 with a major? Else 'system on' seems to waste a few calls I had been maucking about with a method that was based on the assumption of no major, but could be 5332 with a minor. Including the major makes it simpler.

For me it can include a 5-card major or any 5422 hand. I could also imagine doing it with a 6322 hand as long as the 6-card suit was weak (otherwise I would make a positive response in the 6-card suit instead of bidding 2S).

The way I think about it, the underlying concept is that 2S promises to deliver both significant values (though not enough to force to slam) plus at least 2-card support when opener has any 1-suiter. I do not concern myself with "can I describe my distribution accurately in whatever followup auction occurs?" (partly because the only relevant followup auction for me involves the equivalent of responding to a 2NT opening bid - if that were to change then I agree it might become necessary to put more distributional restrictions on the 2S response).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-12, 06:33, said:

This hand is well nigh impossible to bid.

You think? Depends on methods I would say. So, for example,
1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
... - 1♦ = non-GF
1♠ = 18+ 3-suited or unbal GF
... - 1NT = max
2♣ = 3-suited
... - 2♦ = relay
3NT = 24+, 4405, 7 controls

is a possible start. Then Hand 1 (J, Jx, AQxxxxxx, 109) can safely bid 6NT knowing that ♦KJ and an ace are missing, while Hand 2 (xx, xx, AKJ109xx, xx) will sign off in 5♦ seeing ♦Q in addition to an ace or 2 kings out. This kind of hand shows the benefit of playing a dedicated convention for strong 3-suiters (although they do not always work out so nicely).

On the 2♠ balanced positive debate, the most similar thing I have played was a 2♠ response as a semi-negative (~4-7) and no (decent) 5 card suit, so either balanced or 4441 (or a weak 5 bagger could also be handled as a 4). I am interested what the folks playing it as promising 2+ in every suit do with the 4441 hands instead. Maybe when 2♠ is 8-10, these qualify for 2♦(?), although including them there seems to mitigate much of the benefit of the 2♠ response.

[kenberg]

I also was thinking more about how other methods would work out.Although Pam did not recall the last hand, her original post, and responder's actions suggest that the diamonds suit might well be headed by the AK at least. So let's assume that, and see how a "controls" auction goes. As I play controls with my f2f pard, the auction begins 2♣-2[NT. This shows an AK in the same suit (2♠ shows either three kings or one ace and one king of different suits) after which I think it continues 3♣-3♦-3♥-4♦-4NT-?

Since controls are known, 4NT is certainly natural. The 3♦ did not deny a four card major, but rebidding diamonds over 3♥ certainly did.At this point responder has a fairly good idea of what is going on, and it seems to me that with xxx in clubs there is a fine chance he will now bid 4♣ and opener can continue on to 6♣. There will be an excellent play for it. Well, maybe only a good play for it. Clubs are allowed to split 4-1.Win the opening lead, play a round of trump. If they hold off then try to ruff the shortest major in dummy. If that is hearts, ruffing solves the problem. If the shortest major is spades, ruff, pitch heart on diamond, lead another trump. Not a certain make but a quite likely make. If responder has only two clubs then he can pass 4NT. He has announced his diaomnds (maybe not the seventh diamond but he has announced them well enough) and opener has elected to sign off in 4NT.


I am not saying that everyone should immediately take up control responses. My pard wants to play them, they seem to work better than I might have thought, so I play them, but I don't particularly advocate them.

Incidentally, I gave this to my pard yesterday, giving him the big hand. The game started before we had a chance to go through it in detail, but he says that after 2♣-2NT he plays that 3♣ is a check back for a four card major. Huh. I had no idea. I also don't think I like it.

As I think about it, I see the main benefit of 2♦ as a general positive response, instead of waiting, is that subsequent bids become natural, at least unless some specific gadget is developed. I take the game seriously but not at a level where I want to deal with a large bag of complex artificial bids to solve rarely occurring problems. I take heart by seeing Fred announce a similar view. I feel secure in saying that if it is too complex for Fred to want to spend time on, it is too complex for me to want to spend time on.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2012-December-14, 06:28, said:

Since controls are known, 4NT is certainly natural.

Depends on the system. In Romex, after a control-showing start, 4NT is the "Romex Raise" which basically says "I have enough for game, plus something extra I haven't shown yet".

Also, Romex does not open 2♣ with a GF in diamonds (that hand opens 2♦). This allows the auction 2♣-2♦-3♣ to show a two suiter, after which responder's 3♦ asks for the second suit. 2♣-2♦-3♦ would show a club single suiter. The diamond auctions are similar.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-14, 04:52, said:

You think? Depends on methods I would say. So, for example,
1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
... - 1♦ = non-GF
1♠ = 18+ 3-suited or unbal GF
... - 1NT = max
2♣ = 3-suited
... - 2♦ = relay
3NT = 24+, 4405, 7 controls

is a possible start. Then Hand 1 (J, Jx, AQxxxxxx, 109) can safely bid 6NT knowing that ♦KJ and an ace are missing, while Hand 2 (xx, xx, AKJ109xx, xx) will sign off in 5♦ seeing ♦Q in addition to an ace or 2 kings out. This kind of hand shows the benefit of playing a dedicated convention for strong 3-suiters (although they do not always work out so nicely).

On the 2♠ balanced positive debate, the most similar thing I have played was a 2♠ response as a semi-negative (~4-7) and no (decent) 5 card suit, so either balanced or 4441 (or a weak 5 bagger could also be handled as a 4). I am interested what the folks playing it as promising 2+ in every suit do with the 4441 hands instead. Maybe when 2♠ is 8-10, these qualify for 2♦(?), although including them there seems to mitigate much of the benefit of the 2♠ response.

I used to play big 3 suiter in the multi as I always found it an ugly type to bid, and do you bid Jx, Jx, AQJxxxxx, x any different to J, Jx, AQxxxxxx, 109 as 6N is very poor opposite this.

[losercover]

onoway, on 2012-December-10, 08:42, said:

the hand came up in a casual table of people who all knew each other but very seldom had played together. It led to somewhat heated feelings of frustration so was redealt, unfortunately before I saved it. However, the question came up, when should a 2♣ opening be used?

My hand as best as I can remember ♠ AKQx ♥AKQx ♦0 ♣KQJxx. I opened 2♣ and my p responded with 3♦ as he had a seven card ♦suit with most of the top honors and no points outside. I pulled to 3nt and he rebid 4♦. After that I dont remember how it went except we ended up in 6♦ which would not make. 6nt would also fail.

I was informed that I should never open 2♣ with a three suited hand. So if you should never use the bid for single or two suited or three suited hands then what use is it? And what should the bid be for such a hand, in that case? If 2♣ is a reasonable bid and if p then responds 3♦ waiting, what should the rebid be? Adnittedly I had/have no real idea how to bid the hand...the only part I had felt relatively sure about was the opening bid!

We have a rather squirrely approach and for some reason it has never failed to work. With a three suited and a good 19 HCP, we open 2C and partner responds control steps (same as over as any 2c opener). Opener rebids 2nt and each partner bids their suits by length up the line. If responder has 4 or more controls, opener rebids 3nt. 2 suiters with 19+ hcp give us more problems. When opener bids a suit after 2c we expect a good six card suit.