[pescetom]

MP

---

Such hands are rare and I was chagrined to be opposite a beginner with no agreements for bidding strong hands (as a minor consolation, I got to open 6NT for the only time in my life).

How do you plan to bid this with your preferred partner and agreements?

[Cyberyeti]

2♣-2♦-2♥ Kokish to start.

[mikeh]

There is, imo, no ‘right’ answer

In 2/1 or other standard based methods, 2C is obvious

On my current methods partner probably bids 2H, denying an ace or king. If he actually does something else then at least I know slam is making. But can we get to a good grand? I can’t tell at this stage so going beyond 2C 2D is unclear. I do have the option of birthright en route to some staggering number of notrump but I’ll treat this as a heart hand for the reason given below. I can always switch to notrump if he can’t raise hearts

If he bids the expected 2H, I’m not bidding 6N at imps but might at mps. At imps 6H seems better. You need hearts to come home so that’s not a worry and once in a very long time you can ruff a spade in dummy. Sure, it’s unlikely but when doing does it cost to find out?

[smerriman]

2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥. If partner can't find a club cue then I'll have to work out the odds of spade xx, queen, or heart ten and something else.. my initial thought was that they might be under 50% and I might be signing off pessimistically in 4♥.

Though actually, those odds probably add to a decent figure since with at least three spades the chance of one being the queen isn't bad, so maybe 6♥ after all. If only I could run double dummy sims at the table.. which I just did now and it's clearly odds on. Oops.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-December-13, 12:39, said:

2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥. If partner can't find a club cue then I'll have to work out the odds of spade xx, queen, or heart ten and something else.. my initial thought was that they might be under 50% and I might be signing off pessimistically in 4♥.

Though actually, those odds probably add to a decent figure since with at least three spades the chance of one being the queen isn't bad, so maybe 6♥ after all. If only I could run double dummy sims at the table.. which I just did now and it's clearly odds on. Oops.

I'm comforted that your sims fit my judgement at table

If partner does find a club control-bid?

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2024-December-13, 12:34, said:

There is, imo, no ‘right’ answer

In 2/1 or other standard based methods, 2C is obvious

On my current methods partner probably bids 2H, denying an ace or king. If he actually does something else then at least I know slam is making. But can we get to a good grand? I can’t tell at this stage so going beyond 2C 2D is unclear. I do have the option of birthright en route to some staggering number of notrump but I’ll treat this as a heart hand for the reason given below. I can always switch to notrump if he can’t raise hearts

If he bids the expected 2H, I’m not bidding 6N at imps but might at mps. At imps 6H seems better. You need hearts to come home so that’s not a worry and once in a very long time you can ruff a spade in dummy. Sure, it’s unlikely but when doing does it cost to find out?

Agreed on all counts, except to remind that this is MP.
If partner does bid 2♦?

[mw64ahw]

Playing reverse Kokish2♣-2♦
2♥-2♠
3♦ 6+♥ no 4-card side suit ...

2♥ responder may now show a Bust hand.
3♦ - 3♥ is now Bust

As little as QJx would deny a Bust hand

[Cyberyeti]

smerriman, on 2024-December-13, 12:39, said:

2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥. If partner can't find a club cue then I'll have to work out the odds of spade xx, queen, or heart ten and something else.. my initial thought was that they might be under 50% and I might be signing off pessimistically in 4♥.

Though actually, those odds probably add to a decent figure since with at least three spades the chance of one being the queen isn't bad, so maybe 6♥ after all. If only I could run double dummy sims at the table.. which I just did now and it's clearly odds on. Oops.

6♥ has the potential to be better than 6N (1-2 spades opposite), but whether it is by enough to outweigh the fact that 6N scores better at MPs is not clear. Also give partner ♥10x and ♣Jxxxxx you may not have an entry there after drawing trumps to cash the club and also could suffer a ruff. In NT you're fine barring a heart lead.

[jdiana]

mw64ahw, on 2024-December-13, 13:30, said:

As little as QJx would deny a Bust hand

I was just wondering about this the other day - how should a "bust" be defined? My old notes say "less than two queens", so we would bid 2♦ with two queens, or a singleton king (or ace, of course) but bid 2♥ (bust) with QJx. It sounds like mikeh defines it as lacking an ace or king.

How do others define it? Do methods make a difference, i.e., is it different if you play 2♥ as an immediate negative, or the old-fashioned "cheaper minor" as a double negative, or birthright/Kokish?

[mikeh]

jdiana, on 2024-December-13, 14:36, said:

I was just wondering about this the other day - how should a "bust" be defined? My old notes say "less than two queens", so we would bid 2♦ with two queens, or a singleton king (or ace, of course) but bid 2♥ (bust) with QJx. It sounds like mikeh defines it as lacking an ace or king.

How do others define it? Do methods make a difference, i.e., is it different if you play 2♥ as an immediate negative, or the old-fashioned "cheaper minor" as a double negative, or birthright/Kokish?

I’ve long played 2H as denying any control….A or King. It serves to let opener know, on huge hands, whether it’s worth exploring for slam.

The only drawback I’ve experienced is when opener has 25+ hcp, or a good 24 (ok, any 24 is ‘good’ but I mean ‘above average’).

Then opener is forced to bid 3N. And this could be just ‘9 tricks on any lead’ so responder can’t stayman or transfer with most hands on which he’d like to do so.

I played this method for 40 years and hardly ever had that arise but it’s happened five or six times in the last year! Probably in part because I’ve been playing more.

This is a big flaw, although we’ve been lucky so far and haven’t suffered any disasters. However, I’m yet to find an alternative that appeals. I truly detest 2D waiting then cheapest minor or cheapest 3 level suit over opener’s 3m rebid as ‘second negative’. I think it’s simply bad for responder to take two rounds of bidding, making two artificial bids, to define his strength and not even getting started on bidding shape. Otoh, it neatly solves the big balanced hand v ‘I can take 9 tricks’ issue….you can play birthright over the waiting 2D with the balanced hand and, if you choose, use 3N as ‘to play’, subject of course to responder having a good hand.

Btw, pure control showing responses have similar problems….the bidding can get too high too quickly before responder can bid shape….and opener sometimes can’t even introduce his major below the 3 level.

Btw, 2H isn’t necessarily ‘negative’. I was given a hand the other day….x Qxx QJ10xxx QJx. 2C 2H 2N 3S 3N 4D….2H no ace or king, 3S forces 3N, 4D long diamonds, some interest in 5D or 6D. It was trivial for opener to drive to slam and equally trivial to avoid grand.

[DavidKok]

Just play 2♦ waiting without a second negative. I think showing shape is much more important. On the first round it's risky to take away so much bidding space without a good suit, but after opener has clarified a little you just bid shape. You can play the full game ordered Birthright suite if desired, making it easier to find 4-4 fits in the majors.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-13, 16:34, said:

Just play 2♦ waiting without a second negative. I think showing shape is much more important. On the first round it's risky to take away so much bidding space without a good suit, but after opener has clarified a little you just bid shape. You can play the full game ordered Birthright suite if desired, making it easier to find 4-4 fits in the majors.

That’s the closest I’ve come to replacing 2H negative but it tends to complicate slam auctions. Since I’m primarily an imp player, I really don’t like complicating slam auctions, lol. But my partner is increasingly unhappy with 2H and good friends of ours (frequent teammates) play as you suggest, so who knows? This time next year?

[mycroft]

Old-fashioned 4NT - either specific Ace ask or straight-Ace Blackwood?

Sure, we want to know about the third round of spades, and maybe partner will show up with a single heart and it's 5-1, or maybe the clubs are 2=2, or no J, or no heart T.

But I bet "do you have an ace" probably gets to the right contract more often than any other method not played by experts.

[akwoo]

Anyone consider setting *spades* as trump (after a 2C opening) so that you can ask for the queen? If you're driving to 6N no matter what and just want to know about the possibility of 7N...

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2024-December-13, 16:47, said:

That’s the closest I’ve come to replacing 2H negative but it tends to complicate slam auctions. Since I’m primarily an imp player, I really don’t like complicating slam auctions, lol. But my partner is increasingly unhappy with 2H and good friends of ours (frequent teammates) play as you suggest, so who knows? This time next year?

FWIW, I went in the opposite direction (adopting an AK red flag) a couple of years ago and have no regrets so far. I was worried about the occasional 3NT, but it hasn't been a real problem in practice, nor has the maximum quacky hand (never happened anyway). At the same time I moved all of Responder's strong single suits into the 2S response, which again limits the damage of the red flag as well as cleaning up the convention in general.

[Zelandakh]

Option 1: 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ (strong 3-suiter or any unbalanced game force), which will likely transpose to a "natural" 2♣ auction
Option 2: 1♣ - 1♦; 3♠ (specific ace ask) with the possibility of a subsequent specific K/Q ask

[pescetom]

 akwoo, on 2024-December-13, 19:05, said:

Anyone consider setting *spades* as trump (after a 2C opening) so that you can ask for the queen? If you're driving to 6N no matter what and just want to know about the possibility of 7N...

Yes I would consider that and quite possibly do so too, but only with a committed regular partner. It's quite a dangerous weapon to manage. In this case if partner replies 6S showing the Q and no side K then any correction pretty much has to be signoff, but even so, partnership confidence will take a real hit if this move was unexpected and works out badly. Over a lower denomination temporary trump suit things get murkier. To pull similar stunts and stay on the rails my experience is that you need to have specific meta-agreements plus also stop slam investigation early enough for the signoff bid to be clearly unexpected within the bidding sequence. Of course you also have to give up on unexpected 6 level bids having an artificial meaning such as SSA or a punt for grand. In my RA at least, you also have to be careful to alert that the imposition of trumps may only be for bidding purposes without possession of a real suit.

[pescetom]

Here are both hands:

MP

---

Maybe I can at least claim the best score of anyone here for an opening bid passed out?
Dismayingly, 6NT+1 was even a vice-top in this practice tournament for the weaker players, above a chorus of 6♥+1 and the inevitable 3NT+4.

[Zelandakh]

 pescetom, on 2024-December-14, 09:37, said:

Yes I would consider that and quite possibly do so too, but only with a committed regular partner. To pull similar stunts and stay on the rails you need to have specific meta-agreements and you have to give up on unexpected 6 level bids having an artificial meaning such as SSA or a punt for grand. In my RA at least, you also have to be careful to alert that the imposition of trumps may only be for bidding purposes without possession of a real suit.

You do not have to give up on SSAs if you are committed to 6NT+, which was part of akwoo's post. You just have to give up on playing in 6♥, which would be misinterpreted.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2024-December-14, 09:56, said:

You do not have to give up on SSAs if you are committed to 6NT+, which was part of akwoo's post. You just have to give up on playing in 6♥, which would be misinterpreted.

Agreed, my reference to SSAs and similar agreements was more in general about the downsides of setting temporary trump suits: it's quite frequent to need to sign off in the target suit at 6 level and the bid has to be recognizable as such.