[Phil]

By the way, I am completely comfortable with 2♣. 2♦ makes my skin crawl the way 2♣ used to. At some point, we actually have to show a suit (2♦ shows 5).

[semeai]

Phil, on 2012-August-15, 13:19, said:

By the way, I am completely comfortable with 2♣. 2♦ makes my skin crawl the way 2♣ used to. At some point, we actually have to show a suit (2♦ shows 5).

Diamonds were sinking fast, but now they're making a comeback!

[ArtK78]

Pardon me for asking (and this may have been asked before), but what is meant by "agricultural" in this thread's title?

[kenrexford]

fromageGB, on 2012-August-15, 13:17, said:

Nice if your opener rebids allow it. Unfortunately for me, 2♣ could be a game invitation with 3 card heart support, so opener cannot bid higher than 2♥ on a minimum sort of hand. For example, if he bids 2♠ a simple soul like me would sign off with 3♥ with an invitational hand, or bid 3♥ with a game support to enable cue bidding. Unluckily those two bids are the same, so I can't do it. No doubt you can, with more complexity.

Well, it's not really that complex. The trick is that Opener bids suits that he has, and the Responder picks which suit he likes. Rather simple.

Now, admittedly this requires a couple of nuances that are not universal, like 2♣ being a true GF and not rebidding 2♥ simply because you have a minimu,m instead completing pattern. This is, of course, part of the reason why I opt for those two treatments.

Assuming, however, a treatment where 2♣ is GF or invitational with 3-piece support, and where 2♥ can be bid with four spades if Opener has a minimum sort of hand, and where the normal treatment would be for Responder to rebid 3♥ with one of the two meanings of either invitational or GF, I assume that something distinguishes Responder's options regardless of Opener's spade length. Suppose that call to be 2♠, for instance. I don't know what you do, so I am guessing.

If, say, 2♠ shows GF with hearts (and thus 3♥ natural but passable), it seems that you could rather easily restructure this. Make, say, 3♥ into a picture bid (3♥, 0-3♠, invitational only) and expand the artificial call (2♠ in my guess) to include hands with invitational values and 4-5 spades. Then, have Opener allowed to bid 3♥ with the minimum and no spade interest, 4♠ with a minimum and four spades (if you are invitational with a 5-3 fit you are now GF if you have a 4-4 or 5-4 spade fit), and all other calls slam approaching. Something like that.

All of this is guesswork, as I would need to know how you unwind this situation anyway to see how to stack in the spade issue effectively.

[kenrexford]

Phil, on 2012-August-15, 13:19, said:

By the way, I am completely comfortable with 2♣. 2♦ makes my skin crawl the way 2♣ used to. At some point, we actually have to show a suit (2♦ shows 5).

If you assume that 2♦ might not be real in the isolated circumstance of Responder wanting to just GF, support the major, but not bid 2♣ for some reason (like good diamonds but lousy clubs), then the situation will be such later where the existence of an actual five diamonds has already been calculated by Responder to be non-critical for some reason. I say "some reason" because that is a complicated tactical question. Only if the tactical call is approrpiate would you opt for the fake 2♦.

I mean, this is not that strange of a concept. A lot of people would open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣ after a 1♠ response with some 1-4-5-3 hands and live with it. People maunfacture jump shifts and reverses. These calls "show" length in suits, but we all know these are suspect, and yet the world does not come crashing down.

In other words, diamonds schmiamonds.

[lalldonn]

ArtK78, on 2012-August-15, 13:44, said:

Pardon me for asking (and this may have been asked before), but what is meant by "agricultural" in this thread's title?

I have always taken it as something like 70% "unscientific" and 30% "old fashioned". It's always used to refer to a blast to what seems like a contract that's likely to make, with the implication of being practical (as opposed to deception or some other reason).

[Phil]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-15, 13:55, said:

If you assume that 2♦ might not be real in the isolated circumstance of Responder wanting to just GF, support the major, but not bid 2♣ for some reason (like good diamonds but lousy clubs), then the situation will be such later where the existence of an actual five diamonds has already been calculated by Responder to be non-critical for some reason. I say "some reason" because that is a complicated tactical question. Only if the tactical call is approrpiate would you opt for the fake 2♦.

I mean, this is not that strange of a concept. A lot of people would open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣ after a 1♠ response with some 1-4-5-3 hands and live with it. People maunfacture jump shifts and reverses. These calls "show" length in suits, but we all know these are suspect, and yet the world does not come crashing down.

In other words, diamonds schmiamonds.

At some point in constructive bidding, someone actually has to show something, otherwise this bidding style leads to an absurd conclusion. We don't open 1♣ or 1♦ with a 5=1=(34), just because we have a convenient rebid of 1♠.

I mean, I can imagine opener having a 5=3=2=3 with a nice heart fragment and responder having 2=4=4=3. The auction starts 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥. So far no one has done anything patently bad but responder is expecting four hearts across and raises hearts. Oh sh*t says opener, I don't have a diamond stopper, better support clubs, and we zoom past 3N. The possibilities of this bidding are endless. I know you didn't list this specific auction upthread, but I'd bet with QJxxx AQx xx Kxx, you'd rebid 2♥ over a 2♣ response.

You've done a good job convincing a lot of us of the effectiveness of a phony 2♣ response to 1M. I am comfortable playing this, but I'm not about to go Blue Team and start bidding phony suits whenever I want just to get information out of partner, when we should start providing something useful for him.

[kenrexford]

Phil, on 2012-August-15, 14:35, said:

At some point in constructive bidding, someone actually has to show something, otherwise this bidding style leads to an absurd conclusion. We don't open 1♣ or 1♦ with a 5=1=(34), just because we have a convenient rebid of 1♠.

I mean, I can imagine opener having a 5=3=2=3 with a nice heart fragment and responder having 2=4=4=3. The auction starts 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥. So far no one has done anything patently bad but responder is expecting four hearts across and raises hearts. Oh sh*t says opener, I don't have a diamond stopper, better support clubs, and we zoom past 3N. The possibilities of this bidding are endless. I know you didn't list this specific auction upthread, but I'd bet with QJxxx AQx xx Kxx, you'd rebid 2♥ over a 2♣ response.

You've done a good job convincing a lot of us of the effectiveness of a phony 2♣ response to 1M. I am comfortable playing this, but I'm not about to go Blue Team and start bidding phony suits whenever I want just to get information out of partner, when we should start providing something useful for him.

You are so dangerously close to the rabbit hole. Let me try pushing.

First, on your suspicion that I might bid a three-card heart fragment after opening 1♠. I have to admit that I am guilty as charged, as I have done this. (I also strangely have decided to treat 4-4 in the majors as if 5-3 and similar things). However, when I have done this, it is a better tactical move than you suggest. Meaning, I have hald a hand where I would be pleased if partner raised the hearts, planning in that event to pl;ay in a Moysian fit. For instance, if I held 5-3-4-1 or 5-3-1-4 shape, opened 1♠ in third or fourth seat, and heard partner bid one of the minors as natural (not Drury), the right collection of cards/strength may well induce a 2♥ call. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, tactics is criticval.

Second, however, your example is wrong for me. With ♠QJxxx ♥AQx ♦xx ♣Kxx, I would be tempted to bid 2♥, admittedly, if partner bid 2♦, but I see no reason when 2NT stands out. I have no tactical advantage to gain from a 2♥ call. I mean, sure -- if partner has some position in clubs where notrump from his side scores better, then 2♥ might get 3NT played from the right side. Now, if the holding were Kx in diamonds and xxx in clubs, this is even more tempting. But, if I were to bid 2♥ with that holding in that sequence, I would not panic if partner raised hearts but would instead be thrilled to play 4♥.

Third, however, is that you are not necessarily bidding "phoney suits" as a means of masterminding or trying to induce calls. Granted, there are times where seizing control or making calls that are obviously weird because of tactics and a decision to take over (partner in the dark) makes sense. Rather, in the situation of a 2♦ call with lousy clubs and a COV (concentration of values) in diamonds, you are instead deciding between evils. 2♦ "lies" about diamond length. 2♣ "lies" about club strength. Your hand on a given day may be such that the latter lie seems more troubling than the former. Either misleads. You may counter that 2♣ as artificial with this-or-that means that 2♣ does not really state a lie simply because clubs is open (two small, for example). But, if you decide to bid 2♦ with some "nothing in clubs" holdings, with "something great in diamonds" as the requirement, you lose some reliability to diamond length (perhaps tactically not that important) but gain in having a stronger inference (not promise but inference) of a 2♣ call at least implying a suit-or-control. I imagine that you could see the benefit in 2♣ as "real or fit" being improved to "real or fit, in the latter with a control." 2♦ would then not be "true diamonds" but instead would be "true diamonds or semi-true, in the latter with a control in diamonds but not in clubs." Something like that. 2♦ would then only not be reliable if Responder also lacked a club control. Incidentally, that would mean, strangely, that Responder later cuebidding clubs would purify the diamond length expectation, which is kind of neat.

In sum, then, the risk is not in lies to partner and not showing him something useful. The issue is in what useful thing to tell partner (when you have a fit), namely reliable length or reliable control? 2♦ in that scenario is not exactly the same as the Italian idea of an advanced cue, but it is similar in philosophy.

[Quantumcat]

fromageGB, on 2012-August-15, 11:52, said:

I agree in general, but do you have a way of showing a 5 card spade suit if starting 2♣? I don't, and I prefer a spade contract if opener has 4 of them.

Yes - If your auction starts to be slammy, you bid interesting suits at the 2-3 level [this is to help both partners be able to picture whether slam can make - you skip suits you don't have anything good in, and bid 3+ card suits you do. E.g. KJx or AQxx], one of which might get a raise. The person who knows which suit they want to play in should be the one to KC.

Also, if the first bid is 1♠, opener always rebids a 4+card heart suit even if he wouldn't accept a limit raise, and if responder has only a limit raise then he must raise to game with 4+card heart support, assuming the double-fit will be helpful.

Of course people do things differently, if you don;t like this approach, I'm sure there is lots of documentation out there from others :-)

[aguahombre]

I think Simon got more than he thanked us for in advance.

SimonFa, on 2012-August-12, 12:27, said:

2/1, W V W , IMPS, dealer North, you are South:

♠ AQJ64
♥ Q63
♦ A73
♣ 52

1H (P) ?

At most tables the bidding went something like:

1S (P) 1NT (P) 4H AP which makes +2 on a favourable Heart finesse, but that's not the point.

Is there a way for South to set up a GF after 1NT or would it have been better to bid 2D instead of 1S?

1H-1S
1N-4H

Was just fine, and it really is ok to respond 1S with that hand just in case partner doesn't rebid 1NT and we do need the room for strain or slam. The 2C response which is popular with assorted invitational and g.f. hands is a nice tool; but IMO, it doesn't need to be abused with this responding hand.

BTW: in re: agricultural, if referring to fruits, nuts, and vegetables, I have only been accused of two out of three.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-15, 12:46, said:

Here's how that works out. Suppose you start with 2♣ in this exact situation:

1♥ - P - 2♣ - P - ?

Partner, let's say, is looking at four spades and only five hearts. Well, that seems like a nice thing to mention, so:

1♥ - P - 2♣ - P -
2♠ - P - ?

Now, as I think through my options, 3♠ seems about right.

Except that for many people that is a reverse and shows additional values. So it does not work out.

[kenrexford]

the hog, on 2012-August-15, 18:14, said:

Except that for many people that is a reverse and shows additional values. So it does not work out.

Of course, that is true. But, my response was not designed to cure the world of all maladies.

[lalldonn]

It's true that if you respond 2♣ on short or fake suits, as I like to do (I alert and explain it as "clubs or balanced") though not as much as Ken, it's very important to play 1♥ p 2♣ p 2♠ does not show extras.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-15, 18:30, said:

It's true that if you respond 2♣ on short or fake suits, as I like to do (I alert and explain it as "clubs or balanced") though not as much as Ken, it's very important to play 1♥ p 2♣ p 2♠ does not show extras.

One can devise a system ( for 1H openers and a 2/1 2C GF Response ) where a direct 2♠ can show extras whereas a 2D or 2H rebid would not ... and over a 2H rebid, Responder can "ask" if Opener has a Flannery type hand:

1H - 2C!
2H! ( minimum, 5+ cards ) - 2S!
??
.. 2NT = no 4 cards ♠
.. 3C! = 4 5 and ♣-shortness
.. 3D! = 4 5 and ♦-shortness
.. 3H! = 4 6 , extra ♥-length, shortness in a minor, 3S! asks shortness ( Zel improvement )
.. 3S! = 4 5 2 2

[han]

I also like to play 2C as clubs or balanced, but I would never do it on this hand. I agree that it is better to play 2S by opener as not showing extras, at least if you like your follow-ups to be natural.

However, unlike Ken, I would not want to raise to 3S, which I think should show a very specific hand (For example you could play that 3M shows shortness in the other major). With a balanced hand you can first bid 2NT, after which opener completes the shape description, and then you set trumps. Playing this you will need some agreements about how to set trumps, and how to show doubt about strain.

Ken, I am surprised that you would suggest 3S on this kind of hand, usually you are very much in favor of the idea that bids that take up a lot of space should give a specific message.

[kenrexford]

han, on 2012-August-16, 08:46, said:

I also like to play 2C as clubs or balanced, but I would never do it on this hand. I agree that it is better to play 2S by opener as not showing extras, at least if you like your follow-ups to be natural.

However, unlike Ken, I would not want to raise to 3S, which I think should show a very specific hand (For example you could play that 3M shows shortness in the other major). With a balanced hand you can first bid 2NT, after which opener completes the shape description, and then you set trumps. Playing this you will need some agreements about how to set trumps, and how to show doubt about strain.

Ken, I am surprised that you would suggest 3S on this kind of hand, usually you are very much in favor of the idea that bids that take up a lot of space should give a specific message.

My structure necessarily would be different because 2♣ can be wildly unbalanced and unexpected when with a fit, as with the example.

I am assuming a start of 2♣, with partner surprising me by bidding 2♠. 1♥-2♣-2♠.

In that auction, I need 3♣ as natural, clearly. So, what should the other calls mean?

2NT seems to be a generic waiting no-fit type of call, typically 3-2-4-4 or 3-2-3-5.

3♦ seems to be similar, but without any desire to play 3NT from Responder's side.

3♥ and 3♠, therefore, seem like the cheapest available calls to agree trumps, barring artificiality.

Now, I would play that jumps are picture bids.

[fromageGB]

ArtK78, on 2012-August-15, 13:44, said:

Pardon me for asking (and this may have been asked before), but what is meant by "agricultural" in this thread's title?

As lalldonn said. The usage arose because of a perception by city people that those who come from rural agricultural areas such as North Dorset (think "the Wurzels" if you are familiar with iconic English pop music) are crude and unsophisticated. Not true, I hasten to add. Well, not absolutely ...

[kenrexford]

Out of curiosity, for those who play this way (bidding spades despite a heart fit with GF values), what would the following auctions mean?

1♥-P-1♠-P-
1NT-P-4♣/4♦?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-16, 09:44, said:

Out of curiosity, for those who play this way (bidding spades despite a heart fit with GF values), what would the following auctions mean?

1♥-P-1♠-P-
1NT-P-4♣/4♦?

Self-splinter for ( long ) ♠ as trump.

[lalldonn]

fromageGB, on 2012-August-16, 09:34, said:

As lalldonn said. The usage arose because of a perception by city people that those who come from rural agricultural areas such as North Dorset (think "the Wurzels" if you are familiar with iconic English pop music) are crude and unsophisticated. Not true, I hasten to add. Well, not absolutely ...

Actually your description of crude and unsophisticated is much better than mine was. Why couldn't I think of those words?