[barsikb]

1. What should I bid with 74,K62, 852,KJ1074 after 2C-2D-2S if we agreed on Cheaper Minor as a Second Negative?
2. What should I bid with AK, AQJ1076, AQ105, K after 2C-2D-2H(?)-3C?

[blackshoe]

1. 2NT
2. 3♦, if it's forcing. Otherwise 4♥.

[fromageGB]

I am not familiar with the concept of "second negative". Is this is the context of an initial positive being some high value of hcp, with a subsequent split of a negative into an upper and a lower range? I guess it should be, but for me a positive is an Ace or a King, so I hardly need a second negative. I assume 2♦ is negative here (some play positive).

I think the answer to (2), as blackshoe intimates, is that after a second negative a repeat of the initial suit may be passed, while a second suit may by agreement be forcing or not. On the given hand, I would want to play in game so if 3♦ is forcing I would bid it, otherwise the choice is between 4♦ and 4♥. The lack of a 5th diamond and the presence of a 6th heart makes it an easy 4♥.

[gnasher]

1. You could bid 3♣ and then do something inconsistent on the next round, eg ...3♣-3NT;4NT. Of course, things don't always work out as neatly as that, so maybe it's better to show your values with 2NT. A sensible but non-standard option is to play a jump to 3NT as showing a decent hand with the second-negative suit.

2. I'd bid 4♥, regardless of what's forcing. It's very unlikely that we belong in diamonds, so I can't see any reason to tell the opponents what I've got. This type of hand is much harder to defend if they don't know about my second suit.
(I think 3♦ should definitely be forcing, and I dislike playing 3♥ as non-forcing.)

[Free]

1. If 3♣ is not an option (second negative), bid 2NT.
2. If I understand it correctly, 3♣ is second negative, meaning partner won't bring a single trick. I think 4♥ is the best bet, so I'll just bid it.

[blackshoe]

In response to a forcing 2♣, "negative" means "IMO we don't have a slam", "second negative" means "IMO, we probably don't have game, either". IMO, of course.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2013-January-06, 12:59, said:

I am not familiar with the concept of "second negative". Is this is the context of an initial positive being some high value of hcp, with a subsequent split of a negative into an upper and a lower range? I guess it should be, but for me a positive is an Ace or a King, so I hardly need a second negative. I assume 2♦ is negative here (some play positive).

Yes, pretty much. Certainly my first introduction to bidding taught that 2♦ shows 0-7ish. I think the "second negative" concept is extremely misguided, as the case where you open 2♣ and don't have game is, or at least should be, very rare, and even then, the "2♥ immediate double negative response" is a better way to handle it if you are still worried.

So, in summary, don't worry about it, it's not something you should be playing anyway.

[gnasher]

The reason for playing a second negative isn't to try to stay out of game, it's to distinguish between hands like 74 K62 852 KJ1074 and 74 762 852 J10742. With the first of these opposite a 2♣ opening we could easily have slam.

[barsikb]

Thank you for the replies. Learned a lot.

blackshoe, on 2013-January-06, 11:35, said:

1. 2NT

May bring strong hand to the table. Unavoidable I guess

On the second hand 4H went down as it was impossible to go to dummy and defense refused to help.

[Vampyr]

barsikb, on 2013-January-07, 05:09, said:

May bring strong hand to the table. Unavoidable I guess

No necessarily. Many people bid 2♦ with any hand except a suit positive (which is not normally predicated by points, but by suit quality).

[barmar]

My understanding is that the "second negative" is used in the context of 2♦ response being "waiting". The waiting response denies a good suit to bid (a common agreement is that bidding a suit naturally shows a 5-card suit with 2 of the top 3 honors), or a hand with enough scattered values to bid 2NT. But 2♦ doesn't say anything about the total strength of the hand: you would bid it with anything from a Yarborough (game is unlikely opposite a minimum 2♣) to x Kxx Axxxx AKxx (the only question is which slam you should be in). You make the second negative bid with a minimum response. The bid that shows this is rebidding the cheapest minor suit on the 3 level: 3♣ when opener rebids a major, 3♦ when opener rebids 3♣. If opener rebids 3♦, there is no cheaper minor available to bid, I think the common substitute is to use 3♥ (so a better name would be "cheaper 3-bid second negative").

Larry Cohen describes it here: http://www.larryco.c...px?articleID=17

On the other hand, BridgeGuys.com describes the version mgoetze mentioned, where 2♦ is negative with a somewhat wide range, and the second negative narrows it down to the bottom of the range.

Basically, it all depends on what your agreement for the 2♦ response is. If it's waiting, then the 2nd negative is just negative; if it's negative, the second negative is more negative.

[blackshoe]

So much negativity.

[trevahound]

One of my least favorite calls in bridge is the immediate 2♥ as a bust. It wrongsides all heart contracts, and also is committal many times before we have any idea what our hand might be worth. Zero counts can turn into gold as the auction progresses. I have more reasons beyond those to hate that treatment...

Playing cheapest minor next call as your negative (with 2♦ being semi-auto/waiting), you have to lower your standards for a direct 3♣ call, as you know you won't be able to show club values over idiot partner's 2M rebid. So, 2♣ - 3♣ becomes a hand with a bottom end right about where the hand in the OP dwells. You certainly aren't ever stopping out of game with this hand, and you avoid wrong-siding anything to boot.

Brian Zaugg

[fromageGB]

trevahound, on 2013-January-07, 12:35, said:

One of my least favorite calls in bridge is the immediate 2♥ as a bust. It wrongsides all heart contracts...

One of my least favorite calls in bridge is the immediate 2(anything) as a bust. It wrongsides all anything contracts.

[TylerE]

I've never understood the hate for 2♥ Bust. Sure, it has downsides, but the point of playing it is the hands where partner DOES NOT BID 2♥. The way I prefer to play it is that 2♦ promises at least an A or a K. (QJ QJ QJ QJ is still a bust). This makes openers decision to explore (or more often, NOT explore) for slam a lot easier, as with two quick losers it just isn't happening if responder has no quick tricks.

Much like playing a strong ♣ system, actually. You don't play a strong ♣ system for the hands where you DO open a strong club, but for how much it informs and firms up all your other auctions.

[barmar]

TylerE, on 2013-January-09, 13:23, said:

Much like playing a strong ♣ system, actually. You don't play a strong ♣ system for the hands where you DO open a strong club, but for how much it informs and firms up all your other auctions.

Good point.

Something I noticed is that in strong club systems, 1♣-1♦ auctions seem to be extremely common -- I think at least half of 1♣ openers get 1♦ responses (but I'm basing this just on tournament reports and occasionally playing against strong clubbers -- someone who actually plays the system may have a better feeling for the statistic). On the other hand, 2♣-2♥ auctions seem very rare; I think at most 10% of 2♣ openers get 2♥ responses (or whatever is the equivalent in their system). I guess this is because the criteria for a positive response to 1♣ is higher than for 2♣ -- typically 8 HCP versus an Ace or King.

[barsikb]

Barmar, thank you for your clear easy to digest description