[phntmshark]

Seems like a slam dunk 4H bid, not sure of the question here. I didn't bid a negative (in my system would be 2H over 2C), so we are forced to game, but I have nothing further to say as I'm at the bottom of my range with no surprise singletons or voids.

[sfi]

 phntmshark, on 2018-September-25, 22:03, said:

I didn't bid a negative (in my system would be 2H over 2C)

Yes, you did - 2NT was defined as "negative no long suits". You can see the meanings of the bids by clicking on them in the original post.

[phntmshark]

Ok, didn't see that. Still see no reason to bid anything except 4H. I have 2 queens and lousy spots.

[mikeh]

I think the key to the hand is to picture what sort of hand type opens 2C and then bids 2S followed by 3H.

Style is important. If you believe in aggressive 2C opening bids, then you will picture a worse minimum example than if, like me, you are conservative.

Opposite a conservative style of 2C openings, the possession of two working cards makes this a hand worthy of at least thinking of 12 tricks.

I am not going to comment on the auction to this point, other than to say that I am extremely comfortable with a different method. In fairness it is entirely possible that my method might not have shown to good advantage here....I would respond 2H to deny any controls, and then over 2S would have given serious thought to 4S. 2S is not, for us, forcing to game...it is forcing 1 round. Thus, since we may have a blizzard, 3S is non-forcing and 4S would show a smidgeon of values, limited by the 2H response. 2N would also be an option, and I am not saying I would have jumped to 4S...I can't be objective knowing that opener will rebid hearts if given an opportunity.

So how do we show our hand?

I think it important to note that we could give a preference to 3S if so inclined (not with this hand, obviously), could bid 3N with length and stoppers in the minors and no major fit, and could bid 4m as a cuebid agreeing hearts...so if we bid hearts, we are denying a minor cuebid.

With that in mind, and the said 2 working cards, I think we are worth a natural, invitational, non-forcing 5H

Now, if partner is the type to open 2C on AJ9xxx AKJx Kx A we may have traded a game for a minus. One needs to know one's partner. My partner's tend to open lighter than I do, but I doubt they'd commit 2C with that hand...I think they'd need the spade 10

What I like best about 5H is that it is so descriptive, if not in precise terms but in conveying the message of 'look at your majors, and don't expect me to have any control in a minor'

[rmnka447]

With all the discussion in this thread, I have to admit that my previous answer of 4 ♥ with this hand was too timid.

Normally, with my partners, we agree that 2 ♣ bids should be made with no more than 4 losers in a major hand or 3 losers in a minor hand. So with the given hand, you know that the two Qs must cover two of the losers and 5 ♥ should be relatively safe. So the 5 ♥ bid must convey the message that in a "poor" hand you must have a good heart fit and some holding that makes you think you can cover a couple of opener's losers.

Even if you don't bid 2 ♣ as disciplined we do, it's still probably worth the 5 ♥ bid.

[billw55]

If 2NT = negative, those two lovely queens now give me a big maximum. 4♥ feels like an underbid opposite a solid 2♣ style.

[Dinarius]

After your first negative of 2♦️, partner has shown lots of tricks with ♠️ as trumps. Fine.

So, why not 3♠️ as your second negative?

It says, “I have practically zip, but I have something in ♠️; over to you, partner.”

Isn’t that as it should be? Any forward move should be by S, I think.

D.

[Dinarius]

Ps. If S bids 4❤️ over my 3♠️, I bid 5❤️.

D.

[johnu]

 Dinarius, on 2018-September-27, 12:30, said:

After your first negative of 2♦️, partner has shown lots of tricks with ♠️ as trumps. Fine.

So, why not 3♠️ as your second negative?

It says, “I have practically zip, but I have something in ♠️; over to you, partner.”

Isn’t that as it should be? Any forward move should be by S, I think.

D.

What if you have absolutely zip and nothing in spades? Do you still use 3♠ as a 2nd negative?

[Dinarius]

 johnu, on 2018-September-27, 15:29, said:

What if you have absolutely zip and nothing in spades? Do you still use 3♠ as a 2nd negative?

I bid 2NT with zip and nothing in ♠

I think that 3♠ describes this hand better than 2NT.

But, I think that both are negatives.

FWIW, I play 2♦ as strictly 0-7.

Any suit response is 5 card or more and 8 or more points. (Probably how many people play this.)

2NT response to 2♣ would be 8+ and no five card suit.

So, 3♠ here says, "Over to you partner. I've nothing more to add."

That said, a subsequent noise in ♥ from partner is encouraging with this hand.

D.

[HardVector]

I just wanted to interject one small comment. This forum is "Expert Class" bridge. I know of no expert that uses 2n in the modern game to show the true negative hand. THAT is the problem in this hand.

[johnu]

 HardVector, on 2018-October-03, 22:59, said:

I just wanted to interject one small comment. This forum is "Expert Class" bridge. I know of no expert that uses 2n in the modern game to show the true negative hand. THAT is the problem in this hand.

OK, suppose the auction was

---

where 3♣ is the negative bid. How does that change responder's bidding problem?

[HardVector]

 johnu, on 2018-October-04, 00:16, said:

OK, suppose the auction was

---

where 3♣ is the negative bid. How does that change responder's bidding problem?

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed. The responder's hand, however, is not a negative hand. You have 2 queens, one of which is in the suit partner has promised a good 5 cards in. It would be a mistake to bid 3c (negative).

[johnu]

 HardVector, on 2018-October-04, 15:32, said:

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed.

Yikes

[mikeh]

 HardVector, on 2018-October-04, 15:32, said:

After you've made the negative, you are not obliged to bid again. 3h can be passed. The responder's hand, however, is not a negative hand. You have 2 queens, one of which is in the suit partner has promised a good 5 cards in. It would be a mistake to bid 3c (negative).

Well, I would be very surprised if any of my expert partners were to pass in that auction, not that it would ever arise since I refuse to play cheaper minor second negative.

[cherdano]

I think it's closer to 6♥ than 4♥.

[HardVector]

 mikeh, on 2018-October-04, 21:32, said:

Well, I would be very surprised if any of my expert partners were to pass in that auction, not that it would ever arise since I refuse to play cheaper minor second negative.

So, you're telling me that with 4 432 5432 65432 you are obliged to raise to 4h???? Your partners only open 2c when they have game in their hand?

[mikeh]

 HardVector, on 2018-October-05, 09:31, said:

So, you're telling me that with 4 432 5432 65432 you are obliged to raise to 4h???? Your partners only open 2c when they have game in their hand?

The issue is pretty straightforward.

Playing the sequence of opener, having started with 2C, bidding 2S then 3H as non-forcing caters to only those hands on which opener cannot make game opposite a negative responding hand that has a preference but no real support for hearts.

That can happen, but is both uncommon and aims at a very narrow target.

Bear in mind that most experts will strain to open 1S with any 2-suiter, rather than 2C, because of bidding space issues with the latter start. However, I concede that there will, nevertheless, be hands on which the best we can hope to achieve is +140 or -50/100 in 3H.

Maybe AKQxx AKJxx Ax x opposite x xx Jxxxx xxxxx, altho even here 4H has some play and not everyone would open 2C.


Meanwhile, there will be another small family of hands in which, indeed, opener has game in his own hand....and in which in some cases slam is attainable even opposite a second negative (this latter subset will be very small).

However, maybe opener needs to be able to show his shape below game without risking a pass. So playing 3H as forcing allows for these hands to be bid more effectively, economically, than were opener required to jump to (a clearly non-forcing) 4H.

FWIW, my metarule for 2C openings, which all partners with whom I have discussed this have agreed without dispute or doubt, is that 2C is forcing to 2N, 3H, 3N, or game above 3N

Sure, once in a while we will get a small minus when, had we been able to pass earlier, we might have got a small plus. I don't actually remember such a result ever arising, but we are discussing a very small set of hands and memory is imperfect.

If one opens 2-suiters lighter then most, then one will have more occasion to play 3H as nf, but to my mind the solution isn't to adopt 3H as nf, but to increase the requirements for opening 2C with a 2-suiter.

Everything ripples through one's system design, if the design is coherent. My style (which, I stress, is not 'my' invention, but the style I have learned playing with a wide range of very good players....some very good indeed) is to stretch to respond to partner's 1 level opening. If one needs 6 hcp to respond, then by all means open 2C on more hands than do I....but I'd advise lowering the threshold for a response to a 1-level opening as an alternative, for a host of reasons.

[HardVector]

 mikeh, on 2018-October-05, 10:24, said:

FWIW, my metarule for 2C openings, which all partners with whom I have discussed this have agreed without dispute or doubt, is that 2C is forcing to 2N, 3H, 3N, or game above 3N

Yes, that's the same kind of rule that I'm familiar with. So the auction has gone 2c, 2s, 3h by opener with partner showing a bust. You are at 3h, one of your stopping points. Why is everyone shocked that I'm suggesting you can stop here?

As I've said repeatedly, the example hand listed at the start of this conversation, is NOT a bust. All you have to do is tell partner you are not a bust, then raise 3h to 4h and let them take charge if they have the right kind of hand. Committing to a 5 level contract by bidding 5h, to me, seems silly.

[mikeh]

 HardVector, on 2018-October-05, 11:13, said:

Yes, that's the same kind of rule that I'm familiar with. So the auction has gone 2c, 2s, 3h by opener with partner showing a bust. You are at 3h, one of your stopping points. Why is everyone shocked that I'm suggesting you can stop here?

It seems that you haven't read my post. You just repeat yourself. Read my post, and I expect that you may gain some insight into why it appears, in my admittedly limited experience, to be standard expert practice to play 3H as forcing.

I say limited, because (a) this exact auction hasn't come up often, if at all. I have played long enough that I expect it has happened, but so infrequently that I have no memory of it, and (b) while I have had detailed partnerships with several very good experts (multiple national titles, one player in the Canadian Hall of Fame, etc) and have played with players such as Grant Baze (not as a client)m, I confess that my discussions have never gone beyond an agreement on the meta-rule, with no discussion, that I can recall, as to 'why' everyone involved agrees with that approach.

I can also say that I have played against some of the top players in the world, but that this sequence has never arisen as far as I can recall, so I can't say, from experience, that they all play the way I do. I don't know who you are: I don't mean that as a criticism....only that it is possible that my exposure to expert practice is different from yours. If you have broader experience and that leads you to think that many experts play your way, so be it....I am always happy to learn when I am wrong. That is the best way to improve