[pilowsky]

From a Casual table: "Main Bridge Club"
There's me, my partner North (Advanced), East (Expert) and West (Private - but Advanced).
After the dust settled, opinions differed about how North (and South) should bid/call.
I was not too fussed since it was four random people at a casual table, but all the same,
What does the panel think?

---

What happened

Spoiler

-6.8 IMP's. making 3H+4 on a ♣4 lead.
The optimum and makeable contracts.

---

[Douglas43]

This is interesting, I am the second person to vote and the other voter disagreed with me on every point, so good choice pilowsky.

My answers were: marginally yes I'd bid 2♠. Terrible hand but its nv at pairs. [Later edit after seeing Cyberyeti's comment: sorry it's vulnerable, can I change my vote?]

I play change of suit at the two level is non-forcing but new suit at the three level is game forcing, so would bid 3H and follow with 4C. Absent that agreement (and this is a pick-up game), I might punt 4H and hope.

[Cyberyeti]

Douglas43, on 2021-March-29, 04:20, said:

This is interesting, I am the second person to vote and the other voter disagreed with me on every point, so good choice pilowsky.

My answers were: marginally yes I'd bid 2♠. Terrible hand but its nv at pairs.

I play change of suit at the two level is non-forcing but new suit at the three level is game forcing, so would bid 3H and follow with 4C. Absent that agreement (and this is a pick-up game), I might punt 4H and hope.

It looks vulnerable to me.

I would open 2♠ in one partnership, but not in another, that's because it's in style for my two partnerships and those styles are different.

3♥ is unconditionally forcing for most people (although not for me in one partnership, we'd have to start with 2N), partner could have 12 tricks in his hand and just be looking for the right ace. You have to find a bid, 3N or 4♥ according to taste.

[LBengtsson]

I would not open this hand in 1st vul. poor suit 6332. might make it difficult for ops, but could also make it difficult for p. pass looks better

[DavidKok]

I think Cyberyeti hit the nail on the head, it's all about partnership agreement. I don't know if that makes this question uniquely unsuitable for a poll (since all answers are 'right' as long as your partner agrees) or uniquely suitable for a poll (if you want to find a style for your partnership). Personally I would not open this with 2♠ - weak honours, no intermediate spot cards, an outside ace, no aggressive side suits and everybody is vulnerable. The only good sign is the position (first seat), but that's still 5 minuses for 1 plus.
The second and third question are obviously related. It is standard to play a new suit as forcing, in which case 3♥ is the right bid. Preserve your bidding space with strong hands. Personally I play that new suits are not forcing, but this is not standard (and I have been told it needs to be alerted! The more you know), but for me 2NT asking followed by a new suit is forcing. In that case I would start with 2NT and bid hearts after (the system response would be 3♣ - a bad hand with a bad suit, which suggests outside values. So I'm optimistic about 6♥).

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-March-29, 05:39, said:

I think Cyberyeti hit the nail on the head, it's all about partnership agreement. I don't know if that makes this question uniquely unsuitable for a poll (since all answers are 'right' as long as your partner agrees) or uniquely suitable for a poll (if you want to find a style for your partnership). Personally I would not open this with 2♠ - weak honours, no intermediate spot cards, an outside ace, no aggressive side suits and everybody is vulnerable. The only good sign is the position (first seat), but that's still 5 minuses for 1 plus.
The second and third question are obviously related. It is standard to play a new suit as forcing, in which case 3♥ is the right bid. Preserve your bidding space with strong hands. Personally I play that new suits are not forcing, but this is not standard (and I have been told it needs to be alerted! The more you know), but for me 2NT asking followed by a new suit is forcing. In that case I would start with 2NT and bid hearts after (the system response would be 3♣ - a bad hand with a bad suit, which suggests outside values. So I'm optimistic about 6♥).

This is a sensible comment but also relates to the first. The more wide ranging your weak 2s, the better it becomes to play change of suit NF. So if you don't open 2♠ on this, you definitely want to play 3♥ forcing. If that hand is minimum you probably still want to play it forcing, if that hand is not minimum (it's actually upper range in one of my partnerships), then you want to play change of suit NF, we play it NF but highly encouraging in the partnership where it's NF and would bid with this weak 2.

[ali quarg]

Douglas43, on 2021-March-29, 04:20, said:

This is interesting, I am the second person to vote and the other voter disagreed with me on every point, so good choice pilowsky.

My answers were: marginally yes I'd bid 2♠. Terrible hand but its nv at pairs.

I play change of suit at the two level is non-forcing but new suit at the three level is game forcing, so would bid 3H and follow with 4C. Absent that agreement (and this is a pick-up game), I might punt 4H and hope.

Guess I ought to give my reasoning since I voted first

a) ♠ are too weak for me V or NV
b) With 10+ playing tricks I wouldn't want to miss game so would bid 4♥ absent 2NT
c) For me 3♥ would be invitational to game opposite an an appropriate hand
d) I would bid 2NT first as there is a potential slam on the cards opposite an appropriate fit.

[Winstonm]

IMO 4H is the only reasonable bid.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-March-29, 07:10, said:

IMO 4H is the only reasonable bid.

You will miss a decent 6♣ or ♥ pretty much any time partner has ♣K and much of the time when he has ♦A.

Also depends how you respond to 2N to some extent.

[TylerE]

No need to bid 4♥. 3♥ is 100% forcing (although not GF...responder is allowed to pass after 2♠-3♥-3♠).

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-29, 05:45, said:

This is a sensible comment but also relates to the first. The more wide ranging your weak 2s, the better it becomes to play change of suit NF. So if you don't open 2♠ on this, you definitely want to play 3♥ forcing. If that hand is minimum you probably still want to play it forcing, if that hand is not minimum (it's actually upper range in one of my partnerships), then you want to play change of suit NF, we play it NF but highly encouraging in the partnership where it's NF and would bid with this weak 2.

I would also add that if you don't open 2♠ on this, you probably should be playing Feature responses or similar rather than standard Ogust.

I am in another partnership that would open this, plays OOF and would have to go throught 2NT here.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-29, 07:48, said:

You will miss a decent 6♣ or ♥ pretty much any time partner has ♣K and much of the time when he has ♦A.

Also depends how you respond to 2N to some extent.

Yes, I will miss a slam on occasion - but on many more occasions I will stop in a makeable game that is the maximum on the hand.


When your partner opens a weak 2, the foregone conclusion is that finding a making game is your most likely target if you have good hand opposite. Slams may be possible, but the bidding becomes a guessing game when there are no firm agreements as to what is a cue bid and what is a suit.

Taking the problem at face value with (what I understand to be) standard agreements, i.e., a new suit is forcing over a weak 2-bid, then once you bid 3H there are no more agreements other than trying to reach a game in hearts - maybe nt, but not spades.

But the notion that you can somehow determine that partner holds the Club K in his weak 2 is, I think, fantasy thinking. It would also be highly likely that if partner does hold an ace it would be the spade ace and not the diamond ace - again, rabbit hunting for particular cards is kind of magic thinking, isn't it?

In situations like this I am reminded of something that Bob Hamman is supposed to have said - if you need me to hold a specific card, I don't have it!

Something I don't have is an ideal way to handle unusual hands such as this. To devise a method to handle such deviations from normal rather than the mundane is, IMO, losing bridge, so I don't worry about it.

On this particular hand, with the understanding I point out above - i.e., with 3H we are trying for game - and over his 4H I bid 5C - I think it is a stronger message to my partner. In this sequence I can't be initiating a cue-bidding sequence with an uncontrolled suit - so the only thing left is a strong 2-suiter.

But then, that's simply how I think about these situations and it is only my opinion as to my way to approach the problem. Your ideas may be different and better. I'm not married to my opinion.

On a related subject, I have sympathy for weak twos but I also have concerns about position and vulnerability. Do you have any concerns about how vulnerability and seat position affect your weak two bids?

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-29, 05:45, said:

This is a sensible comment but also relates to the first. The more wide ranging your weak 2s, the better it becomes to play change of suit NF. So if you don't open 2♠ on this, you definitely want to play 3♥ forcing. If that hand is minimum you probably still want to play it forcing, if that hand is not minimum (it's actually upper range in one of my partnerships), then you want to play change of suit NF, we play it NF but highly encouraging in the partnership where it's NF and would bid with this weak 2.

pescetom, on 2021-March-29, 09:15, said:

I would also add that if you don't open 2♠ on this, you probably should be playing Feature responses or similar rather than standard Ogust.

I don't think we are understanding each other. My weak 2's are wide-ranging, but always have low defense. High offense is not essential, and strength is not necessary. Take away the ace and I would consider opening 2♠ (though I still prefer pass at this vulnerability), swap the ace for a small diamond and swap a small spade for the jack and I would open 2♠. I don't see Cyberyeti's suggestion of forcing changes of suit or pescetom's suggestion of feature-asking working well opposite those types of hands.
The given hand is middle of my range when it comes to point count, but has too many flaws to be opened with a weak 2.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-March-29, 10:52, said:

I don't think we are understanding each other. My weak 2's are wide-ranging, but always have low defense. High offense is not essential, and strength is not necessary. Take away the ace and I would consider opening 2♠ (though I still prefer pass at this vulnerability), swap the ace for a small diamond and swap a small spade for the jack and I would open 2♠. I don't see Cyberyeti's suggestion of forcing changes of suit or pescetom's suggestion of feature-asking working well opposite those types of hands.
The given hand is middle of my range when it comes to point count, but has too many flaws to be opened with a weak 2.

OK, I said quite clearly the more wide ranging your weak 2 the better playing NF was, I assumed you were playing classical rejecting because of the suit quality.

And to Winston I don't play Ogust so partner bids 3♣/♦ with the high card there much of the time