[onoway]

the hand came up in a casual table of people who all knew each other but very seldom had played together. It led to somewhat heated feelings of frustration so was redealt, unfortunately before I saved it. However, the question came up, when should a 2♣ opening be used?

My hand as best as I can remember ♠ AKQx ♥AKQx ♦0 ♣KQJxx. I opened 2♣ and my p responded with 3♦ as he had a seven card ♦suit with most of the top honors and no points outside. I pulled to 3nt and he rebid 4♦. After that I dont remember how it went except we ended up in 6♦ which would not make. 6nt would also fail.

I was informed that I should never open 2♣ with a three suited hand. So if you should never use the bid for single or two suited or three suited hands then what use is it? And what should the bid be for such a hand, in that case? If 2♣ is a reasonable bid and if p then responds 3♦ waiting, what should the rebid be? Adnittedly I had/have no real idea how to bid the hand...the only part I had felt relatively sure about was the opening bid!

[kenberg]

Good morning, Pam. I'll give you my views (what else?)

A. I would open your hand 2♣.

B. Over 3♦ you perhaps have a tough call. That's a very good hand but you are missing the top club and whatever 3♦ should show, it may be tough to get to partner's hand unless diamonds are trump, and partner certainly does not promise loss-free diamonds. I bid 3NT,

C. If partner pulls 3NT to 4♦ he is responsible for the result. He announced a long and decent diamond suit with his 3♦. You said fine, I want to play 3NT. He then seemed to feel the need to repeat that he had a long and decent diamond suit. If he is going to pull 3NT he needs to be ready to play in 6♦ opposite not much in diamonds. You really have nothing at all in diamonds and that is unlucky perhaps, but he should be thinking he can bring the suit in without loss opposite a stiff. After all, you have a fine hand and there is still a club loser. He needs to bring in the diamond suit for 6♦, or else he needs to pass 3NT. A sort of decent suit is not enough. AKQJxxx would be nice.

Btw, you didn't pass 4♦. Very good. Partner might actually have a hand that can make 6♦. I have no idea what I would do over 4♦ but bidding 5[]Di] comes to mind, maybe he will pass. As far as I am concerned, after 4♦, diamonds are trump so anything other than 5♦ will probably be taken as encouragement.

Generalities:
We all have our styles. I often decline to open 2♣ when others would do so, Particularly if the hand is two-suited and I am short in spades, I often feel it is safe to start showing my suits at the one level because someone always comes in with spades, they just can't help themselves. I won't say I never get burned, but seldom. But this one I open 2♣.


I think it was Mike Lawrence who gave advice along the following lines: On some hands, if you open at the one level followed by three passes, you will be disappointed. That's ok, it may work out.On other hands if you open at the one level and it is passed out, you will be sick to your stomach. Those you open 2♣, regardless of the problems it might cause. I would put your hand in this latter category.

[barmar]

What you should never do is use the word "never" in bridge guidelines.

2- and 3-suiters are hard to describe, and wasting a level of bidding with a 2♣ opener makes it worse, so you should avoid using 2♣ if the hand is borderline. But 24 HCP with only 3 losers is squarely in 2♣ territory, risking getting passed out if you open on the 1 level, even though you can make game opposite many yarbs. So you open 2♣ and hope for the best.

[ahydra]

barmar, on 2012-December-10, 09:11, said:

But 24 HCP with only 3 losers is squarely in 2♣ territory, risking getting passed out if you open on the 1 level, even though you can make game opposite many yarbs. So you open 2♣ and hope for the best.

The OP hand has only one loser, pushing it so far into 2♣ territory that the 1-bids now appear as a dot.

I would open 2C and over 3D bid 3NT, and over 4D try 4H... possibly... I don't like anything else (except blasting 6NT, but we could yet be off two aces).

ahydra

[blackshoe]

If it goes 2♣-3♦-3NT-4♦-4♥-5♦ how many will pass?

Some points: 2♣ is forcing to game. This means that 4♦ is, in my view anyway, a slam try. If responder just wants to play in game, he should bid 5♦. Also, if 4♦ is a slam try, isn't 4♥ a control bid? Or is it natural because opener hasn't actually agree diamonds yet? Also, 3♦ isn't "waiting" (that would be 2♦), it's a positive response. To me, a positive response to 2♣ means "we certainly have a game somewhere, and may have a slam", so 3NT may say "I don't think slam is on" (I would still bid it on this hand); 4♦ is a further try. Lastly, 4-4-0-5 hands with this much strength are pretty rare. One could have specific methods to deal with them (Roman 2♦, or the Mexican 2♦ from Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure and some earlier Romex books — even Rosencrantz and his cronies have given up on this option more recently (Bid to Win was published in 1990, iirc), due to its rarity, and to allow better handling of the strong balanced hands in Mexican), but that may be overkill.

Just some things to think about.

[kenberg]

Yes, the context is what I think of as semi-pickup. That is, we know our partner but we don't have extensive agreements. So logic has to apply. Responder, after hearing 3NT, can be certain that opener has neither Ax nor Kx in diamonds. With that hand, the response to 3♦ would have been either an RKC 4NT or, sometimes, a trump setting 4♦. If I open 2♣, if partner bids 3♦, and I have Ax or Kx, we must be a favorite to take six diamonds tricks and then we get started on all the other cards that justified my 2♣ opening. And presumably partner expects to make 3NT. So leave it there unless the diamond suit is truly powerful.

I can imagine a hand that bids 5♦ directly over 3NT. I would expect that to be something like KQJTxx in diamonds and out. The ides would be that since partner does not have Ax, the defense will probably be able to duck a diamond and thereby kill the suit. This suit produces a likely five tricks played in diamonds, one trick if played in NT. So it seems to me this is what a 5♦ bid would be over 3NT, assuming you think this is a sufficient hand for the original 3♦ call. So that's a 5♦ bid, and a 4♦ bid has to be stronger.

[mike777]

agree with 2c what else?

As Ken mentioned if pard has a dead minimum for 3d then pard will bid 5d over 3nt
After pard bids 4d I am worried about missing 7 not 6.

IN any case even after 3d it is tough to stay out of 6.

[Balrog49]

> I was informed that I should never open 2♣ with a three suited hand.

Nonsense! ahydra is correct that a losing trick count of one is a 2♣ opener. Anything else is ludicrous. I open most four-loser hands 2♣ if all I need from partner is a tolerance for my major suit and one cover card.

In this case, all you need to find in partner's hand to make a game is a zero-count and a four-card major. Maybe a three-card major. Presumably, a 2♦ response is artificial so partner's 3♦ response shows nothing more than a good five-card suit and does not preclude a 4-4 major fit.

Partner has a diamond suit so you probably don't to have to worry about being tapped. So I would bid 3♥ on the second round. If partner bids 4♦, I'll try 5♦ and hope he has a solid or semi-solid suit. 3NT may be our only game but with a void in his suit, I'm not going to bet the bank on it.

[mike777]

Balrog49, on 2012-December-10, 12:54, said:

> I was informed that I should never open 2♣ with a three suited hand.

Nonsense! ahydra is correct that a losing trick count of one is a 2♣ opener. Anything else is ludicrous. I open most four-loser hands 2♣ if all I need from partner is a tolerance for my major suit and one cover card.

In this case, all you need to find in partner's hand to make a game is a zero-count and a four-card major. Maybe a three-card major. Presumably, a 2♦ response is artificial so partner's 3♦ response shows nothing more than a good five-card suit and does not preclude a 4-4 major fit.

Partner has a diamond suit so you probably don't to have to worry about being tapped. So I would bid 3♥ on the second round. If partner bids 4♦, I'll try 5♦ and hope he has a solid or semi-solid suit. 3NT may be our only game but with a void in his suit, I'm not going to bet the bank on it.

strongly disagree 3d never just shows a good 5 card suit.

with your example start with 2d art gf.

[Balrog49]

mike777, on 2012-December-10, 12:57, said:

strongly disagree 3d never just shows a good 5 card suit.

with your example start with 2d art gf.

I love playing 2♦ positive (1+ controls) and 2♥ negative (0 controls), but that doesn't change the fact that a strong five-card suit across from a 2♣ opener can be a huge asset. If opener has Kxx of the suit, he can start counting tricks instead of searching for a fit. This is something that Precision players know very well. A strong 1♣ system can give you a different perspective on some strong 2♣ auctions.

[kenberg]

Every problem has a context. Here we are speaking of players who know each other but have not played together much. On this basis, unless I am told differently, I would assume that over 2♣ a 2♦ bid is wating and a 3♦ bid is is a six card suit or longer with rather decent values in it. Pam says it contained "most" of the high honors. A regular partnership would define that further, or play some more extensive response system, but in the context at hand I would assume a rather decent six card suit.

But the problem here was not system, in my opinion. 2♣-3♦-3NT. Although Pam does not remember the hand exactly, she does say that it had no values outside of the diamond suit and had "most", so by implication missing some, of the high honors. Why would we think this hand belongs in 6♦? If we don't think so, why would we act over 3NT? If we really think that the hand should be played in diamonds, presumably 5♦, then bid 5♦. But I think most hands of the general sort Pam is describing should pass.

Pam mentioned a possible problem that did not arise: Suppose the auction does begin 2♣-2♦, presumed waiting. I would bid 3♣ with Pam's hand and now a 3♦ bid would be a second negative. (I am still assuming what the agreements are what I regard as pick-up standard). Holding some diamonds and some values, but not enough to warrant an original 3♦ call, I might invent a convention on the spot. Bid 3♦ and then, if partner trots out a four card major, as she would on this hand, bid 3NT. Call it the impossible negative, oops, that name is taken. Or perhaps I would just bid 3NT over 3♣ and hope for the best. Indeed it would be nice here if 2♦ showed some values so that over 3♣ the 2♦ had showed some diamonds. But lacking a discussion, I think 2♦ is waiting.

Anyway, the actual auction went 2♣-3♦-3NT and if responder would just pass here, everything would be fine. 4♦ must be a slam try in anyone's system, and from everything I have heard he does not have the values for it.

[onoway]

You would rebid the 5 card ♣suit, Ken, rather than mention either of the 4 card majors? Wouldn't the odds suggest I am more likely to find three of a major rather than clubs in p's hand if only because there is one more of them out there for p to have? Would you rebid that if I opened 1♣ instead of 2?

You got the scenario exactly right; 2 diamonds would have been waiting, and I understood by his jump that he had a long decent diamond suit. We just disagreed on what to do about it.

Thanks all for your comments.

[kenberg]

I would bid the clubs, yes, because it is what I have five of. I hope to bid at least one of the other suits eventually. After 2♣-2♦, it may well be that the hand makes 6♣. Or 6 something. Or not. It's a hard hand to bid but I just take it as naturally as possible.

[PhilKing]

FWIW I would rebid 4♣ (Finch lol) over 3♦, although that looks, and is, rather misdescriptive on this one occasion. For me, 3NT would suggest an unsuitable minimum balanced hand - typically 23-24 bal with nothing in diamonds, and I would rather maintain the integrity of the standard NT rebid. I think it is nonsensical to suggest it shows an extreme misfit on the basis that we happen to hold this hand - a 544 hands with a void in partner's suit is not that common, after all. With a balanced hand and no fit, I bid NTs, with an unbalanced hand I bid my suit, and with a fit I raise. Is that so revolutionary? Come on - when you respond 3♦ and partner rebids 3NT, I am betting you have not agreed it shows this hand ...

When partner rebids 4♦, he is not showing the earth. Try to slow him down by raising to five. You have a terrible hand on the auction!

[mikeh]

I am probably as conservative a 2♣ opener as they come, and this hand was a 2♣ opener to me. It's unusual to hold 24 hcp and hate the hand, but that's how I'd feel about opening this: I open 2♣ because I hate the alternatives even more.

As for how things go thereafter, there is a reason why experienced partnerships often have complex or at least precise agreements about their responses. This hand rates to do very badly indeed opposite a positive diamond response. I agree with 3N.

I would bid 4N over 4♦, which is a regressive move. There are some players who seem to think that 4N is always ace-asking, but most know better. Partner should be passing 4N.

Bidding is a dialogue (unless one is in a relay method, in which case it is an interrogation). Once responder has bid 3♦then 4♦, she has shown at least 7 diamonds and at least some high honours. When partner, having heard that, suggests playing 4N, responder should not argue unless responder has some values not yet shown.

Getting back to your question about when is the 2♣ opening useful, you suggest that you have been told not to use it for one suited, two suited or three suited hands.

I have no idea who would ever suggest not using it for one suited hands. Now, maybe you are thinking of hands such as AKQJxxxx Ax xx x

I'd agree with them. But AKQxxx AKx Ax Kx is a one suited hand and I can't imagine not opening 2♣.

The key, imo, is to stop thinking only about how many tricks you can take in your hand. It is to think of the conversation that will take place after you break the ice with your opening bid. When you hold AKQJxxxx Ax xx x, there are 26 hcp out there, with few spades. The odds that 1♠ will end the conversation are miniscule.

In the meantime, if you open both this hand and the 23 count 6=3=2=2 2♣, you create problems for partner in terms of your later conversation, especially if the opps preempt. A rule I like to quote, and this is a bit of an exaggeration, is that one should not open 2♣ when fairly normal splits give you no defence against a slam. With AKQJxxxx, finding an opp with a void is not a surprise, and now we have only one defensive trick.

To me, a 2♣ opening, if based on a long suit, should hold roughly 20+ hcp. You can fudge that down to maybe 19 or so, but once you're at 18, the odds of the hand being passed out, and you being sure of a horrible result, diminish greatly.

If based on a 2-suiter, then I'd want about 21 or so or more, and I have happily opened 2-suiters with 22.

If on a 3-suiter, my personal best was 23. It was in a Sectional many years ago, and my partner and I were the only pair to reach the cold grand slam that was in my 3rd bid suit. Had I opened 2♣, we would not have found the fit: the level would be too high to explore safely.

Incidentally, I am a fan of a response method in which most positive hands bid 2♦, to allow opener maximal room. 3♦ would be a simple hand, with long diamonds, 2/3 or 3/3 top honours and at most a side card, and definitely no side A. I doubt that that would have helped here

[Zelandakh]

Opening 2♣ is normal unless you are playing some gadget for strong 3-suited hands. Responding 3♦ and rebidding 4♦ shows very good but not solid diamonds and slam interest. With a hand of solid diamonds that just wanted to set them as trumps and go slamming you could respond 4♦ to 2♣. 3NT over 3♦ looks fine. 4NT over 4♦ should pretty much show what you have unless this is agreed to be ace or key card-asking (it shouldn't).

The easy way to bid this sort of hand is to incorporate a gadget for strong 3-suiters. There is another thread floating around which details some ideas in this area if you are interested.

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2012-December-10, 19:51, said:

Incidentally, I am a fan of a response method in which most positive hands bid 2♦, to allow opener maximal room.

Perhaps Pam's specific question has been addressed sufficiently to permit looking more at this issue. I have held off on abandoning the waiting 2♦ for two reasons: a. The 2♣ opening is fairly rare and when it occurs the waiting 2♦ usually works well enough. b. Unfamiliar conventions often have hidden snags. This is the same sort of thinking that leads me to let someone else take the first flights on a new model jet.

I am assuming that the positive 2♦ also includes a negative 2♥.

The first snag that comes to my mind is the heart suit. No doubt if the partnership has a 5-3 heart fit they will find it. Bu in some hands 3NT is unplayable and it is preferable to play in a strong 5-2 or 6-1. It seems to me that an auction 2♣-2♦-2♥ makes this easier to sort out than it would be if it starts 2♣-2♥. For example, I suppose 2♣-2♥(neg)-3♥ shows a heart suit by opener. Sometimes five cards, sometimes six plus. When five cards, if responder holds Qx it will still sometimes be right to play 4♥. But usually it won't be right when opener has five, and will be right when opener has six. Responder does what?

A second snag is the Kokish type hand. Since adding this in, I have been surprised to find this coming up more often that I expected. This (I know you know) is a hand of NT shape but stronger than some threshold, say stronger than 23. After 2♣-2♦ the holder of such a hand bids 2♥, showing either hearts or the big hand. I suppose playing that 2♥ is negative, it would go 2♣-2♥-3NT (since 2NT would be 22-23). This may work well enough but it eliminates exploration for major suit fits.

I am not all saying that the negative 2♥ is a bad approach. Rather I just have not taken the time to think it through. I guess I am asking if you have found these items, or other items, to be a problem with 2♥ negative and if so, whether the problems are solvable.

[mikeh]

You're correct in that my preference is very much for 2♥ immediate negative. I have played it for many years.

You are also correct in that all conventions carry costs, and this is no exception.

Firstly: when opener holds hearts. My preference is to require a better hand for 2♣ then hearts than for 2♣ then spades. The reason is that it makes little sense to play the auction 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ as non-forcing, since how else is opener to begin with a massive hand that can't commit to 4♥, either because the suit isn't good enough or because opener has a massive 2 suiter? So for me the 2♣ forces to 2N, 3♠, 4m or 4♥.

In addition, you point out that responder may have a problem if opener bids 3♥ over 2♥. This is minimized to a small degree, albeit with some other minor costs added, by having opener strain to rebid in NT, rather than hearts, with 5332 shape. Thus 3♥ will usually be 6+ in length. Note that I generally play a modified form of puppet over 2N so we will usually get back to a 5-3 heart fit when appropriate.

You didn't mention the right-siding issue, which can (tho rarely) be another negative since the opening lead now goes through the strong hand if we play in hearts.

The huge NT is yet another issue, since we lose Kokish, as you observed. However, this is truly a rare problem. I suspect the mathematically inclined can tell me how much more often we hold 22-23 than 24+ but my subjective impression is that it is an order of magnitude. Of course, I am generous in upgrading 20 counts into 21-22, and not so generous upgrading 23's out of range so I really play 21+-23 for the 2N rebid and that greatly increases frequency. My experience also suggests that 24 count hands are so chunky that playing 3N rather than 4M on a 4-4 rarely means going down: tho it may well mean making one fewer trick. My bidding methods are optimized (as best as I can optimize anything) for imps, so I don't see this as much of an issue. The same seems true, again based on a small and not-remembered subjective impression, for 5-3 fits, and for 6 card suits we can transfer.

That is, admittedly, quite a collection of drawbacks and I suspect I have ommitted others. The key is, as you know, whether the gains justify incurring these drawbacks and, to me, there is no question about it.

2♦ waiting has huge issues of its own, the main one being that it takes 2 rounds of bidding, and most of a level, for responder to show that he has either nothing or something. While he can pass 2N with a flat bust, he can't pass 2M or 3m. He has to make an artificial bid to show the negative.

Not only does this take away from our available bidding space directly, but say one has real clubs and a positive (but not enough for a direct 3♣, perhaps because 3♣ promises a certain minimum suit quality). Opener rebids 2M. Since cheaper minor 2nd negative is a common adjunct to 2♦ waiting, responder can't bid 3♣. This would be a rare occurence and might not be fatal anyway. The loss of bidding space is the greater problem. I know, 2♥ immediate negative also costs bidding space when opener has hearts (see: I knew I'd overlooked at least one problem) but that happens less frequently.

And when responder has a positive hand for the wait, we have delayed giving that news for a round. Imagine opener rebidding 3♦. What now?

Or opener rebidding 3♣? When one has already shown a gf via 2♦, it is trivial to play 3♦ by responder as a stall, or 'noise', clearing the way for opener to show a 4 card major or to bid 3N. And if responder has shown a negative, it is trivial for responder to either bid the same 3♦ or bid a major, without fear that partner will go nuts.

Contrast that to cheaper minor 2nd negative. Responder can't bid even a 6 card major over 3♣ with a bad hand: he has to bid an artificial 3♦ and the partnership is left groping.

I don't think you can solve these issues by, say, abandoning cheaper minor 2nd negative, since responder has to have some way of limiting his hand or of confirming values. You cannot safely bid a 2 count 5332 the same way you'd bid an 8 count 5332, at least not in my opinion.

In addition, telling opener immediately that responder either owns a control or doesn't can, on a few hands, be of immediate and useful benefit to opener. Btw, I prefer that 2♥ says nothing about hcp: that it deny an Ace or a King. I'd respond 2♥ with 4 Queens and 4 Jacks (tho I'd certainly get active thereafter ) but I know some who argue that 2♥ denies as many as 6 hcp. I could go on at length as to why I see that as second-best, but that is a digression).

I suspect that there are more disadvantages to 2♦ waiting than I have identified, but I wanted to give you at least some of my thoughts.

[kenberg]

Thanks. That is a veery generous response. I will give it some thought, recommend to a partner that he read it, and quite possibly adopt it.

[fromageGB]

mikeh, on 2012-December-11, 10:26, said:

Of course, I am generous in upgrading 20 counts into 21-22, and not so generous upgrading 23's out of range so I really play 21+-23 for the 2N rebid and that greatly increases frequency.

A 3 point range is a bit awkward, and I would say a 2NT rebid when partner is negative should ideally not be more than a 2 point range. This is one big advantage of Kokish, rebidding 2NT in two distinct ranges. Like many I play 2♣, 2NT as 22-23; 2♣, Kokish 2♥, then 2NT as 24-25. A 2 point range allows responder a sensible game decision.

If you want the benefits of Kokish (and there are others), why is apparently everybody so enamoured with 2♦ positive and 2♥ negative? Playing them the other way round gives you Kokish. When responder is positive (or not double negative { hey, that's a real double negative } or whatever your terms are) you can afford a bigger range as obviously you are now in a GF situation and you still have range-splitters (aka quantitative) available for slam decisions.

I can see a positive 2♦ gives you fractionally more space that a positive 2♥, but do you really need it all, to the extent of scrapping Kokish?