[pclayton]

Say you play a 2♥ response to a 2♣ opening as a negative. How do you play opener's follow-ups? (See poll).

[jdonn]

2♥ can be passed is absurd to me. The one time I saw it passed responder was 3631 (not kidding).

[mikeh]

Where is the poll that 2♥ cannot be passed AND 3♥ is forcing, which is the way I like to play it?

I think that allowing responder to pass 3♥ has a very, very low reward ratio, while completely screwing opener when opener has a 2-suiter that even I would open 2♣, rather than 1♥.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Aug 27 2008, 07:31 AM, said:

Where is the poll that 2♥ cannot be passed AND 3♥ is forcing, which is the way I like to play it?

Is there a yellow in the house?

[kenrexford]

My own ideas as to how to handle this situation solve this problem easily, insofar as the 2♣ opening tends to deny spades and thus 2♠ replaces the 3♥ call. (If Opener has spades, he has 24+ balanced and will likely bid a practical 3NT.)

Using inferior methods, however, 2♥ is forcing (but can be passed just like Responder could pass 2♣ with 2-2-2-7 and a yarb as "taking a position"). Equally, 3♥ is forcing.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Aug 27 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

just like Responder could pass 2♣ with 2-2-2-7 and a yarb as "taking a position"

??????????????????????????

[SoTired]

kenrexford, on Aug 27 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

Responder could pass 2♣ with 2-2-2-7 and a yarb as "taking a position").

I think someone posted a hand somewhere (here?) with J-7th of clubs and out, showing how clever they were passing out 2C because they hit opener with a balanced 2N, in the only contract that makes.

Many posters replied saying the passer got lucky and the pass wasn't clever at all. In fact just the opposite.

I was too much in shock that someone actually thot passing 2C was "clever"

[kenrexford]

Bah! You paid your entry, you can do what you want.

Is it good partnership? No.

Is it ever theoretically right? No.

Can you get lucky, maybe because of a table feel (RHO seems somehow greedy all of the sudden, for example)? Yes.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Aug 27 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

Bah! You paid your entry, you can do what you want.

Is it good partnership? No.

Is it ever theoretically right? No.

Can you get lucky, maybe because of a table feel (RHO seems somehow greedy all of the sudden, for example)? Yes.

My fault, I thought we were talking about correct bidding and/or systematically allowed bidding. Not bids that you can make simply because they are legal under the laws of bridge.

[Echognome]

I've passed a double negative 2♥ contract twice and have been passed in it once. I personally don't see the problem with it at all. Sure you might find partner with a fit, but you might also find 2♥ as the last making contract. I think one of the times I was down one in 2♥. Another time I made 140 and another time responder had 5♥ and I made game. I don't think it really compares to passing a 2♣ response personally as you *do* have information about responder's hand (namely that he has no A, no K, and not 2 Q's, which is the way we play it). Is it possible we have game on a good fit? Of course. Isn't it also possible that we miss some games when we pass partner in any part-score?

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Aug 27 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

I personally don't see the problem with it at all.  Sure you might find partner with a fit

If you are going to contradict yourself, you should at least put some text in between the parts where that happens
Have you considered that partner might also have a long suit? Opener 2-6-x-x, responder 7-1-x-x? I had this auction once (I really want to name the partner to prove this is true, but I'll protect the guilty) I held

x JT98xxxx xx Qx

Partner opened 1♣ strong, I bid 1♦ neg, he bid 1♥ artificial 20+, I bid 1♠ artificial 0-4, and he..........passed.

[fred]

If you care more about getting plus scores then you care about systemic agreements then of course you can Pass 2H. For example:

Jx
QJ1098
AKQ
AKQ

With this hand you are a favorite to make 2H, going down in 2NT is far from unlikely, and if you do bid 2NT how would you like it if partner were to transfer to spades?

I suppose you could Pass the transfer, but I would rather play in 2H than 3H

IMO this has nothing to do with systemic agreements - it is just a matter of common sense.

I do think that hands in which passing 2H is the % action are few and far between, but they certainly exist.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Aug 27 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

I think that allowing responder to pass 3♥ has a very, very low reward ratio, while completely screwing opener when opener has a 2-suiter that even I would open 2♣, rather than 1♥.

Why not just bid the cheaper suit first?

[jdonn]

fred, on Aug 27 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

If you care more about getting plus scores then you care about systemic agreements then of course you can Pass 2H. For example:

Jx
QJ1098
AKQ
AKQ

With this hand you are a favorite to make 2H, going down in 2NT is far from unlikely, and if you do bid 2NT how would you like it if partner were to transfer to spades?

I suppose you could Pass the transfer, but I would rather play in 2H than 3H

IMO this has nothing to do with systemic agreements - it is just a matter of common sense.

I do think that hands in which passing 2H is the % action are few and far between, but they certainly exist.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

That's a very good example hehe. I guess my real answer is that I wouldn't feel nearly as bad if I rebid 2NT and partner transfered to spades as partner would if I passed 2♥ and he held QTxxxx x xxx xxx or so. In fact the more I think about it, your example is just about as perfect as it gets to pass 2♥ and still I hate it. Partner with QTxx or Qxxxx of spades and out is probably a cold 3NT.

[fred]

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 27 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

If you care more about getting plus scores then you care about systemic agreements then of course you can Pass 2H. For example:

Jx
QJ1098
AKQ
AKQ

With this hand you are a favorite to make 2H, going down in 2NT is far from unlikely, and if you do bid 2NT how would you like it if partner were to transfer to spades?

I suppose you could Pass the transfer, but I would rather play in 2H than 3H

IMO this has nothing to do with systemic agreements - it is just a matter of common sense.

I do think that hands in which passing 2H is the % action are few and far between, but they certainly exist.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

That's a very good example hehe. I guess my real answer is that I wouldn't feel nearly as bad if I rebid 2NT and partner transfered to spades as partner would if I passed 2♥ and he held QTxxxx x xxx xxx or so. In fact the more I think about it, your example is just about as perfect as it gets to pass 2♥ and still I hate it. Partner with QTxx or Qxxxx of spades and out is probably a cold 3NT.

Suggestion: Define 2H to mean "If you rebid 2NT I am either going to Pass or transfer to 3 of a major and Pass".

Then you don't have to worry about this particular hand (as I assume you would bid Texas over a 2NT rebid with that hand).

Yes you still have to worry about hands like:

x
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

where 4H is very likely to make. Maybe there are other families of hands that can produce a game opposite my example, but it is obviously much more likely that 2H will result in a plus score and bidding again will result in a minus score.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

That makes much more sense. But then don't you reduce the gain of the 2♦ bid and even the entire reason to play this method, all to allow you to do something very rare that will only save an occasional partscore?

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 27 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

I personally don't see the problem with it at all.  Sure you might find partner with a fit

If you are going to contradict yourself, you should at least put some text in between the parts where that happens

I fail to see how I contradicted myself. Partner may have a fit. We may miss game. And guess what? I still don't have a problem with it. Wouldn't be the first or the last time I missed a game. I don't think that's unreasonable. I certainly agree with Fred that the hands are few and far between.

But pray tell, how is that contradictory sir?

[fred]

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

That makes much more sense. But then don't you reduce the gain of the 2♦ bid and even the entire reason to play this method, all to allow you to do something very rare that will only save an occasional partscore?

You could easily be right - it is a tough question to answer. I have been using 2H=negative for a long time, but 2C openings don't come up that much, I don't play that much, and I am too busy/lazy to spend a lot of time doing Partnership Bidding to have any strong experience-based convictions that the definition I prefer is "best".

I definitely think it makes sense that 2H has *some* definition that is more explicit than "negative". I suppose you could define it is a "less than X HCP" or "no Aces, Kings, and not 2 Queens" or similar.

As long as 2H has some kind of reasonable definition and hands that fit that definition are dealt with some kind of reasonable frequency, I would expect to gain a reasonable % of time when 2D is bid instead. Obviously the wider the range of 2H the more the gain when 2H is not bid, but the harder bidding becomes when 2H is actually bid. Also, as you convincingly argued in another thread, the 2H bid does make a mess of Kokish which I suppose is further reason to keep its definition rather narrow

I tend to prefer what you might call "functional" or "intentional" definitions of bids as opposed to definitions that are based on things like HCPs or losing trick count. Some other examples of what I am talking about would be:

- defining Serious 3NT to mean "Slam is laydown opposite the right minimum" as opposed to, say, "16+ HCP"

- defining Jacoby transfer followed by autosplinter to mean "If you still have a 1NT opening without counting your HCP in the suit I splintered in then it is safe for you to bid Blackwood" as opposed to, say, "6-loser hand".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Aug 27 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 27 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

I personally don't see the problem with it at all.  Sure you might find partner with a fit

If you are going to contradict yourself, you should at least put some text in between the parts where that happens

I fail to see how I contradicted myself. Partner may have a fit. We may miss game. And guess what? I still don't have a problem with it. Wouldn't be the first or the last time I missed a game. I don't think that's unreasonable. I certainly agree with Fred that the hands are few and far between.

But pray tell, how is that contradictory sir?

Only since you ask, since I generally hate to get into debates about semantics.

"I don't see a problem. Sure there could be this problem"

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Aug 27 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

Only since you ask, since I generally hate to get into debates about semantics.

"I don't see a problem. Sure there could be this problem"

Fair enough. I think it's just the vernacular.