[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     2♣    Pass
 2NT   Pass  3♦    Pass
 4♣    Pass  5♣    Pass
 5♥    Pass  5♠    Pass
 6♣    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

2nt shows 7+

what do you think of this bidding

what do you think of this bidding if 2 C is supposed to = a 4 loser hand

what alternative ways can you bid it using 2/1

and what percentage is this slam please, I am not sure how to work it out

[sceptic]

we play 2 Club responses, 2 D = neg 2 H = red ace 2 S = black ace 2 NT = 7hcp+

not my prefered method, but bridge is about partnership compromise, I just need to convince my p to change


I need some help here as she is willing to chnge if I can convince her .. I am looking for answers to justify my case LOL

also is 2C as a 4 loser hand a good thing or do you recommend another structure for it.

p.s for those of you reading this, I am not critising my pard as she reads my posts and I doubt she will have a problem with my questions as I post a few of our hands here when we disagree or we have a misunderstanding, some of you are quite helpful with your opinions

[inquiry]

I don't like the 2♣ bid either. This is nine tricks? Really? Ok, 6♦, two aces is eight. If you have an entry to partner, and if the spade king is onside, ok there is nine. I play Multi-2♦ can include 9+ minor hand, and this isn't even up to that low standard.

So I would recommend opening 1♦. The second problem is do you respond 1♥/1♠or 2♣. Clearly if you bid 2♣ in response to 1♦ slam will be found. As justin says, responding 1♥ causes other problem.

[han]

To help you and your partnership: playing that 2NT shows 7+ points is really awful!!! It takes up far too much room. Here are some mainstream approaches:

A) 2D: waiting
higher: natural, at least 8+ points, good suit.

2D: waiting, but promises some values.
2H: negative, at most 2 queens.
higher: natural, at least 8+ points, good suit (2NT shows good hearts)

C) 2D: 0-1 controls (2-1 points).
2H: 2 controls.
2S: A+K.
2NT: 3 kings.
3C: 4+ controls.

After 2C-2D, you should probably still play 2nd negative, except in B.

[Al_U_Card]

Another potential criterion for a 2C (sayc type) is more quick tricks than losers.

In the example hand you have 4QT's and 5 losers so don't open 2C (Which says that opposite a yarborough (with 3 small trump so 12 losers) your 4 loser or less hand will produce 10+ tricks.

[Stephen Tu]

1. Standards for opening 2♣

4 losers is an OK standard for opening 2♣ with a long major suit, if you are counting actual losers opposite a yarborough, rather than losing trick style losers (which doesn't distinguish between guarded A/K/Q).
AKxxxxx AK Q Axx would be a reasonable minimum 2♣ opener.
AQxxxxx AK Q Kxx certainly isn't, even though it has same LTC.

With a minor suit however, one generally wants about a trick stronger minimum (3-3.5 losers) for quite a few reasons:
- it takes one more trick to make game in the minor
- the auction is often 2 levels higher before you show your suit rather than 1
- partner will stretch to bid something over 1c/1d with less than over 1h/1s.

2. Response structures
My general feeling about responses that show controls, aces, or pts at a low level is that they interfere with finding good suit fits which are just as important to trick taking power. Furthermore it's just not necessary to find those controls right away, as most people have good tools with cue bidding & blackwood to find about those controls after suit agreement. If you are eating up your space with the controls first, you get into these awkward auctions where you have suit agreement occurring at 4h/4s, and no one sure if they can pass this or not.

My preferred response structure is:
2d = negative, use ch. min next as double neg
2h = positive, slammish, ~ 5+ pts counting A=3,K=2,Q=1 so minimum of
A+K or A+2Q, 2K+Q. ~8+ pts if counting points in the normal 4321 system,
and no suit worth emphasizing.
2nt = hearts
(essentially swapped 2h/2nt responses)
other: natural, positive, decent suit.
jumps can have specialized meanings showing long good suits.

I dislike systems where responder waits in the weeds with 2d, and attempts to catch up later, because it's hard for opener to describe his hand enough such that responder can count the tricks. Responder has fewer values to describe, if he can get those across usually opener can count the tricks.

[Al_U_Card]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 26 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

2. Response structures
My general feeling about responses that show controls, aces, or pts at a low level is that they interfere with finding good suit fits which are just as important to trick taking power. Furthermore it's just not necessary to find those controls right away, as most people have good tools with cue bidding & blackwood to find about those controls after suit agreement. If you are eating up your space with the controls first, you get into these awkward auctions where you have suit agreement occurring at 4h/4s, and no one sure if they can pass this or not.

Another lesser known response method CaSh (controls and shape)

2D 0-1 control any shape ( wait for the 2nd neg to confirm no points)
2H/S 5+card suit with any 2 controls
2NT 4333 or 4432 any suit distribution with any 2 controls
3C 5+ card minor suit with any 3 controls (3D asks which one)
3D/H transfer to the 5+ card H/S suit
3S 4333 or 4432 any suit distribution with any 3 controls

[Al_U_Card]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 26 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

AQxxxxx AK Q Kxx certainly isn't, even though it has same LTC.

And it doesn't have more quick tricks (3 or possibly 3.5) than losers so it cannot be opened 2C.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Another lesser known response method CaSh (controls and shape)

2D 0-1 control any shape ( wait for the 2nd neg to confirm no points)
2H/S 5+card suit with any 2 controls
2NT 4333 or 4432 any suit distribution with any 2 controls
3C 5+ card minor suit with any 3 controls (3D asks which one)
3D/H transfer to the 5+ card H/S suit
3S 4333 or 4432 any suit distribution with any 3 controls

Geez, this deserves to be lesser known, it's horrendous IMO. You have to start at the 4 level looking for a trump suit just because you have 3 rather than 2 controls? 3 controls, if using the A=2, K=1 definition, isn't enough to force to slam nor ensure 5 level absolute safety. If you are still digging around at the 4 level for a trump suit this is asking for trouble as if you are slam going you want the major bids to be forcing, but if both are minimum you don't want to risk the 5 level.

Plus this scheme is using 4 bids to show the majors, which is wasteful. If you want the strong hand to play, just reversing the 2H/2S bids is more efficient, then can show both minor suits individually & you don't lose a natural 3d after 3c.

I like having more than 2 controls to make a positive response because a single ace or 2 kings isn't normally enough to put you in the slam zone opposite min 2c opener. Min 2c opener is one trick short of game, your ace just puts you in game, you can show that sort of strength just by bidding a neg 2d then raising partner later. If that one ace is all partner needs for slam he can find out about it via cue bidding or blkwood. It's when you are a bit stronger than this, that you want to let partner know slam is in the picture, but you aren't really strong enough to wrest captaincy or force to slam that you want to make a positive response. Then you can make a non-forcing game bid or pass partner's game bid without feeling like you have undisclosed extras.

[whereagles]

Some of you can be really annoying when it comes to 2♣ openings and subsequent methods. So ok, maybe the system isn't the best around. But that's what sceptic has to live with.

Given the system's constraints, I must say the auction went very well. I would have bid it like

2♣ 2NT (system bids)
3♦ 3♥
3NT ...?

and probably pass, or maybe 4NT. In any case not 4♣, which pard may interpret as 54 with long HEARTS.

[whereagles]

So what? Can't people be optimistic and open 2♣ on that? (I would, unless I had a strong 2 available.)

I agree the opening makes this particular set of hands harder to bid, but might have been the right move on a different setting.

[Double !]

How ironic.

You've heard the saying "the operation was a success but the patient died"?

Here it's like the opposite. It seems like few people agree with the bidding yet the optimal contract was reached and made. There must be a message there somewhere, just not sure what it is. However, in response to a 1 diamond opener, I feel that the west hand is good enough to respond 2 clubs: I would definitely open the hand (it has 28/29 zars, no rebid problems, 6 losers, shape, decent spot cards, just no diamonds).

[whereagles]

Factually wrong? That's rubbish, justin. I never said 2♣ was forced. Don't you think it's rather obvious to open 2♣ only if one judges the hand too good for a 1♦ opener?

My point is simply that whenever there's a bidding problem which starts with a iffy 2♣, people jump on that bid as if it were the one and only source of the problem. That is, of course, also rubbish.

By the way, too bad if you're annoyed. I frequently get annoyed here as well and I live with it. So, GET USED.

[mike777]

sceptic, on Aug 26 2005, 10:37 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     2♣    Pass
 2NT   Pass  3♦    Pass
 4♣    Pass  5♣    Pass
 5♥    Pass  5♠    Pass
 6♣    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

2nt shows 7+

what do you think of this bidding

what do you think of this bidding if 2 C is supposed to = a 4 loser hand

what alternative ways can you bid it using 2/1

and what percentage is this slam please, I am not sure how to work it out

First off this is a 5 loser hand.
Second all the LTC books I have say Do not use LTC to value opening bids.

I do not see why a beginner or int player wants to play a system that most top players do not play and most books recommend against. In any case then you miscount LTC according to my ltc books.

[whereagles]

mike777 said:

I do not see why a beginner or int player wants to play a system that most top players do not play and most books recommend against.

Huh... maybe because it's easy to learn?

mike777 said:

In any case then you miscount LTC according to my ltc books.

Only if you forget to look at the hand after you count. The hand has 5 raw losers, but look at the plus-values: spade tenace, good controls, extra queen, SEVEN diamonds. Perfectly worth an upgrade to 4 losers and a 2♣ opener if you feel like it.

[mike777]

whereagles, on Aug 26 2005, 08:10 PM, said:

mike777 said:

I do not see why a beginner or int player wants to play a system that most top players do not play and most books recommend against.

Huh... maybe because it's easy to learn?

mike777 said:

In any case then you miscount LTC according to my ltc books.

Only if you forget to look at the hand after you count. The hand has 5 raw losers, but look at the plus-values: spade tenace, good controls, extra queen, SEVEN diamonds. Perfectly worth an upgrade to 4 losers and a 2♣ opener if you feel like it.

There are no plus values on this hand for LTC.

You need a fit to use LTC, that is rule number one. Now you want to upgrade your LTC based on no known fit. I repeat this is treatment abuse. I disagree teaching beginner and int players to do this but.....I guess many disagree.

All of this may be easy to learn but that does not make it correct or the best approach. I only repeat the top pros who write the LTC books I have disagree on this approach, perhaps your way is better.

btw even with an 8 card D fit you could argue this in not worth an LTC upgrade. Upgrade if you want but not with LTC.

[hrothgar]

Double !, on Aug 27 2005, 01:43 AM, said:

How ironic.

You've heard the saying "the operation was a success but the patient died"?

Here it's like the opposite. It seems like few people agree with the bidding yet the optimal contract was reached and made. There must be a message there somewhere, just not sure what it is.

Here's one possible interpretation:

"Even a broken clock is right once a day"

In any case, in answer to the original questions:

1. 2NT is forced by system, so I won't criticize the bid. I echo other complaints about the response structure.

2. The 2♣ is VERY dubious. I wouldn't open 2♣ with this hand if I my long suit were a major. I'm of the school that believes that single suited hands with a minor require extra strength if they plan to open 2♣ and tend to beleive that hands with Diamonds need even more strength than hands with Clubs (note that responder was forced to introduce a so-so 5 card suit at the 4 level in what could easily have been a no-fit auction.