[mr1303]

This is a problem which seems to occur too frequently for my liking.

Partner opens 2C (GF), I respond 2D (waiting) with some scattered 6-7 HCP hand, and partner bids 3D.

I invariably try 3NT, with a hand like:

Qxx
109x
Jxx
Kxxx

and have the opponents cash the first 5/6 tricks against me. O

Or failing that, I raise diamonds, only to discover that 3NT was vastly superior.

Any suggestions as how to overcome these problems?

[Codo]

1. Don´t play 2 Diamond waiting is at least one idea.
1.1. If 2 Diamond denies a 5 card majors, you are now able to bid 3 H or 3 S to show/ask for a a stopper.
1.2. One possibility among others are transfer answers: all bids from responder from 2 Diamond to 3 Club are transfers. 2 Spade shows the hand without a 5 card suit. You can wary this with 2 Spade denying a 5 card major, which has some other tops and bottoms.
1.3. Another idea is to play 2 Heart and 2 Spade as very weak in that suit, intending to play there opposite a strong NT hand from opener. In this case 3 Heart and 3 Spade are still avaiable as stopper asking bids too. OF course now you need to discuss what to do with good hands with 5 card majors...

But for me, I am happy with Nr. 2:

2. If pd has a semibalanced 20-24 and you have around 6-7 in a balanced hand, 3 NT should be the long time winner anyway, even if you have no tools to find out all controls. I would be very very happy to have such a good hand with so many stoppers as your example hand when I bid 3 NT.

[mike777]

mr1303, on Apr 18 2007, 06:13 AM, said:

This is a problem which seems to occur too frequently for my liking.

Partner opens 2C (GF), I respond 2D (waiting) with some scattered 6-7 HCP hand, and partner bids 3D.

I invariably try 3NT, with a hand like:

Qxx
109x
Jxx
Kxxx

and have the opponents cash the first 5/6 tricks against me. O

Or failing that, I raise diamonds, only to discover that 3NT was vastly superior.

Any suggestions as how to overcome these problems?

Really? This happens alot to you?

I only wish this is the reason I lose.

[pclayton]

Are you playing 2♥ is a double negative, so that 2♦ shows some values? If so, 3N is an apt description. Pard doesn't have to pass.

Are you playing the gadget Ben and I play; where 2♣ - 2♦ - 3 major shows a diamonds and 4 of the major? This will get some of the unbalanced hands out of the way.

Other than that, sometimes you'll get to a bad 3N (especially at MP's) when Opener has a 6331 / 6322 / 7222 or 6♦ / 4♣, but thats life.

[Fluffy]

my advice is to open 1♦ instead of 2♣.

[mr1303]

Maybe the difficulty is from the other side of the table.

You hold:

AKxx
x
AKQxxx
AKx

You open 2C, partner bids 2D waiting. For the sake of argument, you can play 2H as double negative. You try 3D, and partner bids 3NT.

Do you carry on?

I like PClayton's idea about 2C 2D 3M incidentally.

[helene_t]

With the given hand, you should raise diamonds. Partner will usually have 31 in the majors or less, although 3NT could be right if he's 3361. With a 6322, he would have rebid 2N. With a fourcard in a major he would not have opened 2♣ unless he's too strong to pass 3N anyway.

You may disagree with the above criteria, but my point is that you need some very stringent criteria for 2♣ openings with minor suit length. Most of the times, Fluffy's advice should be followed.

[Fluffy]

mr1303, on Apr 19 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

Maybe the difficulty is from the other side of the table.

You hold:

AKxx
x
AKQxxx
AKx

You open 2C, partner bids 2D waiting. For the sake of argument, you can play 2H as double negative. You try 3D, and partner bids 3NT.

Do you carry on?

I like PClayton's idea about 2C 2D 3M incidentally.

Wit this concrete hand you ahve 14 cards, but on somethign similar this shouldn't pass 3NT.

I don't know if ti is beter to bid 3NT or raise to 4♦, but a 7 balanced count should be very safe at the 3-4 level opposite a 2♣ opener.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

This happens to your a lot? Perhaps you and I could become set partners for
'a lot' high stake rubber bridge.

I rarely hold a strong 2C opener. I often hold less than the example hand when partner does open 2C.

The jump to 3M holding 4M and long diamonds is a fairly common tool with good players.

Regards,
Robert

[Apollo81]

Playing "Phil's" convention will mean hands where 3NT is off top tricks don't happen and you can comfortably bid 3NT when you have a balanced 6 count in this auction.

[awm]

It may be more useful to try to distinguish shortage. Take the example hand for responder of:

Qxx
T9x
Jxx
Kxxx

Here are three hands for 2♣ opener, none of them balanced (so no 2NT rebid) and none of them including a side four-card major:

x
AKx
AKQxxx
AQx

Opposite this hand 3NT has a chance but I'd rather be in 5♦, especially at IMPs.

AKx
x
AKQxxx
AQx

Here 6♦ is excellent, and 3NT will fail unless opponents make a bad lead.

AKx
AQx
AKQxxx
x

Here 3NT from responder's side is cold. 5♦ has some play on a heart finesse, but you want to be in 3NT on these hands.

It seems to me that locating shortage to figure out whether 3NT is playable is probably more important than looking for 4-4 major fits. One could try using 3M to show "a 3♦ rebid with shortage in that suit" and 3♦ rebid suggesting club shortage. This also lets responder look for major suit fits on some hands, knowing that the 3♦ rebid makes major suit length more likely (or that a 3M rebid usually implies some cards in the other major).

[jdonn]

Partner bid diamonds, I have diamond support. Why in the world would I not raise diamonds? People complicate the simplest things, a new convention is not always the answer. 3NT is not magical, you are allowed to bid past it even without a major suit fit.

[mikeh]

awm, on Apr 19 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

It may be more useful to try to distinguish shortage. Take the example hand for responder of:

Qxx
T9x
Jxx
Kxxx

Here are three hands for 2♣ opener, none of them balanced (so no 2NT rebid) and none of them including a side four-card major:

x
AKx
AKQxxx
AQx

Opposite this hand 3NT has a chance but I'd rather be in 5♦, especially at IMPs.

AKx
x
AKQxxx
AQx

Here 6♦ is excellent, and 3NT will fail unless opponents make a bad lead.

AKx
AQx
AKQxxx
x

Here 3NT from responder's side is cold. 5♦ has some play on a heart finesse, but you want to be in 3NT on these hands.

It seems to me that locating shortage to figure out whether 3NT is playable is probably more important than looking for 4-4 major fits. One could try using 3M to show "a 3♦ rebid with shortage in that suit" and 3♦ rebid suggesting club shortage. This also lets responder look for major suit fits on some hands, knowing that the 3♦ rebid makes major suit length more likely (or that a 3M rebid usually implies some cards in the other major).

Sorry, Adam, but your idea leaves me completely cold: it smacks of a kenrexford invention: use 2♣ 2♦ 3Major as ♦s and shortness in the major. Works great when we hit partner with the right hand, but in the meantime:

1. We are back to the virtually insoluble 2♣ 2♦ 3♦ sequence in which responder has a long major or one or both 4 card majors. Surely we need 3M ajor here to tell opener something about length other than '4+'. WTF is opener to do with 3 decent cards in responder's major and the other suits stopped or semi-stopped? Htf is he supposed to know when to raise and when to bid 3N... not to add complications relating to slam suitability opposite a known 5 card suit as opposed to 4 card lengths.

2. We bid 2♣ 2♦ 3♠ and partner owns QJx Q10xxx xx Kxx.

Does he bid 3N (someone has to, and it has to be him, if opener is x Ax AKQJxxx AQx) or does he show his ♥ suit (someone should bid ♥s if opener is x AKx AKQJxxx Axx). Ok, on this hand, responder could bid 4♥ over 3♠, and maybe we could even add another complexity: opener's 4♠ shows no fit and a desire to play 4N if responder can bid it...... we are now firmly within Alice's rabbit-hole and getting deeper all the time


There may be other problems, but these two strike me as insurmountable.

As Josh said... why complicate a perfectly simple sequence. Partner opens 2♣ based on ♦s... he has a GOOD hand and a GOOD suit.... we are responding and we have NO suit of our own, a decent hand and trump support. Why not raise?

[awm]

Here's my view on this:

(1) When 2♣ opener has primary diamonds, he should have a lot of points. We all agree that on borderline hands we should open 1♦. So we're not going to be "upgrading" a lot of 19-20 point hands to open 2♣ when diamonds is our longest suit. The strong opening bid is probably something like 22+ hcp when opener is rebidding diamonds.

(2) Responder will very often be in the 5-7 point range. After all, if opener has 22 the "average" number of points for responder is 6. The 5-7 point range is also perhaps the most problematic because with more responder can make a serious push for slam (and feel fairly safe playing 4NT if the slam try is rejected) and with less slam is probably out of reach. In this range responder has to cater to a possible slam on well-fitting hands and also to 3NT being the last making game.

(3) When our side has a fit, and one player has a singleton, and we have 27 or so points outside the short suit, slam will often be makeable. When there is substantial wastage opposite the short suit, slam generally requires a lot more overall strength. When one player has a singleton and partner has weakness opposite, 3NT will generally not play very well.

So it seems like diagnosing responder's holding opposite the singleton will be key to judging whether to push for slam. I'll note that on Mike's examples, responder has 8 hcp (really outside this range) and a spade stopper and a five-card heart suit. This is really an embarrasment of riches -- any of 3NT, 4♥, 5♦, and 4NT will make easily on either pair of hands. While reaching a slam is not necessarily trivial with x AKx AKQJxx Axx opposite QJx QTxxx xx Kxx, there is plenty of room to look for one. I suppose you will find your heart fit more easily after 2♣-2♦-3♦(natural)-3♥ than after 2♣-2♦-3♠(spade shortage with diamond suit) but 6♦ is a fine spot on these hands in any case. On the other hand, I have no real idea how Mike plans to reach game in a red suit with:

x Ax AKQJxxx AQx
xxx QTxxx xx Kxx

while playing in 3NT with:

x Ax AKQJxxx AQx
QJx QTxxx xx xxx

[jdonn]

8 is not outside responder's range. The original poster was just giving an example of the sort of hand with which he was wondering what to do.

Anyone can think of examples to suit their method. Is this really worth giving up the standard meaning when you can't even do the same thing holding any other suit? Or having to alert a 3♦ rebid as denying a singleton so they know just how to cash out? Opener can't be comfortable passing a 3NT bid in your example anyway, why can't responder have QJx xxx xx Kxxxx? I know it was really Mike's example, the point is that this convention wouldn't even solve your problems altogether.

[goodwintr]

One possible solution to the problem (2C-2D; 3D) is to play strong two-bids in diamonds. This was common, or at least not unheardof, a few years back on the West Coast of the U.S. It has been suggested, perhaps not entirely seriously, that doing this has the positive effect of eliminating whatever 2D gadget you use now. . . . As I recall it, using "strong 2D" means the sequence 2C-2D; 3D shows long clubs with secondary diamonds, something like x-x-4-6. I played this method for a while, but I do not recall that the 3D rebid ever came up.

TLGoodwin

[blackshoe]

Romex using the Mexican 2♦, in which that opening shows either a balanced 21-22 HCP or a game force with primary diamonds. A sequence like 2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a single-suited game force. 2♦-2♥-2♠ shows a game force with 5+ diamonds and 4+ spades. 2♦-2♥-3♣ shows 5+ diamonds and 4+ in either clubs or hearts. 3♦ then asks which.

Similarly, 2♣-2♦-3♦ shows a single suited game force with clubs, and 2♣-2♦-3♣ shows a two suiter. 3♦ again asks for the second suit.

Separating the diamond hands from the club hands using 2 different openings seems to ease a lot of the pressure on the 2 club opening when you have a minor suit oriented hand.