[kenberg]

The fact is that 2♥ neither shows particularly long hearts nor particularly short clubs or spades. This is the information that they need in order to judge whether they may want to pass, double or balance in with, perhaps, 3♥ after you convert 2♥ to 2♠.

So I like:
"Awaiting clarification from my hand but it neither promises length in hearts nor denies length in the black suits." If they want more detail, they will inquire. I wouldn't worry that "awaiting clarification" says something about what your bid will mean. It's fair to say that the announcement that you have a two-suiter already made that clear.

It's true, presumably, that 2♥ shows a preference for hearts over diamonds but this, for their purposes, is very secondary to the fact that the call does not show much in the way of hearts. 3♥ their way may well be a perfectly reasonable contract:

1NT X Pass 2♥
Pass 2♠ Pass Pass
X Pass 3♥ AP

The above is presumably a reasonable auction with opener's double being for take-out to the reds. Once it is made clear that 2♥ does not promise heart length, this auction should be possible for them.


It's simply a fact that the opponents are going to have some trouble, some opponents more than others. Many years ago I tried to explain to opponents that my partner's 1♥ over my 1♣ did not deny longer diamonds. I thought they finally got it but as we were leaving the table I heard one saying to the other "He said the heart bid showed longer diamonds but his partner didn't have longer diamonds". Some people do not do well with things like "might have". There is no cure for this.

[Free]

"Wants to play 2♥ opposite reds, wants to play at least 2♠/3♣ opposite blacks."

[JanM]

aguahombre, on Aug 28 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

Siegmund, on Aug 28 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

"To play opposite red, wants to play at least 2S opposite black" is what my current partner uses.

That type of answer is plenty adequate for 2C and 2D, and marginally adequate for 2H. The 2S response of course needs a bit more said - since it promises a good fit for a red suit.

An answer which, good or bad, understands my problem. Responses are, in fact "best of the worst", regardless, of certain beliefs that it isn't true.

Justin plays against players who would have no problem with a simple "pass or correct". They are way above the level of players to whom I am worried about under-disclosing.

I agree with you, and the fact that your opponent is an expert may not mean that s/he understands the concept of pass or correct when you've made an ambiguous bid. Things are better today than they were 20 or so years ago when my (undeniably expert) partner completely mis-defended 2[S] after 2[D]-P-2[S] ("wants me to pass if I have spades") because she didn't realize that declarer had longer or better hearts than spades. But even today there are plenty of people for whom the concept that you're bidding a shorter suit isn't obvious.

[barmar]

If the opponents can't figure out the logical implications of the auction, that's their problem, not a disclosure issue. You're only required to explain your special agreements, not teach the opponents bridge. "Pass or correct" is an adequate description in this case.

[MFA]

kenberg, on Aug 29 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

It's simply a fact that the opponents are going to have some trouble, some opponents more than others. Many years ago I tried to explain to opponents that my partner's 1♥ over my 1♣ did not deny longer diamonds. I thought they finally got it but as we were leaving the table I heard one saying to the other "He said the heart bid showed longer diamonds but his partner didn't have longer diamonds". Some people do not do well with things like "might have". There is no cure for this.

One lesson to be learned from this is to strive to make explanations simple, if they can be.