[GrahamJson]

3 of a minor I meant.

[blackshoe]

kladenak, on 2019-November-11, 10:16, said:

I play the same system as you and I like it. Recently I bought Eric Rodwell's Bidding Topics Book 2 in which he handles the 2C opening (and he actually proposes this system). I will paraphrase just two of his comments which are in line with what others have said:

1) Responding positively 3C or 3D should be confined to one-suited hands, solid suit, 6+ cards, as it is so much preemptive.

2) Another point I found interesting, perhaps not 100% related, is that a positive response should only be made on hands where it is possible to visualize playing in slam if opener has a good fit: having two honours of the top three may not be enough. In other words, there should be some shape as well. And one should think twice even fulfilling this criterion if responder's suit is spades as again it drives the opener with hearts to level 3.

Rosenkranz solves the minor suit problem at least partially by have more strong opening bids. In his methods, 2!C would be opened with a primary major suit or primary clubs (maybe a second suit), and 2!D would be opened with primary diamonds. There are balanced hand options for both openings. With a single suited minor oriented hand, in both cases opener's planned rebid is 3!D, and with a two suited hand the rebid is 3!C, after which responder can ask for the second suit with 3!D.

[gwnn]

bluenikki, on 2019-November-12, 08:50, said:

And if you have AJxxxx plus values, when do you get to show them?

You either respond 2D and wait your turn or you agree that bidding 3x shows 2 out of the top 4 or 5 There's an obvious tradeoff. But responder should err on the side of bidding 2♦ when in doubt, IMHO.

[fromageGB]

I think Mikeh's comment on 2♥ is right. My choice of method that works well is to have 2♦ response as definitively at least one ace or king, and 2♥ denies that. (Forget long responder suits for the moment.) Now while 3 hcp may be sufficient for a 2♦ bid, a 2♥ bid can be made with a number of QJs, so it is not necessarily bust, and can show this later. The key thing in slams is controls, and this is the basis for fit developments.

Over 2♦ opener bids his suit GF, or his 5+ card major if 2-suited, spades if both. (We use a 2♦ open inter alia for 3-suited hands.)
Responder bids the next step to deny 3-card support, and now opener can try a second suit if any.
With 3 card support responder skips the first step and bids steps equal to the number of ace/kings, so over 2♠, 3♦ is two ace/kings. A relay asks for extra values essentially shown by suit or denied with trumps. As the number of ace/kings are known, opener has the advantage of perhaps knowing there is no point in looking for slam, and if he does ask for aces, then he instantly knows how many kings there are, and again can decide to go no further.
After a second suit has been shown at the 3-level following an initial step1 denial, it is initially assumed to be trumps and all steps show ace/king numbers.

If responder has a 6+ card suit he wants to bid, he replies to 2♣ by bidding 2♠/3♣♦♥ as a transfer. Opener can accept that as trumps by completing the transfer, then responder bids ace/king steps, but with any other bid he prefers to play in his suit (responder then steps).

The method is simple and useful. After a 2♥ ace/king denial, we prefer any 3-level opener bid to be passable.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on 2019-November-12, 06:42, said:

2C-?

2D = GF (not bust)
2H = bust (0-3 or so)
2S = 8-10 balanced (no 5cM; could have 5cm). You can play Stayman or 4-card transfers after opener's 2NT rebid.
2NT = 5-5 majors (or some other extreme hand)
3m/3M = 6+ suit, 2 top 3.

So a positive hand can show shape with a long minor and if it is balanced, but not with a major?

I suppose you will have methods to show you major afterwards, then, for example Jacoby/Smolen transfers if opener rebids 2NT. But what about
2♣-2♦
3♦-3♥
Does this show 5?

[bluenikki]

Winstonm, on 2019-November-12, 09:55, said:

The best approach to 2C forcing is to not play it!


2C forcing takes up a LOT of bidding room. Therefore, decisions must be made when constructing the system. I would advise as much as possible to incorporate semi-balanced hands and 4441 hands into a NT bid.

Have you tabulated your results treating 4441 , 5431 , and 5440 as balanced?

[blackshoe]

In his recent book Optimal Hand Evaluation, Patrick Darricades suggests that his method is better than all the others, and that it leads to the conclusion that one should play a forcing one club system.

[gwnn]

helene_t, on 2019-November-12, 13:56, said:

So a positive hand can show shape with a long minor and if it is balanced, but not with a major?

I suppose you will have methods to show you major afterwards, then, for example Jacoby/Smolen transfers if opener rebids 2NT. But what about
2♣-2♦
3♦-3♥
Does this show 5?

Yes, as per the rest of my post (opener denied a 4cM).

And 8-10 is a rare hand (it's an important hand - almost but not quite enough for slam). It's just a choice - we just liked the idea of a more well-defined response ie denying a 5cM.

[Winstonm]

bluenikki, on 2019-November-12, 13:58, said:

2C forcing takes up a LOT of bidding room. Therefore, decisions must be made when constructing the system. I would advise as much as possible to incorporate semi-balanced hands and 4441 hands into a NT bid.

Have you tabulated your results treating 4441 , 5431 , and 5440 as balanced?

No, I haven't.

My suggestion was for someone who wants to simplify a system. My personal choice is to bite the bullet and not open some strong hands with 2C. My 2C opening is pretty tight with the most likely hand types, i.e., single suited, nt, and 5-5 or longer 2-suiters.

[gwnn]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-12, 14:09, said:

In his recent book Optimal Hand Evaluation, Patrick Darricades suggests that his method is better than all the others, and that it leads to the conclusion that one should play a forcing one club system.

Maybe have a system where 1♣ shows a balanced weak hand or a strong hand?

1♣ = 12-14 bal/22+ any
1NT = 15-17 bal

Hmm we might as well make the 1♣ a bit more frequent - we are always annoyed with those 18-20 hands. Too much jumping.
1♣ = 12-14 bal/18+ any
1NT = 15-17 bal

Well, maybe have clubs there as well.
1♣ = 12-14 bal/12+ with clubs/18+ any

Although that might be overloaded, and 2♣ is now free, so what about:
1♣ = 12-14 bal/15+ clubs/18+ any
1NT = 15-17 bal
2♣ = 10-14 with 5+ ♣

That sounds a bit convoluted, but maybe we can Polish it some more.

(sorry, just having fun!!)

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2019-November-13, 01:05, said:

Well, maybe have clubs there as well.
1♣ = 12-14 bal/12+ with clubs/18+ any

Instead of Polishing this, you could also make it somewhat more Unassuming by switching to a Weak NT and making the balanced range within 1♣ 15+.

(Some might say that doing both together would be even better but I couldn't possibly comment.)

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on 2019-November-13, 01:05, said:

Maybe have a system where 1♣ shows a balanced weak hand or a strong hand?

1♣ = 12-14 bal/22+ any
1NT = 15-17 bal

Hmm we might as well make the 1♣ a bit more frequent - we are always annoyed with those 18-20 hands. Too much jumping.
1♣ = 12-14 bal/18+ any
1NT = 15-17 bal

Well, maybe have clubs there as well.
1♣ = 12-14 bal/12+ with clubs/18+ any

Although that might be overloaded, and 2♣ is now free, so what about:
1♣ = 12-14 bal/15+ clubs/18+ any
1NT = 15-17 bal
2♣ = 10-14 with 5+ ♣

That sounds a bit convoluted, but maybe we can Polish it some more.

(sorry, just having fun!!)

Sounds like the original Roman Club system.