[Fluffy]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 12:26, said:

max would be something like four jacks and a queen (yes, that's 5 points).

Were you director before computers when results were added by hand?, the new era has done so much damage...

[Free]

I play 2♥ as no Ace, no King, and not 2 Queens. You can have 6HCP max: 4 Jacks and a Queen.

For me it's not forcing. Opener may pass if he holds long ♥ and a light 2♣ opening. Rebidding 2♠ is also NF. Jumps (and 3♥) make the auction GF and set trumps. 4NT is specific Queen ask, which has been useful once.

I'm not claiming this is perfect, it just does what it has to do most of the time. These auctions are quite rare, so it's hard to evaluate imo.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2012-January-28, 01:43, said:

Were you director before computers when results were added by hand?, the new era has done so much damage...

No, but I can certainly do it. As to damage, the damage is to my old brain, it has nothing to do with the existence of computers. I got careless. 4 Jacks is four points, and a Queen is one more point.


Don't worry about senility. When it happens, you won't notice. — Bill Cosby

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2012-January-27, 22:51, said:

2. With another he plays Kokish. So 2♠ is either spades or balanced. Don't quite remember how it works but he had a bulletin article a few years ago.

This is with Kokish and Roth combined?

[Zelandakh]

There are alot of options in this area and no real consensus that I have seen. One simple approach to using 2♥ as a double negative is to make your 2♣ opening "all of the usual hands plus a strong 2 in hearts". In this case the 2♥ response pretty much says that you do not think there is game opposite the Acol 2 hand. You can bundle further strong 2s into the 2♣ opening too but that gets more complicated.

If you do not include a strong 2 in hearts in the 2♣ opening then 2♣ - 2♥ is forcing - all Opener's rebids except 2NT are GF. In this case you also have more freedom in how to define the 2♥ double negative. Several options have already been posted and I have nothing really to add in this area. On your specific questions:-

1. If a strong 2♥ is included, no; otherwise yes.
2. Yes. If you include a strong 2♠ then typically the exact sequence 2♣ - 2♥; 2♠ - 2NT; 3♠ is non-forcing and others are GF.
3. Yes. It is a bad idea to include strong 2s in the minors imho. If you feel you need a bid for these then use a 2♦ opening instead (Multi or Benjy).
4. Yes, but it is possible to agree that 2♣ - 2♥; 2♠ - 2NT; 3♥ - 3♠ is non-forcing. This will depend largely on what you decide to do with major 2-suiters that would like to open a strong 2♠.
5. I would recommend some form of Kokish after 2♣ - 2♦.

In addition to some good advice in this thread I would also recommend reading Chris Ryall's write-up of his method which is similar to Codo's. You may not want to make the same system design decisions as he has but he does discuss the forcing nature of the follow-ups in some detail which might be useful to you.

[whereagles]

I think one can make a case for a full-transfer approach:

2C 2H
2S = strong balanced, unlimited. System on, with 2NT meaning: "I would have passed a 2NT of 22-23". Wrongsides 2NT, but you can't have it all.
2NT...3H = transfer. Responder fills transfer meaning "Continue at your own risk" or bids something else, constructive and 5 cards.
3S = 5S+4H, GF.
3NT = 5S+5H, GF.

Same thing as responder, i.e.

2C ??
2D = waiting, GF.
2H = dbl negative
2S...3H = transfer, good suit (else bid 2D). Opener fills transfer to hear more from responder or bids naturally. Filling shows fit only if major suit.
3S/3NT = 54/55 major. Opener bids 4m slam-bound in the linked major.

[Statto]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-30, 03:57, said:

There are alot of options in this area and no real consensus that I have seen. One simple approach to using 2♥ as a double negative is to make your 2♣ opening "all of the usual hands plus a strong 2 in hearts".

I've also come across 2♥ as a double negative or a postive response with ♥. Which it is should in theory become clear with subsequent bidding (or lack of), though I don't know the structure, having only encountered it from opponents.

[barmar]

My partner and I play something I think we came up with on our own: 2♦ is the only positive response (showing at least A, K, or two useful Qs). 2♥ is a double negative with no 6+ suit, and 2♠-3♦ show busts with at least 6+ in the suit (2NT shows ♥). Opener can pass these negative natural responses.

I came up with this because it seems like the more common natural responses, requiring 2 of the top 3 honors in the suit, almost never come up, so these bids are wasted. We're able to describe the most important features of responder's hand in one bid.

Anyone else do something like this?

[Cthulhu D]

Do you not play transfers there because the biggest risk is that partner is going to have the suit you are transfering out of, wrongsiding the contract, and no he's going to to want to play in the suit you are bidding?

Clever idea though, would fit in really well with my current response scheme (which has to incorporate a weak 2D, so I don't want 'semi positives' to bid past 2D)

e: Damn, cannot plus vote your idea because you're an administrator!

[Statto]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-January-31, 21:37, said:

e: Damn, cannot plus vote your idea because you're an administrator!

Yeah, don't you just hate that: the admins make really good posts but you can't voice you're approval except by replying. And there's a 'group' called Yellows (no idea what this means) who can't be upvoted either...

[barmar]

I'm not really sure why we don't use transfers, maybe just because of the additional space it wastes, since we want to have the immediate positive and negative bids.

[fromageGB]

At the moment I play 2♦ as a waiting bid with no separate bids for positive or negative, but I see the advantags in changing to a Barmar type method (4 posts back) with 2♦ positive and a 2♥ negative.

However, one thing nobody has explained is why 2♦ should be positive. Why not 2♦ negative, and 2♥ positive (eg A, K, or QQ) ? It seems to me that bidding 2♥ as the game force here is practically as good as the other method. You still have stacks of room.

The big advantage of having 2♦ as the negative is that opener can still express meaningful NT ranges, ie
2♥(forcing 2♠) 2NT = 22/23
Direct 2NT = 24/25
If you have 2♥ as the negative, then you no longer have the Kokish option, so 2NT has to be a big range. Yet it is when you are in a non-GF situation that you need to have a precise 2 point range, so responder can decide if game is on. When you are in a GF situation you can afford a wider range, as it it forces to 3NT anyway, and the 4NT/5NT slam seeking bids narrow it down when needed.

It also solves the Mikeh problem, as now with a non-GF 2 suiter over a negative you can show 2♥ then 3m non-forcing, or 2♥ then 3♥ non-forcing. Of course, over a positive 2♥, 3♥ is forcing anyway.

So why not 2♦ negative, 2♥ positive?

[Statto]

fromageGB, on 2012-February-01, 10:16, said:

However, one thing nobody has explained is why 2♦ should be positive. Why not 2♦ negative, and 2♥ positive (eg A, K, or QQ) ? It seems to me that bidding 2♥ as the game force here is practically as good as the other method. You still have stacks of room.

If 2♥ is DN, then opener can pass it with a long ♥ suit and minimum 2♣ opener. If 2♦ is semi-positive and sets GF, then opener can bid 2♥ with a ♥ suit and you have a whole level of extra bidding space. For one thing, responder can now bid 3♥ to agree trumps and then you can start control-cue bidding.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2012-February-01, 10:16, said:

However, one thing nobody has explained is why 2♦ should be positive. Why not 2♦ negative, and 2♥ positive (eg A, K, or QQ) ? It seems to me that bidding 2♥ as the game force here is practically as good as the other method. You still have stacks of room.

In my system I use a 1♠ rebid to show the big hand, in my case either an unbalanced game force or 18+ 3-suited. In the original design I had 1NT as the DN thinking that this would allow the 18 point hand to pass it out in 1NT. Experience has shown that 1NT as a positive and 2♣ as the DN is much better though - that extra step on positive hands is valuable.

When opening a strong 2♣ there is even less bidding space so that extra step on positive hands becomes even more important. You do not have stacks of room here, the space is actually badly condensed. The loss of Kokish on DN hands is also not as big as you seem to suggest. A true DN is quite well defined, much better defined than a true positive; and that is before we start including semi-positives into 2♦. Opener should have a pretty good idea what the correct level is with a balanced hand here so jumping to 3NT is less of an issue than it would be after a "positive" 2♥ response.

The last part about 2-suited hands I simply did not really understand. If you make 2♣ - 2♦(neg); 2♥ - any; 3m non-forcing then what are you meant to do with a GF 2-suiter? At least playing the other way you can open your non-GF 2-suited hand 2♣ and pass partner's DN 2♥ response; or just open 1♥. With the GF hand you have fewer options.

Just one final aside. A few years back I played a 2♦ response as positive, 2♥ as double negative, and 2♠ to 3♥ as semi-positive transfers. This was my partner's preferred system and we actually did amazingly well with it. The sticking points for me were the 2♠ response as a semi-positive hand without a suit and the 3♥ response showing spades. If you were to move the semi-balanced semi-positive hands back into 2♦ and make 2♠ a natural semi-positive then I think this method is ideal for B/Is. [Summary: 2♦ = positive, or semi-balanced SP; 2♥ = DN; 2♠ = natural SP; 2NT to 3♦ SP in suit above].

[fromageGB]

Statto, on 2012-February-01, 20:04, said:

If 2♥ is DN, then opener can pass it with a long ♥ suit and minimum 2♣ opener.

Equally, if 2♦ is your (double) negative, then opener can pass it. So this is no argument.

Statto, on 2012-February-01, 20:04, said:

If 2♦ is semi-positive and sets GF, then opener can bid 2♥ with a ♥ suit and you have a whole level of extra bidding space. For one thing, responder can now bid 3♥ to agree trumps and then you can start control-cue bidding.

You only gain a level when opener's suit is hearts. 2♠ and up is the same in both methods. I agree this saves that one bid, but I do not see it outweighing the loss of precision on the balanced NT hand, nor the loss of the ability of the hearts and a minor non-GF 2 suiter to be able stop in 3 of the minor after a negative.

Gaining that level when opener has hearts and you have support makes it easy to bid 3♥ to then start cue bidding, I agree, but this is not so important. Assume your methods are that over opener's first suit you relay the next step (to allow him to bid a second suit for example) and you break this relay to show a positive with a long suit and no initial support. After 2♣ 2♥(pos) 3♥
3♠ = waiting relay (no initial heart support), or long spades to be possibly shown at next bid
3NT = long clubs
4♣ = diamonds
4♦ = heart support and more than just one trick
4♥ = heart support but no more than the A or K you have already shown
then the equivalent of the 2♣ 2♦(pos) 2♥ 3♥ is 2♣ 2♥(pos) 3♥ 4♦. You have shown heart support, shown you are better than just game, and invite the ace ask.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-02, 02:13, said:

... Opener should have a pretty good idea what the correct level is with a balanced hand here so jumping to 3NT is less of an issue than it would be after a "positive" 2♥ response.

I don't see this. (Which is the biggest problem of the 2♥ negative in my view.) When partner gives a negative and I am a 24/25 count, I would like him to bid 3NT if he has a Q or so, or pass 2NT without. We can do this with a 2♦ negative, using a Kokish 2♥ to give 2 ranges of 2NT, but if 2♥ is negative then I have to decide whether to bid 3NT myself. If partner has zilch, then 3NT is not good. Yet if I include these strengths in the 2NT rebid, I don't want him bidding 3NT with a Q when I am a 22 count.

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-02, 02:13, said:

... The last part about 2-suited hands I simply did not really understand. If you make 2♣ - 2♦(neg); 2♥ - any; 3m non-forcing then what are you meant to do with a GF 2-suiter?

With a GF in your own hand over a negative you would I assume jump in the second bid, so rebid 4m as a GF. Partner is not going to want to cue bid, so just picks the appropriate game.

I assume this is the same with a 2♥ negative. Now with a GF ♠♦ the bidding goes 2♣ 2♥(neg) 2♠(forcing the next step) 2NT 4♦, because if the last bid is a non-jump 3♦ this can be passed. The choice of which suit you use as a negative has no bearing on the method you use to distinguish GF and non-GF. Mikeh's point was that with a ♥/minor very strong but not GF 2 suiter a 2♥ negative pushes you to the 4 level. With a 2♦ negative you get out at the 3 level.

Of course you could choose to say that a non-GF 2-suiter does not show his second suit over a negative, but sometimes you might miss game (or better score) in the second suit.

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-02, 02:13, said:

... At least playing the other way you can open your non-GF 2-suited hand 2♣ and pass partner's DN 2♥ response; or just open 1♥. With the GF hand you have fewer options.

I don't like the idea of opening 1♥ on a near game 2 suiter. Too many times you will miss game. Yes the other way round you can pass 2♥ negative, but equally you can pass a 2♦ negative, so this has no bearing on the choice of negative.

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-02, 02:13, said:

... A few years back I played a 2♦ response as positive, 2♥ as double negative, and 2♠ to 3♥ as semi-positive transfers. This was my partner's preferred system and we actually did amazingly well with it. The sticking points for me were the 2♠ response as a semi-positive hand without a suit and the 3♥ response showing spades. If you were to move the semi-balanced semi-positive hands back into 2♦ and make 2♠ a natural semi-positive then I think this method is ideal for B/Is. [Summary: 2♦ = positive, or semi-balanced SP; 2♥ = DN; 2♠ = natural SP; 2NT to 3♦ SP in suit above].

This sounds a good idea : 2♦/♥ for negative/positive (or vice-versa!), and with long suits and (your choice of criteria, semi-positive or Barmar's negative) 2♠= natural, 2NT=♣, 3♣=♦, 3♦=♥.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2012-February-02, 06:02, said:

This sounds a good idea : 2♦/♥ for negative/positive (or vice-versa!), and with long suits and (your choice of criteria, semi-positive or Barmar's negative) 2♠= natural, 2NT=♣, 3♣=♦, 3♦=♥.

I think you missed the point of the idea. 2♥ is a double negative, not any negative. The bids from 2♠ up are semi-positives, that is a negative that is not a douible negative. Then 2♦ covers all positives along with semi-positive hands that do not want to start with a suit. The idea of using 2♥ as a negative is different from the traditional 2♦ negative. It is a much more specific call, best described as "double negative" or "bust". I know some players are now playing a 2♥ negative with more hand types included; this is not the style that I am considering here.

[fromageGB]

Thanks, Zel, but maybe you can give me an idea of what your terms mean?
I am thinking a positive is an A, or a K, or two Qs. A negative denies any of those. What would you say is a positive, semi-positive, and double negative ?

[Zelandakh]

In my system they are 0-2/3-5/6-8 or equivalent with the expectation that quacks are strongly downgraded and fast tricks upgraded. When I played the method over 2♣ the ranges were approximately 0-3/4-7/8+ with the understanding that 1.5 QTs was an automatic positive. I think a more mainstream suggestion would be no more than 1/2 a (quick) trick for a DN. The main aim of a DN is to warn partner not to expect too much help when making a move towards slam. There is clearly some room for partnership discussion in this area so I deliberately left the ranges as simple descriptions.

[inquiry]

paulhar, on 2012-January-27, 11:45, said:

I have played 2D waiting for 35 years now so I really know very little about the immediate 2H negative to the strong 2C opening bid. I have some questions that I would like answered by people who play the immediate 2H negative (my understanding is that the 2H is the only way to stop below game.)

1. Is 2C-2H forcing?

2. Is 2C-2H-2S forcing?

3. Is 2C-2H-3C forcing?

4. Is 2C-2H-2S-any-3H forcing?

5. When I play 2D waiting, my 2NT rebid shows 22-24 and 3NT shows 25-27. When somebody plays the immediate 2H negative, their 2D is already forcing to game, so do 2C-2D-2NT and 2C-2D-3NT retain the same meaning, or does some fast arrival issues apply? (I believe I know the answer, but some people that play the 2H immediate negative are giving me an answer that really surprises me.)

Thank you in advance for your responses!

Let me try to answer these questions, as it relates to how I play the 2♥ instant (double) negative. First, I don't play 2♥ initial response as the only way to stop below game as you suggested. But more on that below. Further, my treatments are very far from anything anyone would call standard and so this will not be of interest to most forum readers, but it does show different ways to play these type of 2♥ as negative bids. So on to the first question....

1. Is 2C-2H forcing? For me, the answer is no. I open strong major one suiters with eight "sure" tricks. This can be in hearts or spades. When I hold one of these "acol" 2 bids, I can pass 2♥'s, or (question #2)

2. Is 2C-2H-2S forcing? rebid 2♠ and expect partner to pass, unless he happens to hold a surprise trick for my spade major.

This acol 2 bid (with 8 tricks), means if partner thinks he has a trick for a potential heart contract, he can't bid 2♥ negative. His choices are, 2♦ (I have a potential trick for a major suit contract), or 2♠ - (I have a singlet trick or better for a heart contract, but no trick for a spade contract). That is I play both 2♥ and 2♠ as negative bids, but 2♠ carries a suggestion of a trick in hearts (probably a spade ruff, but not necessarily).

This brings us to question 3.
3. Is 2C-2H-3C forcing? For me, the answer is 100% yes. I play that strong minor one suiters are opened 2♦ (multi - 2♦) if they contain a very strong acol 2 bid in a minor with 5+controls and 9.5 tricks. Thus, if I open 2♣ and then rebid a minor it is stronger than that, and is game forcing.

4. Is 2C-2H-2S-any-3H forcing? For me, the answer is irrelevant. My partner will not hold a heart suit sufficient to rebid 3♥ after bidding 2♥ initially. If he held long hearts, he would have responded (presumably) 2♠ (negative with potential heart trick(s) due to hearts and shortness eslewhere. The assumption here is opener with a signoff type 2♠ acol two bid would have passed 2♠ and you would have taken his 8 promised tricks for a plus score. Over 2♣-2♥-2♠ as responder, I pass with no tricks for a spade contract, and bid to 3♠ with one trick. The implication is heart shortness if responder has a trick for spades but not hearts. A minor suit bid over 2♠ shows a queen in that suit.

Which brings us to question 5.....
5. When I play 2D waiting, my 2NT rebid shows 22-24 and 3NT shows 25-27. When somebody plays the immediate 2H negative, their 2D is already forcing to game, so do 2C-2D-2NT and 2C-2D-3NT retain the same meaning, or does some fast arrival issues apply? (I believe I know the answer, but some people that play the 2H immediate negative are giving me an answer that really surprises me.)

I do not play 2♦ as game force. The reason why, is 2♥ (and 2♠) response denies a trick for the acol 2 in the major opening bid. Therefore, with a trick for a major, I have to respond 2♦. So I classify the 2♦ response as semi-positive or better. In general I treat any Ace or king as a trick, I also treat two queens as a trick. If i had the queen of spades alone, I would bid 2♥, if I had the queen of hearts, I would bid 2♠. This means, the semi-positive (or better) 2♦ response is not game force. I use 2NT rebid by responder after 2♣-2♦-2M to show a warning: I have only one trick for your major. Any other bid promises more tricks, A jump to 4M by responder (instead of 2NT) is also a warning, saying I have only two tricks for your major contract. Other bids show better.

None of the above was created by me. I took all of that from chris ryall (see his webpage at chris ryall's webpage) including the multi-2D stuff. Not all my treatment comes from Chris's stuff, however. Mikeh points out that...

Quote

The problem with the method espoused by an earlier poster....one below game....is that opener will sometimes hold a massive 2-suiter with hearts as the first suit to be shown. Now it is impractical to play 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ as passable.....the hand that passes 3♥ might make game or even slam in the second suit.

Well, this isn't quite true for me, in the first place, for me (and Chris) 2♣-2♥-3♥ is not passable. The reason being, opener would pass 2♥ with all hands with hearts and only 8 or 9 tricks (my 2♥ denies a trick for a heart contract). But, unlike chris, my 2♣ opening bid can never contain a "two suiter" (can be one long suit and a 2nd 4 card suit, however). One of the reason I really like misiry (strong two suited hands) is to avoid such situations, so the fear of passing and missing a slam in a 2nd suit is all but eliminated. I also added optional blackwood after a 2♦ response to 2♣. (The bidding goes 2♣-2♦- then opener jumps to 3♠ 3♥ or 4♣ or 4♦, it sets trumps and ask responder to show keycards for that suit. Responder, however, can refuse to show keycards with the first step response, open can then make the next step to force a blackwood response. RESPONDERs first step to optional blackwood shows either only one trick for the suit opener showed, or 1.5 tricks with a horrible fit. So when responder does show keycards, he promises at least two tricks for trump suit.

The combination of Acol 2 bids in 2♣ (and 2♦), and misiry opening bids, mean opening 1 of a suit and jumping in the same suit or a new suit is limited by the fact that you didn't open 2♣... so for example,

I would open with 2♣ and if partner bids 2♥ I will rebid a non-forcing 2♠ expecting to play there, and if he responded 2♠ I would pass and he would get to play the hand (i expect the opponents to balance back in).
♠ AKQJxxx
♥ xx
♦ AJx
♣ x

Because of this treatment, when I open 1♠ and jump to 3♠ it a worse hand/or suit. For what it is worth, my jump to 3♠ after opening 1♠ can be more hcp's than this 2♣ opening hand, but not as strong playing strength in terms of sure tricks.