[gszes]

A close team match with partner occasionally complaining that you have been overworking your pass card (so what's new) when one of your best hands of the day arrives

---

. You're on how do you proceed and why. If this belongs in another forum please put it there but I will be surprised if opinions are unanimous.

[pescetom]

I would probably have bid 3♣ rather than 2NT, but then I'm no expert and 2NT did work out well.
Now I would bid 4♥. It tells South pretty much what he needs to know and I don't have much alternative anyway.
If there are other fit-showing bids that I am not using, all the better.

[steve2005]

Qx ♠ is gold in opener's 1st suit.

[pescetom]

steve2005, on 2018-September-04, 06:20, said:

Qx ♠ is gold in opener's 1st suit.

I guess a lot depends upon how you play 2♣ 2♦ 3♠ and (2♣) 2NT for that matter.
For us 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ is unlikely to go far with this hand, and a warning does little harm.

[Cyberyeti]

When you say 2♦ was waiting, would 2♥ have been double negative ?

In cheating LOL bridge, this is an obvious stop 4♥.

[The_Badger]

Good hands are hard to bid as no-one has written a comprehensive book on the subject, as far as I know, and actually analysed what are the best responses to the opening bid of 2♣. Some hands fair better with a waiting 2♦, others with a negative 2♦, others with controls, others with double negatives, others with relays, and others, lastly, with steps. Have I forgotten anything? Ok, Kokish, extended Kokish, etc., etc.

The trouble also is that 2♣ can be such a variety of different hands too, and losing a level of bidding by opening 2♣ instead of a strong 1♣ can make hands like these difficult to bid.

And finally, good hands may be hard to bid, but they are a lot easier to bid than poor hands. It is usually the responder with scattered values like these who is put in a fix.

[rmnka447]

3 ♣ (cheapest suit) would have been my 2nd negative in this auction, but 2 NT is Ok if that's what you play.

You have a clear 4 ♥ call now. It's not entirely a negative call as with a really bad hand 3 ♠ would be the default I'm really bad bid. It should show 4 ♥.

If slam is a lay down because of the 2 Qs, them's the breaks. Bidding isn't a perfect science, just a way to get to reasonably good places with most hands.

[johnu]

rmnka447, on 2018-September-04, 12:25, said:

You have a clear 4 ♥ call now. It's not entirely a negative call as with a really bad hand 3 ♠ would be the default I'm really bad bid.

Really? With a very bad hand with zero support for spades and good support for hearts, you would fake a preference to spades?

[johnu]

♥I would bid 5♥. Nothing to cue bid, not the hand to bid Blackwood, but 2 golden cards in the major suit queens, plus 4 card support for hearts. 4♥ could be made with an awful looking hand.

[sfi]

johnu, on 2018-September-04, 17:38, said:

♥I would bid 5♥. Nothing to cue bid, not the hand to bid Blackwood, but 2 golden cards in the major suit queens, plus 4 card support for hearts. 4♥ could be made with an awful looking hand.

Agreed. These queens are far too valuable for me to just give up on slam.

[nige1]

I rank

• 3♥ = NAT. More encouraging than 3♥.
• 4♥ = NAT. Discouraging, For some this denies a 1st or 2nd round control.
• 5♥ = NAT. Space-consuming and a slight overbid, IMO

[johnu]

nige1, on 2018-September-04, 19:08, said:

I rank

• 3♥ = NAT. More encouraging than 3♥.
• 4♥ = NAT. Discouraging, For some this denies a 1st or 2nd round control.
• 5♥ = NAT. Space-consuming and a slight overbid, IMO

I'm all in favor of making an insufficient bid when there is no legal bid that describes what I have, but it depends on whether I think the opponents will notice or not. 3♥ is definitely the most descriptive bid.

[gszes]

johnu, on 2018-September-04, 19:41, said:

I'm all in favor of making an insufficient bid when there is no legal bid that describes what I have, but it depends on whether I think the opponents will notice or not. 3♥ is definitely the most descriptive bid.

dang and I had just entered your name in the race for most ethical player of the year award------------------

[johnworf1]

I misread the bidding of this...after 2S I would probably bid 4S because i only have 2 card support. i don't like 2nt as the double negative...so i guess 2nt shows something positive which i like and after 3h i can bid 4h as usually 4-4 fits can play better as you can use the long suit to discard your minors assuming hearts break 3-2 or 2-2 or 3-1 etc. if 2nt is semi constructive then partner can enquire slam if he has something like AKJ10xx, AKxx,Ax, A...this could even be 6 ace rkcb...so after 4h, 4nt is spades and hearts ask

4nt..5d,5nt q ask,6h (both), 7h lets play in the 4-4 fit.

[msjennifer]

nige1, on 2018-September-04, 19:08, said:

I rank

• 3♥ = NAT. More encouraging than 3♥.
• 4♥ = NAT. Discouraging, For some this denies a 1st or 2nd round control.
• 5♥ = NAT. Space-consuming and a slight overbid, IMO

Director. 3H will be an insufficient bid as Opener himself has already bid 3H
WITH THE TWO QUEENS in partners suits my bid shall be 5H

[LBengtsson]

The_Badger, on 2018-September-04, 08:07, said:

Good hands are hard to bid as no-one has written a comprehensive book on the subject, as far as I know, and actually analysed what are the best responses to the opening bid of 2♣. Some hands fair better with a waiting 2♦, others with a negative 2♦, others with controls, others with double negatives, others with relays, and others, lastly, with steps. Have I forgotten anything? Ok, Kokish, extended Kokish, etc., etc.

The trouble also is that 2♣ can be such a variety of different hands too, and losing a level of bidding by opening 2♣ instead of a strong 1♣ can make hands like these difficult to bid.

And finally, good hands may be hard to bid, but they are a lot easier to bid than poor hands. It is usually the responder with scattered values like these who is put in a fix.

1♣ strong bid better than 2♣ strong bid. agree.

[gszes]

johnworf1, on 2018-September-07, 17:03, said:

I misread the bidding of this...after 2S I would probably bid 4S because i only have 2 card support. i don't like 2nt as the double negative...so i guess 2nt shows something positive which i like and after 3h i can bid 4h as usually 4-4 fits can play better as you can use the long suit to discard your minors assuming hearts break 3-2 or 2-2 or 3-1 etc. if 2nt is semi constructive then partner can enquire slam if he has something like AKJ10xx, AKxx,Ax, A...this could even be 6 ace rkcb...so after 4h, 4nt is spades and hearts ask

4nt..5d,5nt q ask,6h (both), 7h lets play in the 4-4 fit.

there is definitely a spot in the trump administration awaiting you. You are told the 2n means negative with no long suit and yet you GUESS it means something else. We need more imaginative people like that in politics in the USA go for it:))))))))

[HardVector]

The problem is, in showing the true trash hand. Most of my partners and I have defined that as no A, no K, or less than 2 Q's. All hands that have an A, K, or 2 Q's is positive and game forcing. A lot of people like to use 2h after 2c to show trash. I personally hate it, I'd rather do a cheaper minor response to show that. So here, to show the bad hand, it would go 2c-2d-2s-3c. You don't have a trash hand, however, since you have 2 queens, one of which is in spades! So 2n is correct, positive, and game forcing. Now you can raise 3h to 4h and let partner move further if they have a real monster with the knowledge that you actually have something.

[akwoo]

One of the problems here is that different people have different notions of what constitutes a 2♣ opener.

I think

♠AKJxxx
♥AKxx
♦Ax
♣x

is a 2♣ opener, but I have a sneaking suspicion gszes thinks this isn't quite strong enough.

[sfi]

akwoo, on 2018-September-24, 18:11, said:

One of the problems here is that different people have different notions of what constitutes a 2♣ opener.

I think

♠AKJxxx
♥AKxx
♦Ax
♣x

is a 2♣ opener, but I have a sneaking suspicion gszes thinks this isn't quite strong enough.

I'm not quite seeing your point. 6H on these two hands is an excellent contract, so what your concern about the different expectations for 2C?