[1eyedjack]

Hi all

It is popular to use 2H as an immediate second negative in an uncontested response to a strong artificial 2C opener. May I please have ideas on the upper limit on strength for this bid? Is it a function of distribution?

It may be a function of the minimum strength of the 2C opener. I play it as 23+ balanced or compensating distribution. That is possibly a bit stronger than the way others play it and I may need to adjust accordingly.

I was thinking that two Queens would be about the upper limit. How about three points residing in a King?

[the hog]

We play it up to about a 5 count, maybe 6 if we have lots of knaves.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Mar 30 2004, 01:37 PM, said:

Hi all

It is popular to use 2H as an immediate second negative in an uncontested response to a strong artificial 2C opener.  May I please have ideas on the upper limit on strength for this bid?  Is it a function of distribution?

It may be a function of the minimum strength of the 2C opener.  I play it as 23+ balanced or compensating distribution.  That is possibly a bit stronger than the way others play it and I may need to adjust accordingly.

I was thinking that two Queens would be about the upper limit.  How about three points residing in a King?

I play both 2♥ and 2♠ as instant double negative. Two ♠ suggest I have one trick of a possible ♥ contract. I bid 2♦ as semipositive or BETTER anytime I think my hand might win a trick for a major suit contract... so for 4441 hand with two four card majors is an automatic 2♦ response even with zero hcp....

One queen is usually not enough, unless it is in a major with mild distributon, then I respond thusly, if it is in ♥. I bid 2♠, it it is in spades, I bid 2♦, it it is in a minor, i bid 2♥.

Ben

[keylime]

One of the many reasons why I went over to Precision - I don't like 2♥ as a double negative because it penalizes a strong heart hand.

[the hog]

"I don't like 2♥ as a double negative because it penalizes a strong heart hand."

2N becomes your positive in H - no problem at all! In fact it occssionally gives you an advantage as opener may get to be declarer in a H contract.

[Gerardo]

Ron, tell the 2♣ opener with ♥AKQxxxx, happened to me once, we didn't even agree to play 2♥ as 2nd negative with this partner, but I guessed

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

------------------------------------

Hi 1eyedjack!

Spoiler

-------

According to your way of 2♣ opening 2Q or 1K is enough for 2♦ positive imo.

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[EricK]

mishovnbg, on Mar 31 2004, 07:44 AM, said:

Spoiler

------------------------------------

Hi 1eyedjack!

Spoiler

-------

According to your way of 2♣ opening 2Q or 1K is enough for 2♦ positive imo.

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------------------

Misho

This is exactly how I play it too.

Eric

[inquiry]

EricK, on Mar 31 2004, 12:58 PM, said:

mishovnbg, on Mar 31 2004, 07:44 AM, said:

Spoiler

------------------------------------

Hi 1eyedjack!

Spoiler

-------

According to your way of 2♣ opening 2Q or 1K is enough for 2♦ positive imo.

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------------------

Misho

This is exactly how I play it too.

Eric

Well, this is how I play it too, sort of.. Unlike the statement, however, I call 2♦ semipositive or better...(not "positive"). This promises AT LEAST one trick, and a queen is like a half a trick or something.... :-)

[1eyedjack]

Thanks for all the responses. All very helpful and interesting.
I am not convinced that an ultra-low upper limit on the 2H "2nd negative" is necessarily optimal. The very narrow range of values that the bid then contains is out of proportion to the amount of bidding space available. The label "2nd/double negative" may be unhelpfully prejudicial to the analysis. The bid is, of course, forcing, and responder is therefore guaranteed another opportunity to speak. There is certainly scope for "catching up".

I was interested by the suggestion of using 2H and 2S both as different double-negatives per inquiry's method. This is new to me and will take some thought. I did not like, however, the possibility of including a particular double negative also in the 2D response (namely a hand that can contribute a trick to a Spade contract). I feel that if the 2D absolutely guarantees at least a minimum of a mild slam try then it opens up possibilities in the continuations that would be cramped by having to cope with a particular double-neg.

In my next post in this thread I shall post the continuations that I have worked out, prior to commencing this thread, but which sadly rely on 2H as the "only" (but perhaps relatively wide range) double negative.

[1eyedjack]

OK, here is a brief synopsis of the 2C responses that I have been playing for a short while. Not enough data yet to form an empirical conclusion.

2C-2D = (1) semi-positive 2-suiter (5-5) or (2) semi-positive with no shortage or (3) any positive

2C-2H = Negative

2C-2S+ = Semipositive with shortage but not 5-5 ("the singleton structure" as below)

2C-2D-2H = (1) 2-suiter (5-5) or (2) no shortage or (3) extra values
2C-2D-2S+ = Minimum opener, with a shortage but not 5-5 ("the singleton structure" as below)

2C-2D-2H-2S = semi positive with no short
2C-2D-2H-2N = sem positive 2-suited (5-5)
2C-2D-2H-3C+ = positive

2-suiter structure
--------------------
After 2C-2D-2H-2N:
3C-3D = H + minor
.........-3H-3S = C
.........-3H-3N+ = D
3C-3H = S + minor
.........-3S-3N = C
.........-3S-4C+ = D
3C-3S = C + D
3C-3N+ = H + S

The singleton structure (limited hand with shortage but not 5-5)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 2C or after 2C-2D (NB 3N is never relay)

2S = (1) short H (any) or (2) short C, <5 in other minor and not 3-suited
...2N-3C = short C, see 2C-3C for further continuations (reverse the minors)
...2N-3D+ = short H, see 2C-2N-3C-3D+ for further continuations (reverse the majors)

2N = short S (any)
...3C-3D = >4 in other major (not 3-suited)
............-3H-3S = 4C
............-3H-3N = 4D
............-3H-4C+ = 1-suited
...3C-3H = 4 in other major or 3-suited (then may be 5)
............-3S-3N = 3-suited
............-3S-4C = >4C
............-3S-4D+ = >4D
...3C-3S = 4 in unspecified minor, >5 in other minor, <4 in other major
............-4C-4D = 4D, longer C, shorter other major
............-4C-4H+ = 4C, longer D, shorter other major
...3C-3N = Club single-suiter
...3C-4C+ = Diamond single-suiter

3C = short D, <5 other minor, not 3-suited
...3D-3H = 4 minor, 1 longer major, 1 shorter major
............-3S-3N = long H
............-3S-4C+ = long S
...3D-3S = 4 unspecified major, longer other major, shorter minor
............-4C-4D = 4S, longer H
............-4C-4H+ = 4H, longer S
...3D-3N = Heart single-suiter
...3D-4C+ = Spade single-suiter

3D = short C, >4 other minor, not 3-suited
...3H-3S = unspecified 4 card major (see 2C-3S for continuations - reverse the minors)
...3H-3N+ = minor single-suited (ie Diamonds)

3H = 3-suited, short unspecified minor
...3S-3N = short D
...3S-4C+ = short C

3S = Short D, >4 other minor, unspecified 4 card major
...4C-4D = 4 Hearts
...4C-4H+ = 4 Spades

3N+ = short D, minor single-suited (ie Clubs)

That's all for now

[JRG]

Every time I see a scheme of bids and responses like this I say, "Damn, I wish I had a good enough memory to play something like that!".

Seriously though, without being a computer, are such complicated systems playable? I can see the professional partnerships handling something like this, but say a once-a-week steady partnership? [I guess this is the old religious question that belongs in another thread.]

I play that 2!D is any hand that doesn't qualify for any other positive response (where, and I don't really like this, 2NT shows a ♥ suit). We have the usual sort of requirements for a positive response in a suit (5+ cards, honour requirements). The 2!D bid is forcing to game.

If we don't have however much we think qualifies as forcing to game, we bid 2!H. This may mean we force to game on some tiny range of hands that others might consider "semi-positive". This is because a hand does not qualify for 2♥ if it contains an Ace or King. We (my longest running partnership) have debated whether two Queens is enough. I'm sure we would both make a 2♦ response on a Q-J and another Q.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Mar 31 2004, 04:34 PM, said:

OK, here is a brief synopsis of the 2C responses that I have been playing for a short while.

Glad you went the short route, and this is from me, cleary the person writing the longest and most boring post on this site... :-)

Since you expressed some interest in the system where both 2♥ and 2♠ are used as an immediate double negative, go take a look at the entire method at the following link... I think it is easily playable, and if you foget the three suited stuff (which I like), fits JRG's idea of something you play with a causal partner without a lot of extra memorization...

http://www.cavendish...e/two/clubs.htm

If nothing else, I will assure you that you will find what you read there very interesting and well written.

[1eyedjack]

JRG, on Mar 31 2004, 08:27 PM, said:

Every time I see a scheme of bids and responses like this I say, "Damn, I wish I had a good enough memory to play something like that!".

Seriously though, without being a computer, are such complicated systems playable? I can see the professional partnerships handling something like this, but say a once-a-week steady partnership? [I guess this is the old religious question that belongs in another thread.]

Memory is certainly a consideration, and it would indeed only be workable with a regular partnership.

Even then, in the absence of regular "revision", the memory will only be reinforced by the incidence of the bids in practice. The 2C opener is rare and if sole reliance is placed on practice in order to remember it, there is a risk that you will forget the system between bids at a faster rate than the memory is reinforced by their occurrence.

I have tried to use two techniques to alleviate that problem:
1) By designing some logic in to the responses, to enable you (to an extent) derive the responses from the logical rules. Easier, supposedly, to remember the rules than the bare sequences.
2) By increasing the frequency of their occurrence. The 2C opener itself remains unaffected, but at least the singleton structure crops up both in responder's bids and in opener's rebids. I have further increased the frequency by extending the singleton structure to responding to 2NT opener, starting at 3H response.

Lastly of course you have to consider the vulnerability of the responses to contested bidding. The sequences may be intrinsically vulnerable, but on top of that, to minimise your vulnerability you have to agree on methods of coping with intervention, which can only add to complexity and strain on memory.

Vulnerability reduces as the level of the response goes up, both because it is more dangerous to the opponents and because the bids are progressively more narrowly defined so the effect of preemption is diminished. Clearly the 2S response/rebid is vulnerable, since the location of the shortage remains ambiguous at that time.

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Mar 31 2004, 08:45 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Mar 31 2004, 04:34 PM, said:

OK, here is a brief synopsis of the 2C responses that I have been playing for a short while.

Glad you went the short route, and this is from me, cleary the person writing the longest and most boring post on this site... :-)

Since you expressed some interest in the system where both 2♥ and 2♠ are used as an immediate double negative, go take a look at the entire method at the following link... I think it is easily playable, and if you foget the three suited stuff (which I like), fits JRG's idea of something you play with a causal partner without a lot of extra memorization...

http://www.cavendish...e/two/clubs.htm

If nothing else, I will assure you that you will find what you read there very interesting and well written.

Good link. Thanks

[Trpltrbl]

I really only play with 2 people that 2♦ is GF, that being K or more. Therefore 2♥ would be 2Queens or less, since Kings tend to take tricks quicker then Queens, maybe that's why they are called quicktricks. And in modern counting systems they are worth much more the Queens But with neither I play that 2 NT shows the ♥ suit. I am either GF or not, after that we'll find the ♥ suit, if we have it.
But best way, in my opinion(and it ain't humble), is the Kokish Relay. Much easier to differ between different NT's and 2 suited hands, and it is only forcing to either 2 NT or 3 of a Major, since we can tell what hand pd has. Best convention since stayman in my opinion (and it still ain't humble).

Mike