[bendare]

My partner and I agreed to play 2H super negative response to strong 2c opener. We failed to discuss bid for a heart positive response------big mistake. Given that we did not, is there a "standard to 2H super negative" bid for a heart positive response that could be assumed?

I assumed 2nt would show a heart positive and that 3H showed a 7 card heart suit with 0-5 HCP.

My pd assumed 3H showed a H positive and IF 2nt was to be used as a H positive by partnership agreement, that should be specifically noted on our CC. (This was a live ACBL game with standard ACBL CC, so no drop downs to fill in details.) Pd contends that 3H to show a H positive does not require specific notation on CC, as is "standard to 2H super negative".

Please, no lectures on negligence to confirm heart positive response---lesson learned!!!!

Without specific partnership agreement, is there a "standard to 2h super negative" response for Heart positive?

While on this subject, what do you real experts recommend for H positive and why? I can see that any kind of 2nt response to 2c opener can wrong side the contract, but as one cannot have it all, which works best?


Thanks---Bendare

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

one option: have a look at
http://www.cavendish...dge/paradox.htm

A lot simpler, although on reflection it is probably the same,
as can found under the link above,
bid 2D as a kind of relay, semi negative,
i.e. openers rebids can still be passed, but opener knows
you hold 1 trick, i.e. he will bid game in a mayor if that
is sufficient.

The heart positive is ow bidding hearts over opener 2nd bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[luke warm]

what i use is, i think, pretty standard

2C - SAF

• 2D=4-7 any
  
• 2H=0-3 any
  
• 2S=8+ balanced (you can play this as showing a hand with no 5 pcs)
  
• 2NT=8+ and 5+ clubs
  
• 3C=8+ and 5+ diamonds
  
• 3D=8+ and 5+ hearts
  
• 3H=8+ and 5+ spades

the followups are up to you

[rbforster]

luke warm, on Jul 3 2006, 05:09 PM, said:

what i use is, i think, pretty standard

Luke warm, thanks for your description although I admit I've never heard of anything like it so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "pretty standard"! An interesting idea though, which I'll consider switching to myself. I usually play

• 2D=K, QQ or better, most hands without a good suit (GF)
  
• 2H=negative, worse than 2D, any shape
  
• 2S=5+ ♠ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
• 2N=5+ ♥ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
• 3C=5+ ♣ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
• 3D=5+ ♦ suit, at least 2/3 top honors

[matmat]

a certain eminent west coast expert (or so i have been told) advocates switching the 2d and 2h responses, with 2d being the immediate double negative and 2h the positive(ish) bid. This allows the structure over 2c to resemble closely that used by strong 1c partnerships.

[Winstonm]

I've never understood the fascination with responder immediately "telling" he has a bad hand with 2H. I guess it would be O.K. if you opened some fairly weakish 2C and wanted to be able to play 2H or 2S but otherwise it is a waste of precious space.

Opening 2C bidder has 3 basic hand types: NT, 1-suiter, strong semi-balanced.
Whether responder is weak is really not an issue opposite a big NT, the most common hand type; what hand type opener holds is the issue. That is why I feel it is better to use 2D as a semi-automatic relay bid that only denies a suit-oriented positive and nothing else. If opener holds a NT hand he is better placed by showing what he has and allowing responder to determine how high to go; if opener has a self sufficient suit then controls by responder are important; if opener has a big unwieldy semi-balanced hand then fit is needed. All of these take precedence over saying, "I have a bad hand."

My own preference is this:

2C-2D (almost automatic)
2H=22/23 NT and 2S then relays to 2N
2S= artificial, 1 suited or big semibalanced 2 suiter.
2N=23/24 NT

The majority of big hands are either NT hands or 1-suiters. These methods allow the NT hand to show its range quickly and let partner take over while allowing room for responder to show weakness with a second negative opposite a suit oriented hand.

[whereagles]

Winstonm, on Jul 4 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

I've never understood the fascination with responder immediately "telling" he has a bad hand with 2H.

Because then opener could use transfers to show his hand..

2♣ 2♥ (0-4 hcp, very weak, no aces)
2♠ = balanced, unlimited
2NT = clubs
3♣ = diams
etc..

Responder completes transfer with a really bad hand (0-2, non-forcing) or bids naturally with 3-4. This also allows for

2♣ 2♦

to be 100% game forcing, with nat follow-ups.

[mike777]

Prefer:
2d=random ace or king's
2h=deny ace or king but unlimited small points
2s=2 of 3 top honors
2nt=substitute heart bid, 2 of top 3 honors.
etc.

[pclayton]

Rob F, on Jul 3 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 3 2006, 05:09 PM, said:

what i use is, i think, pretty standard

Luke warm, thanks for your description although I admit I've never heard of anything like it so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "pretty standard"! An interesting idea though, which I'll consider switching to myself. I usually play

• 2D=K, QQ or better, most hands without a good suit (GF)
  
• 2H=negative, worse than 2D, any shape
  
• 2S=5+ ♠ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
• 2N=5+ ♥ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
• 3C=5+ ♣ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
• 3D=5+ ♦ suit, at least 2/3 top honors

If I played with a random expert from the partnership desk, and we had 10 minutes to fill out a card and we agreed on 2♥=xx, this approach is exactly what I would expect.

[neilkaz]

pclayton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:13 PM, said:

Rob F, on Jul 3 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 3 2006, 05:09 PM, said:

what i use is, i think, pretty standard

Luke warm, thanks for your description although I admit I've never heard of anything like it so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "pretty standard"! An interesting idea though, which I'll consider switching to myself. I usually play

• 2D=K, QQ or better, most hands without a good suit (GF)
  
  
• 2H=negative, worse than 2D, any shape
  
  
• 2S=5+ ♠ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
  
• 2N=5+ ♥ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
  
• 3C=5+ ♣ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
  
• 3D=5+ ♦ suit, at least 2/3 top honors

If I played with a random expert from the partnership desk, and we had 10 minutes to fill out a card and we agreed on 2♥=xx, this approach is exactly what I would expect.

Same here, but then I'd still not be assured of a good result on 2C hands since the "American-type" 2C system has so many treatments and methods that follow later and I have no guarantee as to whether opener stretched to open 2C on a sub-min. At least after 2D opener knows the hand is GF, as does responder and if opener cannot have really good play for game after 2D he should not open 2C.

.. neilkaz ..

[barmar]

bendare, on Jul 3 2006, 05:27 PM, said:

Without specific partnership agreement, is there a "standard to 2h super negative" response for Heart positive?

While it's pretty common to use 2NT to show ♥, I don't think it's considered standard, and I always confirm it when filling out the CC. Without discussion, I'd expect 3♥ to be the positive, natural bid (and it should probably even be a 6-card suit because of all the bidding space that's wasted).

Another variation I've seen used on occasion is one-over bids; 2♠ shows ♥ positive and 2[NT] shows ♠ positive, which allows the 2♣ bidder to become declarer in the contracts (similar to transfers).

[SoTired]

If you play 2H as super negative, then use Rob F's response structure.

I don't like the 2H super negative because it interferes with Kokish, which I hate to give up. You don't really need a super neg bid. If opener rebids 2N (22-24) responder can pass. If opener rebids 2H/2S and then 3H/3S, responder is allowed to pass with a worthless hand without support.

The knowledge that responder has at least a K (or QQ or QJJ depending on super neg version) is unlikely to be critical information.

If you insist on having it, use a 2nd bid of cheapest 3-level bid to show a super neg. 2C 2D 2S 3C = super neg. Responder may pass if opener bids 3S. But since I play that regardless of what responder bids, I don't see the point of 3C.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

Rob F, on Jul 3 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 3 2006, 05:09 PM, said:

what i use is, i think, pretty standard

Luke warm, thanks for your description although I admit I've never heard of anything like it so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "pretty standard"! An interesting idea though, which I'll consider switching to myself. I usually play

• 2D=K, QQ or better, most hands without a good suit (GF)
  
  
• 2H=negative, worse than 2D, any shape
  
  
• 2S=5+ ♠ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
  
• 2N=5+ ♥ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
  
• 3C=5+ ♣ suit, at least 2/3 top honors
  
  
• 3D=5+ ♦ suit, at least 2/3 top honors

If I played with a random expert from the partnership desk, and we had 10 minutes to fill out a card and we agreed on 2♥=xx, this approach is exactly what I would expect.

Likewise.