[mgoetze]

Inspired by eagles123 ( http://www.bridgebas...2-bidding-hand/ ) I've been thinking about new suit responses to weak 2s. It struck me as terribly inefficient that the responses to 2♦-2♠ would be 2NT DNE, 3♣ DNE, 3♦ no spade fit, 3♥ DNE and 3♠ spade fit. So I've been thinking about something like:

Step 1: shortness in partner's suit
Step 2: doubleton in partner's suit
Step 3: Kx or better in partner's suit, minimum
Step 4: Kx or better in partner's suit, maximum

I would compress step 1 and 2 together if the new suit were just below opener's suit, which of course immediately led me to the thought that I should switch hearts and clubs over 2♠. Over Step 1/2 I would allow a relay to ask for min/max ... perhaps also for an honor?

Anyone have a nice gadget like this? What do you think about treating Kx as equivalent to 3-card support?

[Zelandakh]

I think you would be better off using the steps below 3X to show either min/max or a side feature rather than different levels of non-fit. If Responder wants to know they can rebid their suit to find out if there is a small doubleton. I have no problem with your treating Kx as support.

Over 2♠, it has long been a trick to use 3♦ to show hearts. Then completing the transfer shows some degree of support and a min; rebidding our suit shows no support at all and a min; and 3NT is no support and max. Obvuiously you can achieve more with an extra step though.

Probably what you are actually looking for is something like Frances' response scheme. She posted this once a while back so perhaps you can find it with a search. It was a while back though so even nicer would be if she (or one of the other Brits if they know the details) could re-post it.

[Cyberyeti]

Firstly is 2♠ forcing ?

My suggestion is that if your weak 2 is well defined then yes, if really wide range then no.

Also are you allowed a side 4 card major ? I'll assume yes at this point.

That said and assuming a normal 5-9/6-10 6CS and it is forcing then 3♦ = min no fit, 3♠ = min with fit, 2N = max no fit no 4 card side suit or feature worth bidding 3♣/♥ max with feature, for discussion whether you bid this ahead of 3♠, for discussion what bids at the 4 level are, but I'd suggest new suits are max, fit, shortage, 4♦ is 3262 nothing significant outside our suits and 4♠ is 4 spades and a minimum.

[mgoetze]

If "a while back" is 3 years ago then perhaps

FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-08, 03:55, said:

No-one has yet (I think) mentioned the alternative approach which is for responder to show, rather than ask. In one partnership we play transfers, and I know we aren't the only people who do this because it's been independently suggested on BBF more than once.

2♠ -

2NT = clubs. Opener must complete.
3♣ = diamonds. Opener must complete.
3♦ = hearts. Opener must complete.
3♥ = balanced high card limit raise, Opener can choose what to bid.
3♠ = pre-emptive raise
3NT = to play
4♣ = keycard ask
4♦ = fit bid
4♥ = to play

The idea of the transfers is that responder can transfer to his suit and then bid 3♠ to show a raise with a 'long suit trial bid' in the suit shown, and opener evaluates based on that information.
Of course, the big advantage is that responder can show his own suit(s) - can sign off, or can show a 2-suiter. This is more useful playing an undisciplined style of weak two.

[mikeh]

I was thinking about adding a post to the other thread, since if N opened a weak 2♦ then S with AKQxx Ax QJxx Kx is well worth a forcing natural 2♠ and in the methods that I usually play, when playing weak 2 bids, which is seldom these days, N is expected to show support with Hx or any 3+ holding where H is, fortuitously for the OP hand, defined as Jx.

I think requiring Kx is simply too rigid. It does depend on style and this is a bit circular in nature: since we permit (require) opener to show a fit with Jx or better, we require responder to have a suit that will play as trump opposite Jx or better, as opposed, say, to Kx or better.

AQ10xx is a perfect example. Note the 10, which makes the J worth a lot. AQ9xx is borderline, but still worth investigating if the rest of the hand warrants it....responder can sometimes bid his suit and then, even after it is supported, offer 3N as a choice of games.

Using this method, 6N by S becomes plausible. S bids 4♣, fetching 4♦ followed by 4♥ which would fetch 5♦

Note that keycard would be problematic. Opener can find the Ace, but 5N should deliver all the keys, since N should bid a grand with AKQxxx in diamonds. I love finding hands on which sensible bidding gets you to a good spot while keycard would be silly.

As for the response structure over a new suit, I keep it simple (if I ever go back to weak 2's in a major, I may try that use of 3♦/2♠ to show hearts...I like it).

Opener raises with Jx or any 3+ support and no side feature

Opener splinters with any 3 card support and a stiff, but only with an average or better weak 2, not with a minimum

Opener returns to his suit with all hands that lack a fit.

2N doesn't exist, not because it can't be put to a use, but because we are lazy I don't play weak twos in serious partnerships, and for other partnerships there is only so much one can discuss when sitting down to play. Actually, I think it should show long clubs

Btw, I think it to be virtually unplayable to use 2M over a weak 2♦ as non-forcing.

We run from 2♦ to 2M, expecting partner to pass when he doesn't like our major? Wtf? Why run from 2♦, whether we have support or not, in order to play a guaranteed misfit? And please don't suggest that we want opener to pass WITH a fit???

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-13, 09:23, said:

I think you would be better off using the steps below 3X to show either min/max or a side feature rather than different levels of non-fit. If Responder wants to know they can rebid their suit to find out if there is a small doubleton. I have no problem with your treating Kx as support.

I don't consider "feature ask" a particularily useful convention. And if all I'm interested in is whether opener is min/max, I may have another way of bidding that...

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-13, 10:03, said:

Firstly is 2♠ forcing ?

My suggestion is that if your weak 2 is well defined then yes, if really wide range then no.

It is well-defined at some vulnerabilities/seats and not so much at others. I don't really plan to change my response scheme around based on this though. I play new suits as forcing always.

Quote

Also are you allowed a side 4 card major ? I'll assume yes at this point.

Yes, although I don't think the response scheme should go out of its way to cater for this.

Quote

That said and assuming a normal 5-9/6-10 6CS and it is forcing then 3♦ = min no fit, 3♠ = min with fit, 2N = max no fit no 4 card side suit or feature worth bidding 3♣/♥ max with feature, for discussion whether you bid this ahead of 3♠, for discussion what bids at the 4 level are, but I'd suggest new suits are max, fit, shortage, 4♦ is 3262 nothing significant outside our suits and 4♠ is 4 spades and a minimum.

Uhm... to be clear, I don't want to create an entire system specifically for 2♦-2♠, rather something general I can apply to all these auctions:

2♦-2♠ Spades
2♦-2NT Hearts
2♦-3♣ Clubs
2♥-2NT Spades
2♥-3♣ Clubs
2♥-3♦ Diamonds
2♠-3♣ Clubs (or Hearts)
2♠-3♦ Diamonds
2♠-3♥ Hearts (or Clubs)

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 10:25, said:

If "a while back" is 3 years ago then perhaps

That's the one. I think that whole thread had a few interesting ideas too. The only thing to add is that her 3♦ transfer over 2♠ is effectively weak or GF unless willing to play 3♠, which does have a downside in comparison with the INV+ version. You have to decide which hand type is more important for you.

Against CY's post, I think it is better for 2NT to show the non-fitting minimum rather than 3♦. Not only does that allow it to be non-forcing, it also means features can be checked for opposite the minimum hand. This just makes the structure more efficient.

As to Mike's discussion of Kx versus Jx in support, perhaps we can find a middle way here....

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 07:50, said:

Inspired by eagles123 ( http://www.bridgebas...2-bidding-hand/ ) I've been thinking about new suit responses to weak 2s. It struck me as terribly inefficient that the responses to 2♦-2♠ would be 2NT DNE, 3♣ DNE, 3♦ no spade fit, 3♥ DNE and 3♠ spade fit. So I've been thinking about something like:

Step 1: shortness in partner's suit
Step 2: doubleton in partner's suit
Step 3: Kx or better in partner's suit, minimum
Step 4: Kx or better in partner's suit, maximum

I would compress step 1 and 2 together if the new suit were just below opener's suit, which of course immediately led me to the thought that I should switch hearts and clubs over 2♠. Over Step 1/2 I would allow a relay to ask for min/max ... perhaps also for an honor?

Anyone have a nice gadget like this? What do you think about treating Kx as equivalent to 3-card support?

If you want to play a gadget like this I suggest you do not go by steps. 2♦-2♠-2NT for example, you are picking up NT from wrong side when have shortness in pd's suit and 3 NT is very likely to be our final contract.

2♦--2M
2NT= I have 3 card fit xxx* (*see 4x and 4M ) we are very unlikely to end up in 3 NT now and you have enough space to show singleton if requested in next turn.
2/3x = Fill with whatever you like Jx or Kx min or max or feature
3♦=shortness in pd's major
3M = doubleton fit
4M or 4x = 4 card fit and/or splinter if opener can have side 4 card M. If not fill it with your choice. If you can not have side 4 card M then make this with Hxx fit, If can have 4 card M, then make 2 NT rebid with xxx and Hxx fit.

[mgoetze]

MrAce, on 2015-February-13, 11:03, said:

If you want to play a gadget like this I suggest you do not go by steps. 2♦-2♠-2NT for example, you are picking up NT from wrong side when have shortness in pd's suit and 3 NT is very likely to be our final contract.

OK but this is absolutely the only example where 2NT is a possible step answer for me, I always play step asks for shortness, so 2♦-2NT is hearts and then step 1 is 3♣, and 2♥-2NT is spades and again step 1 is 3♣. On the other hand steps have a huge advantage: they are easy to remember and there is never any confusion as to which bid means what.

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 11:14, said:

OK but this is absolutely the only example where 2NT is a possible step answer for me, I always play step asks for shortness, so 2♦-2NT is hearts and then step 1 is 3♣, and 2♥-2NT is spades and again step 1 is 3♣. On the other hand steps have a huge advantage: they are easy to remember and there is never any confusion as to which bid means what.

Ok, I was assuming responses to weak 2 were natural.

[mgoetze]

Since Mike mentioned splinters, perhaps the responses should be

Step 1: Shortness
Step 2: Small Doubleton
Step 3: Hx or 3-card support with no shortness
Step 4: 3/4-card support, low shortness
Step 5: 3/4-card support, high shortness

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-13, 10:43, said:

Against CY's post, I think it is better for 2NT to show the non-fitting minimum rather than 3♦. Not only does that allow it to be non-forcing, it also means features can be checked for opposite the minimum hand. This just makes the structure more efficient.

As to Mike's discussion of Kx versus Jx in support, perhaps we can find a middle way here....

The above comes from me finding that normally the bidding stops in 3♦ opposite a non fitting minimum with 6 diamonds as we tend to limit how strong 2♠ is because we play it NF but rarely passed and bid 2N with really big hands, and our weak 2s first and 3rd don't promise 6.

I was thinking Qx rather than Jx to qualify for support.