[gordontd]

GrahamJson, on 2018-February-13, 08:11, said:

Is it? With honours in three suits there is no grea5 advantage in having the stronger hand play. A 2NT response looks fine to me, if it is part of your methods. It has the advantage of showing the general nature and strength of your hand with a single bid, which is no bad thing. The trouble with these 2D “waiting” Bids is that it can be difficult to catch up later and show you have useful values.

The most common rebid after a 2D response is 2NT, and I think it's easier to deal with the continuations using your normal 2NT responses framework, rather than trying to look for a fit after a 2NT response.

[Tramticket]

GrahamJson, on 2018-February-13, 08:11, said:

A 2NT response looks fine to me, if it is part of your methods.

It isn't just that a 2NT wrong-sides the contract. The hand is quite a bit under-strength for a positive response on a flat and ace-less seven count.

But the big problem is that this response will get in the way if partner wants to show his suits. This will be a real problem if the 2♣ bidder has a two-suited (or three-suited!) hand and has to show the second suit at the four-level. You have taken away the room needed to investigate a slam and have already gone past 3NT if that happened to be the best contract.

[miamijd]

West ought to rebid 2NT, not 2H. You should then have methods over 2NT to find your 5/3 major fits (i.e., some form of Puppet Stayman). It's much easier to bid accurately after a 2NT rebid than after a 2H rebid.

Over 2H, East should bid 2NT. Balanced hand with some stoppers, fewer than 3 hearts, and 0-1 controls. Seems like that's what you have. I don't mind 2S with four of them on certain hands, but in this case you have a better bid.

But the upshot here is that you should almost always rebid 2NT, not 2M, with 5332 and a 22-23 hand. And you should consider playing Kokish relays, so that you can show the 24-25 balanced hand and still stay at the 2NT level, so that you have your methods on.

Cheers,
Mike

[ahydra]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-13, 09:57, said:

It isn't just that a 2NT wrong-sides the contract. The hand is quite a bit under-strength for a positive response on a flat and ace-less seven count.

But the big problem is that this response will get in the way if partner wants to show his suits. This will be a real problem if the 2♣ bidder has a two-suited (or three-suited!) hand and has to show the second suit at the four-level. You have taken away the room needed to investigate a slam and have already gone past 3NT if that happened to be the best contract.

This, absolutely. I've recently been playing in a flurry of one-off partnerships and insist on defining 2C-2NT as "does not exist" (I think on one CC I put "asking for a new partner" !) for the reasons Tramticket gives above. 2M, 3m = natural, positive, good suit; otherwise, bid 2D.

ahydra

[neilkaz]

For me, 2C-2NT when 2NT is natural doesn't exist when I can insist it doesn't.

To the OP, you'd have shortened this thread and gotten us to the point much quicker had you indicated your control response methods with considerably more detail initially.

To your PD, well your PD is on my list to be replaced due to his insistence that you should raise 2♥ directly with 2 low spots. Also, I have to ask him why Puppet is on the card? Did he upgrade his prime hand so much he thought it was too good for 2C-2D(0-1 control) 2NT?

You're at fault also. If you bid 2♠ you need to assume that PD will raise here with 3 card support and then offer him a choice of games with 3NT.

If you bid 2NT instead of 2♠ that's OK also as you stop every suit and may even enjoy having the lead come to you. With that in mind I slightly prefer 2NT as your 2nd call.

[rmnka447]

ahydra, on 2018-February-13, 19:17, said:

This, absolutely. I've recently been playing in a flurry of one-off partnerships and insist on defining 2C-2NT as "does not exist" (I think on one CC I put "asking for a new partner" !) for the reasons Tramticket gives above. 2M, 3m = natural, positive, good suit; otherwise, bid 2D.

ahydra

I agree with both ahydra and the tramticket post to which ahydra refers.

The more discipline imposed on direct positive responses the better as far as I'm concerned. In exchange for taking valuable bidding space with the positive, you also convey some information about the responding hand to the 2 ♣ hand to compensate. For me, a direct 2 M is 5+ cards to 2 honors with 1 1/2 QT+ in hand. Likewise, a direct 3 m is 5+ cards with 2 of top 3 honors and 2 QT+ in hand. You'd be surprised how often that kind of information can be of value in deciding about game/slam, small slam/grand slam, or, even the right strain for the contract.

Defaulting to 2 ♦ with less than any agreed holding for a positive isn't all bad either. First, as tramticket points, it leaves maximum space for 2 ♣ bidder to describe their hand. That adheres to a principle of good bidding of getting out of the way of the big hand to let them tell their story. Second, if responder does subsequently show a suit feature it is limited to less than a direct positive response.

If you use 2 ♦ as waiting along with a defined "second negative" (cheapest suit, cheapest minor, etc.), then 2 NT, when available, becomes an "unspecified positive" 5-20 value. OP stated they showed controls, but even with the 0-1 controls shown by 2 ♦, responder may or may not have values. So, maybe, OP should discuss with his partner a "second negative" over 2 ♦. Then, 2 NT could naturally fall into the role of an unspecified positive.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2018-February-13, 09:30, said:

The most common rebid after a 2D response is 2NT, and I think it's easier to deal with the continuations using your normal 2NT responses framework, rather than trying to look for a fit after a 2NT response.

You could play the same structure after a 2NT response as after a 2NT rebid, no?

Maybe something like condensed transfers is better to make opener declare.

The downside of 2NT is (other than wrong-siding sometimes) that opener with an unbalanced hand will have to start showing his shape at the 3-level.

But if you do play the 2NT response as natural, it seems reasonable to use it when a suitable hand comes up.

[gordontd]

helene_t, on 2018-February-13, 21:09, said:

You could play the same structure after a 2NT response as after a 2NT rebid, no?

How many people have the agreement that they do?

[GrahamJson]

Hmm, seem to be a lone voice here, but I’m not convinced with the idea that you shouldn’t ever respond 2NT to 2C. Suppose for example you respond 2D with the given hand. Now p rebids 2H. Now what? If you rebid 2NT and p, with a two suiter bids 3D (holding a different hand from the one given), what next? 3H? If so, how does he know you have any values as you could have xxxx xx xxx xxxx? If instead you respond 2NT the bidding would continue 3H -3S -4D -4H. Ok, you are at the four level, but p will know you are 4234 with 7-9. To me that seems a pretty reasonable place to be.

I can accept that you should respond 2D because your methods require 8 or more for a positive, or two controls, or whatever. But not just because 2NT takes up room. Maybe it does, but then so do lots of other bids. However if they describe your hand well you use them.

Incidentally, the system I play with one of my regular partners is that 2D shows 4+ with a 2H response showing 3 or less. You can therefore happily respond 2D and rebid 2NT over a 2H rebid, knowing you have already shown some, albeit limited, values.

[Cyberyeti]

We use the 2N response to 2♣ as natural, but we keep it a little stronger.

The reason is that we play 2♣ as GF or bal 22+, and we play 2♣-positive as F4N unless a suit is known to be open, so we want 9+ for the 2N bid to be safe in 4N and recover some usable space that way.

Edit: - we also play 2♣-2N-3♣ as an enquiry, only natural if followed by an immediate or subsequent 4♣

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-14, 07:16, said:

We use the 2N response to 2♣ as natural, but we keep it a little stronger.

The reason is that we play 2♣ as GF or bal 22+, and we play 2♣-positive as F4N unless a suit is known to be open, so we want 9+ for the 2N bid to be safe in 4N and recover some usable space that way.

Edit: - we also play 2♣-2N-3♣ as an enquiry, only natural if followed by an immediate or subsequent 4♣

I agree with a positive being forcing to 4NT.

But if 2NT is natural, I want it to be made up of aces and kings, to be helpful in a slam. I'm not bidding 2NT with some random collection of quacks, adding up to nine (but of little use to partner). Our 2NT is natural in theory - but I can't remember bidding a natural 2NT.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-14, 07:51, said:

I agree with a positive being forcing to 4NT.

But if 2NT is natural, I want it to be made up of aces and kings, to be helpful in a slam. I'm not bidding 2NT with some random collection of quacks, adding up to nine (but of little use to partner). Our 2NT is natural in theory - but I can't remember bidding a natural 2NT.

Although TBF QJxx, Qxx, xxx, KJx which is a pretty mouldy 9 is a finesse for a grand opposite the 2♣ opener given

[GrahamJson]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-14, 07:51, said:

I agree with a positive being forcing to 4NT.

But if 2NT is natural, I want it to be made up of aces and kings, to be helpful in a slam. I'm not bidding 2NT with some random collection of quacks, adding up to nine (but of little use to partner). Our 2NT is natural in theory - but I can't remember bidding a natural 2NT.

On the contrary, 2NT should show scattered, soft values rather than a hand with good controls. With the latter you can afford to sit and wait, taking control once opener has shown his hand. With modest scattered values that will be difficult. You have little or nothing to cue bid and other bids could often be made on completely worthless hands. Also, if you do end up in NT you want the lead coming up to your queens and jacks rather than up to aces.

To put things another way; if you can use 2NT to show a fairly narrowly defined type of hand doesn’t it make sense to do so, rather than never using the bid at all?

To use the original hands as examples, but give it six hearts so that a 2NT rebid is not an option. Now after an immediate 2NT response opener bids 3H after which responder makes minimum bids and you end up in 4H. If you respond 2D and opener rebids 2H what now? I suppose it goes 2NT - 3H - 4D (cue) - 4H - Pass. However how does opener know whether p has just the KD or whether he may have a few extra values? Does responder go on knowing he has some extras? It all becomes a bit of a guessing game. On BBO such hands are usually bid by the strong hand keeping on bidding and the weak hand making meaningless minimum bids. Sometimes they end up in the right spot, sometimes they don’t.

[miamijd]

If you play 2H immediate double negative (which a lot of folks do), then you can bid 2D game force on the balanced hands (and wait to see what partner has), and 2NT becomes either positive in H or in S depending on how you play it (standard is positive in H, but there is a lot to be said for 2S being positive in H and 2NT being positive in spades).

Cheers,
mike

[Caitlynne]

There is nothing particularly wrong with 2S - it is far better than the suggestion that 3H is correct - and it is a reasonable bid.

However, the issue is not whether 2S is a raasonable bid, but rather what is the correct rebid in the partnership's methods? Specifically, what does 2NT show? If 2NT is a weak bid - you presumably need something to show weakness - then 2S seems mandatory and opener should raise with 3 card support(as opener did). The question seems to be this: Why didn't responder follow-up with 3NT rather than 4S to suggest a 4 rather than 5 card spade holding?

[cleveritis]

2H is atrocious, you have a balanced hand. 2N automatic - no second choice. 2S is also atrocious. He too has a balanced hand. 2H SHOULD be single suited (6 or 7) - and partner should not introduce a weak suit opposite a strong single or two suiter. He should bid 2n, you bid 3N - and you find an excellent contract. More importantly with 2C - 2D - 2N - you find an easy 7X opposite partners Qtxxxxx of spades, or KJtxxxx of clubs... 2H makes that almost impossible.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2018-February-14, 02:21, said:

How many people have the agreement that they do?

OK so if you don't have any agreements about follow ups to 2nt you should not bid 2nt. I agree with that.