[jillybean]

---

2♦ waiting , 3♦ positive with ♦'s, and please explain your reasoning and the plan for the rest of the auction.

[MrAce]

jillybean, on 2014-November-16, 12:00, said:

---

2♦ waiting , 3♦ positive with ♦'s, and please explain your reasoning and the plan for the rest of the auction.

I usually see positive responses to 2♣ as interfering with pd's 2♣. I saw that terminology in BW or BBF not sure which but I like it. However, on this one I would start 3♦. Because it is extremely likely that we will either end up in ♦ or NT contract at 6-7 level and we have enough meat to waste the 2 level vs a 2♣ opener. Pd, if knows that we try to avoid positive responses unless we have reasons to, will have better understanding in subsequent auction.

[whereagles]

Honestly, I just feel like bidding 6♦. There are way too many variations on opener's hand that I'm going to bid what I think I can make straight away.

[rmnka447]

Thanks for the problem! It should be a good one to discuss. Somewhat similar hands have been an ongoing topic of discussion in a private bridge discussion group among close bridge playing friends and teammates.

Since we play very disciplined responses over 2 ♣ (with 2 ♦ waiting), this hand would qualify for a positive 3 ♦ response. In our methods, a 3 ♦ response would convey the following information -- 5+ ♦, 2 of 3 top ♦ honors, and 2 +QTs.

The alternative would be to simply use the 2 ♦ waiting response, then rebid ♦, if possible, over partner's rebid to show a forward going ♦ feature. (Cheapest suit rebid would be negative, 2 NT rebid forward going but otherwise undefined values.)

While 3 ♦ might seem pretty clear, 2 ♦ waiting gets out of opener's way and let's them tell the story about their hand. For instance, if over 2 ♦ opener rebids in NT or a rounded suit, responder will get pretty excited about slam prospects. Also, the 2 ♦ waiting bid keeps the bidding lower and may allow the partnership bidding space to sort out the hand especially in the case of a misfit. OTOH, not bidding 3 ♦ may prevent opener from ever visualizing that responder's ♦ and/or hand are as good as they are.

It's a tough choice, especially since a ♠ rebid by opener seems likely. My gut feel is that I'd bid 3 ♦ as the hand and ♦ suit are just too good to do otherwise.

[ahydra]

3D. That's too good a suit to hide.

ahydra

[jillybean]

We have the agreement that a positive response will show a very good 5, likely 6 (if 5 it will look like 6) and 2 of the top 3.
Over 3♦ partner will bid 4♦.

If you now choose the exclusion route, partner shows 2

I like the line about 'positive responses interfering with partners 2♣ auction" , Timo

[mike777]

3d if not now then never, wow what a great suit.
I mean having a real positive response to 2c is pretty rare so lets use it when we got a clear and convincing one.

will rebid 4d over 3s by pard.

---

wow again if pard bids 4d and over 5s exclusion shows 2 I will try 7d.

[blackshoe]

Show partner where you live. Bid 3♦.

[mikeh]

Methods dictate the response. In my partnerships, 2♦ is a game force, and doesn't deny a good suit....a positive suit response shows a simple hand, and this is far from simple. On complex hands I prefer to wait to see what he rebids. Only a rebid in spades causes any issues. Ok, I admit that a spade rebid is likely but it isn't as if I will be much further ahead when he bids 3♠ over my 3♦. This hand has way to much to try to describe it, so I will let partner describe his.

If 2♦ denied a positive suit response (which I would never agree to play) then 3♦ is forced.

[nige1]

jillybean, on 2014-November-16, 12:00, said:

2♦ waiting , 3♦ positive with ♦'s, and please explain your reasoning and the plan for the rest of the auction.

---

IMO 3♦ = 10, 4♦ = 9, 2♦ = 8, 7N = 7, 7♦ = 6, 6♦ = 5.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on 2014-November-16, 21:41, said:

a positive suit response shows a simple hand, and this is far from simple.

It looks like a 1-suiter to me ... does a positive deny honours outside the suit in your methods?

I think I would bid 2♦ followed by 3♦ on a 1-suited hand without the top strength in the suit, on a 2-suited hand with primarily diamonds, or with a strong suit that isn't long enough to bid immediately. This is already a lot of things to sort out. Making a positive response with this hand at least takes hands like this out of the 2♦ response.

I understand that we don't need to describe at all - if partner rebids clubs or hearts we can chose to raise instead. What should we do after a 2♥ (Kokish) rebid?

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2014-November-17, 00:26, said:

It looks like a 1-suiter to me ... does a positive deny honours outside the suit in your methods?

I think I would bid 2♦ followed by 3♦ on a 1-suited hand without the top strength in the suit, on a 2-suited hand with primarily diamonds, or with a strong suit that isn't long enough to bid immediately. This is already a lot of things to sort out. Making a positive response with this hand at least takes hands like this out of the 2♦ response.

I understand that we don't need to describe at all - if partner rebids clubs or hearts we can chose to raise instead. What should we do after a 2♥ (Kokish) rebid?

No...but to me this is a complex hand, because we have wonderful support for hearts and clubs and a better diamond suit than he will play us for if we try to describe our hand.

I said methods count. If I played a method in which my 3♦ bid on my second round denied a good suit, obviously I would respond 3♦ initially. I happen to think that such a method, tho very standard, is inferior, but I don't expect to convince anyone To me, a 2♣ opening is either strong balanced (and I suspect no expert would have a problem then after responding 2♦, lol) or one suited or, if 2 or 3 suited, extremely strong. I don't expect a problem if he is very strong, regardless of how I start. However, if he has a 1-suiter, or a balanced hand, the auction will usually time out better if I let him describe his hand to me, rather than me try to describe this unusual hand to him.

Over a kokish 2♥ I would of course bid 2♠

Indeed, 2♥ would be wonderful. If he now bid 2N, I would invoke whatever method this partnership has for showing a diamond slam-try (tho there is no 'try' about it here), and if he bids to show hearts, how the auction proceeds isn't clear because I don't know the methods in use, but I would hope to be able to agree hearts at the 3-level and later go nuts. Admittedly, this is a rare case on which, if he has hearts, I'd regret we played kokish, since over a natural 2♥ I would use exclusion right now.

[P_Marlowe]

3D followed by 4D, which should set diamonds.

I have diamonds, I have a pos. hand, I tell p this.

[neilkaz]

If not 3♦ here then one should take a positive 3♦ response out of their system.

[mikeh]

neilkaz, on 2014-November-17, 14:31, said:

If not 3♦ here then one should take a positive 3♦ response out of their system.

Why?

xxx xx AQJxx Qxx

I would respond 3♦

Basically, if I have a slam force hand, as we do here, with playability in 3 suits, I tend to wait. If I have a simple hand, that can be fairly well described by pre-empting our own constructive auction, then I will make the positive suit response, since I expect partner to be able to evaluate reasonably well.


Equally, I would bid 2♦ if I held, say, xx x AQxxx Qxxxx, since bidding 3♦ may make finding clubs difficult, while if partner shows a strong notrump, I can show both minors, with slam interest, and still stop in 4N or 5m, with confidence.

[ggwhiz]

In my partnership we bid 2♦ with many hands that others might make a positive response on.

The reason being that the openers most likely next bid is 2nt with transfers etc. available so a 5-card major of quality waits.

Not on this hand though. A suit that likely plays for 1 loser opposite a void is a jump in diamonds and pretty close to what we promise with a 2♥/♠ response instead of the waiting 2♦.

[WesleyC]

Although you will inevitably end up in either 6D/7D, it is probably best to start with 2D. The extra level of space might be what you need to get across the fact that you have a spade void.