[straube]

Playing 2C as strong and 2H as immediate negative, should 2C-2H, 2N be forcing or not? Obviously we want to stop in 2N with 22 opposite 0 but if partner has 24+ and rebids 3N we give up all of our major suit fit-finding ability.

Secondary question, how much sense does Kokish make after 2C-2D if 2D promises a king or better?

[foobar]

Wrong forum? Perhaps a moderator can move it to the Natural Bidding forum.

[straube]

foobar, on 2023-August-26, 10:57, said:

Wrong forum? Perhaps a moderator can move it to the Natural Bidding forum.

Could be wrong but 2C is artificial as are the 2D and 2H responses and Kokish rebid.

Also wondering if anyone plays 2C-2H*, 2S*-2N, 3L as strong, negative, puppet, acceptance, 9-trick single-suited hand.

I hate 2C openings.

[foobar]

Doubt too many people here play 2♣ as strong . It's virtually a fixture in standard systems.

[Stephen Tu]

How about just not playing 2H double neg? I've never understood what good this does. It interferes with Kokish on the most important hand type for which Kokish was invented for, weak shapely vs GF bal. It doesn't really allow you to stop lower than other methods (2c-2h-2s, 2c-2h-3h should be forcing, as opener might have a two-suiter to show). If forced to play something like it I'd rather play something like Chris Ryall's paradox responses, where 2H is both double neg *and denies any distributional trick taking potential in hearts*, with 2S being same thing except for spades and showing a trick for hearts.

I personally prefer the Marshall Miles suggestion of 2H=slammish positive without a suit (good 7/8+, 5+ 3/2/1 pts A=3). I only use double negative with cheaper minor for 2c-2d-2s-3c! and 2c-2d-2h!-2s!-3c!-3d! (Kokish, 3c = heart 1 suiter), otherwise I am going to game after opener suit rebids.

[pescetom]

straube, on 2023-August-26, 10:23, said:

Playing 2C as strong and 2H as immediate negative, should 2C-2H, 2N be forcing or not? Obviously we want to stop in 2N with 22 opposite 0 but if partner has 24+ and rebids 3N we give up all of our major suit fit-finding ability.

Secondary question, how much sense does Kokish make after 2C-2D if 2D promises a king or better?

In the partnership where we play 2H as immediate negative (no A or K), opener's rebids 2NT (non-forcing) and 3NT are as you implicitly suggest. You can still play Stayman and major transfers over 3NT, with opener's 4NT being natural.

Yes Kokish makes sense here, whyever not?

[straube]

Stephen Tu, on 2023-August-26, 11:25, said:

How about just not playing 2H double neg? I've never understood what good this does. It interferes with Kokish on the most important hand type for which Kokish was invented for, weak shapely vs GF bal. It doesn't really allow you to stop lower than other methods (2c-2h-2s, 2c-2h-3h should be forcing, as opener might have a two-suiter to show). If forced to play something like it I'd rather play something like Chris Ryall's paradox responses, where 2H is both double neg *and denies any distributional trick taking potential in hearts*, with 2S being same thing except for spades and showing a trick for hearts.

I personally prefer the Marshall Miles suggestion of 2H=slammish positive without a suit (good 7/8+, 5+ 3/2/1 pts A=3). I only use double negative with cheaper minor for 2c-2d-2s-3c! and 2c-2d-2h!-2s!-3c!-3d! (Kokish, 3c = heart 1 suiter), otherwise I am going to game after opener suit rebids.

I actually floated this 2H slammish positive to partner without knowing Miles had suggested it. I was thinking of Standard Modern Precision's 1C-1H response but obvious big differences there.

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2023-August-26, 11:25, said:

How about just not playing 2H double neg? I've never understood what good this does. It interferes with Kokish on the most important hand type for which Kokish was invented for, weak shapely vs GF bal. It doesn't really allow you to stop lower than other methods (2c-2h-2s, 2c-2h-3h should be forcing, as opener might have a two-suiter to show).

I was previously equally dismissal of the 2H "Red Flag" approach, whereby weak responder arbitrarily preempts opener with hearts or balanced in a Kokish scheme. But mikeh convinced me that a tightly defined negative of no A or K was playable and I recognised that it fits well with our system, heavily biased towards control-bids once a fit is established in a game forcing situation. Yes it interferes with Kokish in terms of precise HCP definition of "balanced" hands, but opposite a responder with no A or K (and possibly a complete bust) two ranges of 2NT 22-24 and 3NT 25+ are probably sufficient. "Systems" over 3NT are undoubtedly very primitive, but quite likely to work all the same the one time a year it happens.

In our limited experience playing it, I don't remember problems or disappointments. Yes we can stop lower than before, both with opener balanced (previously the lowest range was 22-23 tightly defined by Kokish, now 22-24) and with opener unbalanced (follow ups are natural and non-forcing). I struggle to see why 2C-2H-3H should be forcing opposite a thinking partner with a smattering of quacks and the capacity to evalutate your possible distribution. Although I guess this is closely linked to how strong your RA requires unbalanced 2C to be and how literally any "game forcing" criterium is interpreted.

[Stephen Tu]

pescetom, on 2023-August-26, 15:31, said:

I was previously equally dismissal of the 2H "Red Flag" approach, whereby weak responder arbitrarily preempts opener with hearts or balanced in a Kokish scheme. But mikeh convinced me that a tightly defined negative of no A or K was playable and I recognised that it fits well with our system, heavily biased towards control-bids once a fit is established in a game forcing situation. Yes it interferes with Kokish in terms of precise HCP definition of "balanced" hands, but opposite a responder with no A or K (and possibly a complete bust) two ranges of 2NT 22-24 and 3NT 25+ are probably sufficient. "Systems" over 3NT are undoubtedly very primitive, but quite likely to work all the same the one time a year it happens.

I just don't see hands where 2H bust creates a better result for your side. What sequences do you think you are winning on?

I don't use Kokish the way some people suggest to create these many precise 2 pt NT range ladders. I don't see the big win in that either. I thought originally the Kokish sequence you just put all the 25+ into the 2c-2d-2h-2s-2nt, and with say 28+ you just bid again over a game signoff. The main thing is give responder stayman and transfers over 25-27 without ever risking 4nt or 5M unnecessarily over this range.

2c-2d-3nt I just play as "I want to play 3nt", long suit, give up on slam when responder doesn't have a slam positive response, typically long minor and stoppers.

Quote

I struggle to see why 2C-2H-3H should be forcing opposite a thinking partner with a smattering of quacks and the capacity to evalutate your possible distribution. Although I guess this is closely linked to how strong your RA requires unbalanced 2C to be and how literally any "game forcing" criterium is interpreted.

What does opener do with a heart/club huge 2 suiter? responder might be sitting there with some 3145 hand, think his hand is worthless in hearts, yet you are cold for 6 clubs? Now one can do some special things like use 2c-2h-2S!-2nt!-3? as I think straube suggested to show a non-gf 1 suiter, 2S no longer showing spades, and be able to pass 3H that way. But without that, I don't see how responder can just pass 3H; opener though frequently is one suited hearts, isn't always.
I just want to see someone describe the wins for 2H bust vs. other approaches. I think using 2d neg, preserving Kokish, handles things better and you can still stop in 3H/3S if opener has a one-suiter and responder a bust.

[steve2005]

There is something called the Parish relay after 2♣-2♥ bust
2♠ is a puppet to 2N then 3 of suit is non-forcing
so 3 of suit by opener is forcing

article on can be found at
https://3nt.xyz/brid...ClubSystems.pdf

[DavidKok]

I think the cure is worse than the disease. A strong 2♣ opening comes with a laundry list of downsides. Trying to stop in 3-in-a-suit when it is right puts extra pressure on what little space remains for constructive sequences. I think it is much better to assign the space to choice of strain exploration and possibly slam exploration, and just shrug when we go off in game in what turned out to be a partscore hand. It is nice in theory to be able to cater to every hand opposite, but it's not like 2♣-2♥ (bust); 2♠ (puppet)-2NT (forced); 3♦ (NF natural)-? leaves responder in a perfect position to judge what is going on. You'll miss good games and bid on to bad ones even on that start, so the amount of points you're winning by having the relay is probably very small.
Instead assign bids to get to the best strain and to leave room for responder to make a positive slam try.

Lastly if the auction starts 2♣-2♥ and you wish to bid a NF 3♥ it is also worth considering passing.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-27, 01:58, said:

I think the cure is worse than the disease
...
Instead assign bids to get to the best strain and to leave room for responder to make a positive slam try.

That's what we do in my other partnerships, where 2♦ only denies a robust self-standing suit and all of opener's rebids except NT are game forcing.
That's also what most of the room is playing over here, so if we do stay out of a bad game it is a top.
My limited experience so far is that giving responder the chance to stay out of game or slam when he has no A or K pays off at MP.
I still have an open mind on whether or not it proves to be better than the disease in the long term (or at IMPs).
It's a very marginal gain in any case, I agree there are more glaring defects in most strong 2♣ openings to address.

DavidKok, on 2023-August-27, 01:58, said:

Lastly if the auction starts 2♣-2♥ and you wish to bid a NF 3♥ it is also worth considering passing.

Yes you do have the option of Pass too, although I find it hard to imagine a 2♣ opener that would rebid hearts yet has no chance of game opposite any hand without a K: Partner is still there and capable of evaluating his hand, which could have any quack you are missing and might have shapely fit or a decent minor (not strong enough to show initially).

[foobar]

I will go out on a limb and say that playing 2♥ as DN over 2♣ is a bad idea. It's much better to play 2♦ as waiting barring a positive response

Given the OP's restriction of being compelled to play 2♥ as DN, it probably makes most sense to play 2N as NF.

[straube]

I just looked at (idk) maybe a dozen hands of 22 opposite a 2H response and am inclined toward making the 2N bid forcing. 22 opposite 1 isn't great but is a narrow target to avoid. Picked up lots of superior major suit fits by making it forcing. Could see 2C-2H, 2N-transfer, acceptance being nf.

Curious if anyone can run their own sim and weigh in on what they are seeing. Atul was with me when I looked at hands and we were seeing the same thing.

[nullve]

I'm tired of explaining why a standard strong 2♣ opening can be treated as highly limited*, perhaps even more limited than a Precision 1M opening, and that any form of double negative that is still forcing to game is therfore almost certainly a waste of bidding space.

* Hint:

Spoiler

Dealer code:

shape(north, 5143)
action frequency(hcp(north),22,37)

One run:

Frequency :
Low	   53807
   22	     116
   23	      58
   24	      24
   25	      12
   26	       6
   27	       2
   28	       0
   29	       0
   30	       0
   31	       0
   32	       0
   33	       0
   34	       0
   35	       0
   36	       0
   37	       0
Generated 10000000 hands
Produced 54025 hands
Initial random seed 1693162200
Time needed   10.170 sec

[pescetom]

straube, on 2023-August-27, 12:30, said:

I just looked at (idk) maybe a dozen hands of 22 opposite a 2H response and am inclined toward making the 2N bid forcing. 22 opposite 1 isn't great but is a narrow target to avoid. Picked up lots of superior major suit fits by making it forcing. Could see 2C-2H, 2N-transfer, acceptance being nf.

It's not clear what 2H red flag response you contemplate: denying a K or A as discussed here, or a more traditional definition (some maximum of HCP?) which you do not spell out.

Nor is it clear to me why the 2N rebid with a clear and narrow range should be forcing, if partner is still there (in other partnerships like many we play 2♣-2♦; 2NT as 22-23 NF when 2♦ could be a Yarborough and there is no 2H red flag).

[foobar]

nullve, on 2023-August-27, 13:11, said:

I'm tired of explaining why a standard strong 2♣ opening can be treated as highly limited*, perhaps even more limited than a Precision 1M opening, and that any form of double negative that is still forcing to game is therfore almost certainly a waste of bidding space.

* Hint:

Spoiler

Dealer code:

shape(north, 5143)
action frequency(hcp(north),22,37)

One run:

Frequency :
Low	   53807
   22	     116
   23	      58
   24	      24
   25	      12
   26	       6
   27	       2
   28	       0
   29	       0
   30	       0
   31	       0
   32	       0
   33	       0
   34	       0
   35	       0
   36	       0
   37	       0
Generated 10000000 hands
Produced 54025 hands
Initial random seed 1693162200
Time needed   10.170 sec

In addition to the above, this illustrates the wastefulness of the 2♣ - 2♥ (DN) convention by constraining dealer to exactly 22 HCPs. The 0/1 point (6%) hands that ostensibly want to land on a dime are dwarfed by the rest of the hands that likely want to be in game.

condition hcp(north) == 22
action frequency(hcp(south),0,18)

Frequency :
0 466
1 888
2 1304
3 1901
4 2416
5 2577
6 2621
7 2447
8 2129
9 1606
10 1171
11 690
12 431
13 232
14 112
15 48
16 11
17 6
18 0

[mycroft]

I don't understand why anyone would not allow Pass.

"There's usually a better place". Sure there are frequently - maybe more frequently that most think - better places to play, but responder (who actually can see their hand, oddly enough) is allowed to think. NF != to play.

Maybe making it forcing for an afternoon at the bidding table, to drive out the "I only have 2 jacks, let's pass and hope" in favour of "try anything" attitude into something closer to what works IRL would be good. But provided 2NT is itself limited, let responder use her eyes and brain.

[straube]

The rationale would be that 2C is very preemptive to begin with and 2C-2H negative is even more preemptive. Those who play 2C-2H think that having 2C-2D promise a King or better is on balance worth having that 2C-2H immediate negative. So after 2C-2H we have to do the best we can.

Granted that most of opener's balanced hands are 22 but we have a problem finding the best strain when opener has 24+. Leaping to 3N with both 9 tricks and stoppers vs 24+ balanced is not ideal.

So the question is whether rebidding 2N as forcing will have enough wins when you combine the hands that DO want to force game and find the best strain with those hands that DON'T want to force game but could wind up making game anyway, perhaps in a better strain than NT. There's also a small percentage that could break even after 2C-2H, 2N-transfer, acceptance with a 2-fit or very minimum 3-fit.

So it's polling unanimously for making 2C-2H, 2N as nf but I disagree that it's a stupid question to ask. Personally I think one has to slog through a bunch of hands (many more than I've done) to ferret out whether the 2N rebid has more wins as forcing or not.

[mycroft]

I can see that, yes. What you're saying is "make 2NT unlimited". But now you have issues with "default NT bidding" which requires a limited hand.

I transfer to my 5-to-the-Q and out. If that's NF, then partner has to break the transfer with any 24+. But if I decide not to do that, and partner bids game, and I have 25, now what?

I play Birthright/Kokish Relay, and yeah, that means I can't play 2♥ U-N, whether it's "no controls" or "no cards". Well, I can, but it changes the hands we're trying to handle - now it's "game or slam", not "22 or 25 vs a jack".

I am willing to have poor, "hope it's good enough" auctions with truly huge hands. They don't come up enough. I'd rather have good, careful auctions with the less uncommon hands. if I was really concerned about this, I'd switch to a strong club system that doesn't, as you say, preempt myself so much.

(heh, I had one this weekend I've never had before. "So, I'll open 2NT on this flat 20 in third seat. Oh, RHO is reaching into the box. Unfortunate, what's the preeempt? 1♣? *Precision*?")