[32519]

What do others recommend as a continuation structure over the strong 2♣ opener? 2♦ by responder as the first bid is considered mandatory by some. Yet even here opinions differ. Some use 2♦ promising 4-7 HCP, while with others it says absolutely nothing. Just a relay for opener to show his real suit or hand strength.

Then we get step responses or control showing responses etc. Others use 2♥ as the so-called "double-negative," showing 0-3 HCP.

Help will be appreciated to incorporate a more effective continuation structure into my own system agreements.

[32519]

Another question: Does anyone actually play Albarran? What are your experiences with it for those who have tried it and then dumped it in favour of something else?

[TylerE]

I don't think it matters that much, except that I think that "point steps" are strictly inferior. I've played the others in various partnerships, and don't have strong feelings.

[32519]

What about the those who use the cheapest minor suit bid as the 2nd negative? How effective is this?

I am looking for a more effective continuation structure, that which has stood the test of time (or the test at the table).

[Codo]

I played Albarran several years ago, but it was so condemned that I have to stop. I have mixed emotions with this bid: If you hold a strong one suiter, Albarran is perfect. With a two suiter, it can work quite well, but opposite a strong NT, it usually just consumes too much space.

We play that 2 ♣ includes all hands which are as strong as an ACOL two, so our structure will not help you.

When playing just strong 2 ♣ openings, I liked something like:
2 ♦ 4-7
2 ♥ 0-3
higher bids: transfers with 8+. With 5332 you transfer to NT first. Partner accepts the transfer with any kind of fit or bids his suit.

[GreenMan]

 32519, on 2013-May-27, 23:54, said:

What about the those who use the cheapest minor suit bid as the 2nd negative? How effective is this?

I dumped this because it seemed as if we were getting too many auctions of 2♣-2♦; 3♦, with no good options for responder to show the second negative. I've played 2♥ double negative as well as control steps, and each seems playable. If I had more time for the game these days I'd give Codo's suggestion a try.

Lots of good players use Kokish over 2♣, so I'd look into that as well.

[TylerE]

I don't much like point ranges, as on 2♣ auctions imo A > K >> Q >> J = T

[32519]

 Codo, on 2013-May-28, 00:21, said:

When playing just strong 2 ♣ openings, I liked something like:
2 ♦ 4-7
2 ♥ 0-3
higher bids: transfers with 8+. With 5332 you transfer to NT first. Partner accepts the transfer with any kind of fit or bids his suit.

By bidding this way, how often does the transfer bid (one below your suit) turn out to be partner's actual suit? Now the weaker hand potentially becomes the declarer?

[Codo]

This may be a problem, but this will happen in any given system with any given bid. Assume you play strong club and have a GF with diamonds in your hand...

And the transfer approach will rightside the contract more often then not, because it will work whenever opener has a one-suiter in another suit or a NTish hand or a hand he had shown as one suiter but has a good fit for partners hand, like a 6331 or similar.

[Zelandakh]

With a previous partner, I played (their idea) responses of 2♦ = positive; 2♥ = negative; 2♠ = semi-positive bal or 4441; 2NT-3♥ = semi-positive transfer. That actually worked quite well in practise, although I would have preferred to take the bal/4441 hands away from 2♠ and put them in 2♦, with 2♠ now being a natural semi-positive. The method is essentially the same as Roland's except that the positives and semi-positives are reversed.

However you play your responses, I do recommend using the sequence 2♣ - 2♦; 3M to show a 4 card major and longer diamonds.

[32519]

I have another question which I often hear players arguiing about.
The 2♣ opening bid is forcing to what?
1. Game?
2. 3 of a major?
3. 4 of a minor?
4. None of the above?

[Zelandakh]

Traditionally 4. None of the above. It is forcing to 2NT, since balanced 23s are included here. If you play 2♥ as a bust and choose to include Acol 2 hands with hearts, then you can make the response non-forcing, so the opening is forcing only to 2♥. You can also bundle a weak 2 in diamonds; in that case you are only forcing to 2♦.

[32519]

Come on guys, don't give up on me just yet; the auction is not yet over! Codo's methods got the nod so let's develop that further.
So now we have this auction -
2♣ [22+ HCP]
2♥ [0-3 HCP - double negative]
2NT [22-23 HCP balanced]

From here 3♦ and 3♥ is simple enough as a transfer bid. But what about 3♣? What type of hand would that typically promise? Garbage Stayman? 2-3 HCP willing to punt 3NT?

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2013-May-28, 04:09, said:

But what about 3♣?

Choose between Stayman and Puppet Stayman. Bid it when you think you will improve the contract by doing so.

[32519]

What do you do with an unbalanced hand, long in either minor and 0-3 HCP? As responder you can see a disaster waiting to happen with a totally useless hand unless your long suit is trumps (say at least a 5-card suit, but a 6-card suit better to improve the result).

[mikeh]

 32519, on 2013-May-28, 02:50, said:

I have another question which I often hear players arguiing about.
The 2♣ opening bid is forcing to what?
1. Game?
2. 3 of a major?
3. 4 of a minor?
4. None of the above?

I play the 2 heart immediate second negative, but not as 0-3, which I think is technically flawed, and confuses high card count with working values. A stray Q or J or two may be completely irrelevant opposite a suit-based 2 club opening but an A or K will usually have value opposite all2 club bids. my 2 hearts denies an A or K, and I think this is far more common than simply 0-3.

As for how far 2 clubs is forcing it is for me forcing to 2N, 3 spades or 4 of the other suits. It needs to force beyond 3 hearts a to cater to the admittedly rare powerhouse 2 suited with hearts and another, where opener needs to have 2 chances to bid over the 2 heart response.

[mikl_plkcc]

A traditional 2♣ opening is forcing to 3 of a major, unless the sequence is 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT, which can be passed.

A traditional suit response requires about 8 points and a good suit. I think this is good enough for slam investigation. I encountered a case holding ♠AJxx and partner responding 2♠, then I could immediately know that the suit was solid, and bid 4NT for aces.

Here are the pros and cons of various systems:

• Traditional
  The good point is the ability of finding the partner's good suit if any, the bad point is that the 2♦ waiting response shows nothing about the strength except not having a good suit to bid, and the inability to stop at the 2-level holding absolutely nothing.
  
• 2♥ immediate negative
  The good point is the ability to stop at 2♠ immediately when holding absolutely nothing, the bad point is losing the natural 2♥ response.
  
• cheapest minor negative
  I can't think of any good points of this because the time responder showing absolutely nothing, the auction is already at the 3-level.
  
• HCPs responses
  The good point is the ability of knowing the combined HCPs of the partnership, which is helpful for deciding how many NT to go, the bad point is that the HCP count is mostly useless in a suit contract.
  
• controls responses
  The good point is knowing how much As and Ks in the partnership immediately, which is helpful for whether to go for a slam, the bad point is that the Qs and Js are ignored, which, if responder has little values, makes deciding whether to go game or not difficult.

[mikeh]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2013-May-28, 06:30, said:

A traditional 2♣ opening is forcing to 3 of a major, unless the sequence is 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT, which can be passed.

A traditional suit response requires about 8 points and a good suit. I think this is good enough for slam investigation. I encountered a case holding ♠AJxx and partner responding 2♠, then I could immediately know that the suit was solid, and bid 4NT for aces.

Here are the pros and cons of various systems:

• Traditional
  The good point is the ability of finding the partner's good suit if any, the bad point is that the 2♦ waiting response shows nothing about the strength except not having a good suit to bid, and the inability to stop at the 2-level holding absolutely nothing.
  
• 2♥ immediate negative
  The good point is the ability to stop at 2♠ immediately when holding absolutely nothing, the bad point is losing the natural 2♥ response.
  
• cheapest minor negative
  I can't think of any good points of this because the time responder showing absolutely nothing, the auction is already at the 3-level.
  
• HCPs responses
  The good point is the ability of knowing the combined HCPs of the partnership, which is helpful for deciding how many NT to go, the bad point is that the HCP count is mostly useless in a suit contract.
  
• controls responses
  The good point is knowing how much As and Ks in the partnership immediately, which is helpful for whether to go for a slam, the bad point is that the Qs and Js are ignored, which, if responder has little values, makes deciding whether to go game or not difficult.

I agree with some of what you wrote, but points 1 and 2 are IMO incorrect. For one thing, few, if any, good players allow responder to pass a 2 spade rebid after a 2 heart (or 2 diamond) response.

In addition, the main benefit to 2 diamonds being waiting is unrelated to the inferences available from a positive suit response: it arises from the conservation of bidding space that permits the strong hand to describe itself.

I also think your last point is wrong. Control showing methods a all about slam bidding, not game bidding, and responder, with some queens and jacks, can readily bid game. I don2't like control showing responses because they take too long to identify fit, but it has nothing to do its missing games.

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2013-May-28, 04:58, said:

What do you do with an unbalanced hand, long in either minor and 0-3 HCP? As responder you can see a disaster waiting to happen with a totally useless hand unless your long suit is trumps (say at least a 5-card suit, but a 6-card suit better to improve the result).

With long diamonds and major suit fragments you can bid 3♣ and pass. If you think that 5m will play better than 2NT you can transfer into the minor. After a negative response you might also choose to allow a get-out in 4m within the follow-ups; over an unlimited response this would obviously be a waste of bidding space.

To Mike, I do not see any problem in having point-based guidelines for the ranges. It is not like you cannot make evaluation adjustments on these, any more than saying 11 to open or whatever. For example, you might have a designated range of 0-3 but treat QQ, QJJ and JJJJ as 3 points for this purpose.

[TylerE]

Much better to just define the bid as what it actually means e,g, A or K+/no A or K.