[pilowsky]

Zelandakh, on 2021-January-03, 21:56, said:

Culbertson also had some rather colourful words to describe a strong, artificial 2♣ opening, Despite such criticism, it has grown to dominate the world's "natural" bidding systems.

I don't like it much either, although 2♣ does seem to mean forcing for at least one round in most situations.
What do you suggest as an alternative? There seems to be an entrenched dislike for Benjamin two's. What does one open with hands that look like these?:

• K&R (AK983 AJT43 A2 A) = 24.45 DK 22- or
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 A) = 23.20 DK = 20 or worse
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 2) = 19.80 DK = 16

These hands give newbies like me nightmares. Too big, wrong shape, very annoying.

[Stephen Tu]

pilowsky, on 2021-January-03, 23:57, said:

What do you suggest as an alternative? There seems to be an entrenched dislike for Benjamin two's. What does one open with hands that look like these?:

Just open 1 of a suit, 1S with your example hands. First hand might be an upper limit, a tad stronger 2♣ can be justified. Most of the time someone scrapes up a bid, and you are generally better off having started describing your suits a level lower, particularly if the opps bid a large # of a minor. Yes, occasionally it gets passed out, it turns out you had game in hearts but partner didn't bid with a near broke hand. If this bothers you, you can try some strong club systems that will find some of these, but come with their own set of problems on other hands.

Keep in mind your opponents are facing the same problems you are. If your 1S gets passed out and misses a heart game, *their* 1S is likely also missing that game. Or if they are going to open 2c light on these, they will probably get to some good heart games that you won't. But if they choose 2c, they will also force themselves to various hopeless 3nt/4M games when partner is broke and misfit, while you comfortably make 1S with an overtrick or two. Or their partner may not let them out short of slam after opening 2c, expecting them to have more, and ending up overboard. You just need to be profitable on a net basis.

[DavidKok]

pilowsky, on 2021-January-02, 14:13, said:

In this post, the question concerns the meaning of the alerted 3NT, but your advice about the opening bid is well-taken. Thank you.

pilowsky, on 2021-January-03, 23:57, said:

What do you suggest as an alternative? There seems to be an entrenched dislike for Benjamin two's. What does one open with hands that look like these?:

• K&R (AK983 AJT43 A2 A) = 24.45 DK 22- or
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 A) = 23.20 DK = 20 or worse
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 2) = 19.80 DK = 16

These hands give newbies like me nightmares. Too big, wrong shape, very annoying.

I was planning to not discuss general opening philosophy after that first remark, but here we go anyway.

It is a boring truism that no bridge system is perfect, and all have downsides. To the best of my knowledge historically bidding systems have set out to minimise the chance of missing a making game - this is for example why traditionally people opened with 13 points (since if neither player in a partnership has 13 or more points, the partnership has 24 at most and probably does not belong in game), and by choosing to respond with at least 6 (or 7 a century ago) this means that if we hold at least ~20 points we need a stronger bid, because partner may pass with 5 while game is on (and that's why we have a 20-22 or 20-21 2NT). You can immediately try to improve on this by including shape into your evaluations, or using some more accurate point count method than the Milton Work count.

However, I think it is much more important to acknowledge that the guiding thought in all this is at best a good approximation of what we want out of a bidding system. Bidding and making games is very important for a good IMP score, but not to the extent that all else should be sacrificed for it. Some other desiderata of a system include winning the partscore battle, investigating slams, putting pressure on the opponents and helping partner on defence by describing your hand or asking for a lead. While constructive game-going auctions are one of the most important aspects of most bidding systems, it is valuable to realise that with limited bidding space you, as the master of your bidding system, are trading some of your ability to achieve this particular goal against all the others. And in a world of decreasing return on investments it is good (percentage) bridge to at some point say "Stop, this is getting too constructive. If I miss a game every once in a blue moon so be it, but I'll be getting all those other goals in return so it will be a good trade-off."

All of the above applies to the extreme with strong shapely hands. If you open 2♣ you will certainly get to game if partner has an ace or so, but in return you are behind on all other goals by not bidding your suit(s). Cheeky opponents may even preempt your auction, leaving you with impossible guesses at the 3- or 4-level. Furthermore, by introducing your shape, instead of your strength, it is much easier for partner to take action in contested auctions. And if you are staring at a singleton or void the odds of the auction becoming contested are overwhelming, especially with aggressive bidders all around. This last point supports opening on the 1-level in a second way: if the opponents intervene then you will get to bid again, so game need not be missed. I've happily opened 1♦ on a 23-count and all was well (on that particular hand my LHO was kind enough to jump to 2♠).

In general I think informing partner of your hand shape should take priority over informing partner of your strength (within limits, but still). This argument is typically used by aggressive bidders who want to get in early and often, but it also applies to very strong hands. If you really have some 2-suited battleship of a hand you more than likely need all the bidding space available to inform partner that their two kings and out are priceless, but only if they are in the correct suits. On balance opening hands like that on the 1-level (and risking missing game) beats opening them with some artificial 2-level bid (and risking not having space to show your shape). This is part of the reason why I disagree with the solutions offered by blackshoe, Zelandakh and even mycroft's suggestion for a short list of possible agreements to capture hands like this. mycroft correctly points out that you should not stretch to use a 2♣ gadget, but I think it is wise to go even further and stretch to avoid it. On balance it is good to risk missing game if that means you get to show your shape at the 1-level. Most conventions introduced to solve this problem at the 2-level, including a wide set of response structures to a strong 2♣, are likely anti-percentage, and I prefer accepting that some hands are troublesome to bid over playing those conventions (and in return I get to play other methods at the 2-level).

[Zelandakh]

pilowsky, on 2021-January-03, 23:57, said:

What do you suggest as an alternative?

I have come up with a number of alternatives but they generally involve a level of artificiality that puts them beyond basic play. My top one uses the age-old solution of a strong, artificial 1♣ opening (18+ or 8PTs) meaning that #1 and #2 can open 1♣ and then rebid 2♠ (showing an Acol 2) while #3 just opens a pedestrian 1♠. The previous idea was 2-under transfer openings where #1 and #2 would open 1♦ and rebid 2♠ while #3 would open 1♦ and rebid 1♠ (assuming a 1♥ relay).

In natural methods, I have played Benji, Reverse Benji, 3 Weaks, Multi + Muiderberg and a few others a little more off the beaten track such as Culbertson's natural Strong Twos. All have their advantages and disadvantages. My current partner likes normal Benji so we do that. Even within the 2♣ field there are differences. If you want to include Acol 2M openings here, my view is that the best way is probably to use ParadoX responses. In all honesty though, most players simply overuse their strong openings so it makes sense to me to keep the minimum higher rather than lower. That's really the biggest issue I have with Benji, not "an entrenched dislike" of the method itself.

So my 2♣ structure is pretty simple - it is GF or balanced; 2♦ is a relay and an immediate 2♥ shows weakness; and 2♣ - 2♦; 3M shows 4M and longer diamonds. Easy. Everything else you open normally. The rare gains you get from adding a large amount of additional complexity here are generally not going to be worth it for typical club players.

[mycroft]

As you would expect, I agree with Stephen about those both-major 2-suiters - open them 1♠. If it gets passed out, it gets passed out. Frequently that's a good score, because the spades break badly and partner has no entry. Frequently it's a bad one, because partner has just enough (♥K. ♥Q might even be enough) to make game and the people who open 2♣ get there.

Like everything else in bridge, Perthing's Nofect. Anything you do in the auction will fail sometimes. But opening hands that are "well, if it doesn't go All Pass, I'm great" 2♣ just so it won't go all pass wins when it would and is way behind almost every other auction. Hands you would think about upgrading into 2♣ are hands where there's more material out there for someone to have a call over 1♠, so the lose case is less probable.

The current trend in North America is for some form of immediate double negative, whether it be point count steps (No! Do Not Use! not all 4-6 points are alike opposite a non-balanced 2♣ opener!), or control steps (better), or "2♦ GF, 2♥ immediate double negative, 2NT=hearts", or "2♦ 1+ controls, 2♥ no A or K" (but could be 12 high). As with everything else, there are advantages to this, and disadvantages, and it affects which hands should (not) be opened 2♣.

The current trend (I think) also is to avoid 2♣ for non-"1-bid" hands (big balanced or single-suited) if possible, even opening 25 high at the 1 level if the 2♣ auction would be ugly, hoping to survive. Similar to the minimum for "double-and-bid", especially with non-1-suiters, going up and up.

[barmar]

A popular response system over strong 2♣ openings is to play than 2♦ is a waiting bid, and responder can show a very weak hand by bidding the cheapest available minor suit on the 3 level on their next bid. So if opener rebids 2♥ or 2♠, responder bids 3♣ to show less than 4 points; if opener rebids 3♣, responder rebids 3♦ to show this. Any other rebid is natural and shows 4+ HCP.

A problem is obvious if opener rebids 3♦ -- there's no longer a cheaper minor available. In this case, 3NT takes the place of the cheaper minor. It's not an offer to play NT.

Also, none of this applies if opener rebids NT; responder knows the combined strength and becomes captain. They can use the same response structure as after a 2NT opening.

[barmar]

A popular response system over strong 2♣ openings is to play than 2♦ is a waiting bid, and responder can show a very weak hand by bidding the cheapest available minor suit on the 3 level on their next bid. So if opener rebids 2♥ or 2♠, responder bids 3♣ to show less than 4 points; if opener rebids 3♣, responder rebids 3♦ to show this. Any other rebid is natural and shows 4+ HCP.

A problem is obvious if opener rebids 3♦ -- there's no longer a cheaper minor available. In this case, 3NT takes the place of the cheaper minor. It's not an offer to play NT.

Also, none of this applies if opener rebids NT; responder knows the combined strength and becomes captain. They can use the same response structure as after a 2NT opening.

[morecharac]

pilowsky, on 2021-January-01, 21:34, said:

You get the hand below, counting winners and losers, you optimistically upgrade your hand to 2♣.
The following bidding takes place.
What does Norths bid mean in humanspeak? The word 'Cheaper' is the most confusing bit for me.

---

What a nonsensical agreement, almost as bad as upgrading that particular 19-point hand to 2♣. It's far better and more safely described with a 1♦ opener, assuming some variation on Standard American.

It's the first time I've heard cheaper minor over a 2♣ opener meaning something other than using second negative (2♣-2♦-2M-3♣ or 2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦) to indicate a bust hand.

I voted Pass because on the principle of Make It Partner's Fault.

[Douglas43]

Like Zelandakh I've played Acol twos and Benji in my time. I found Acol twos in the majors useful but never got on so well with them in the minors.

There is a considerable difference between making 10 tricks opposite a hand that would have passed a one-level opening and making 11 tricks.

Acol 2H and 2S, with the weak twos in a multi 2D is a good structure. With my regular partner I just play 3 weak twos, and that some 2C sequences are not GF: 2C-2D-2S-2NT-3S can be passed (2D and 2NT both being negatives)..
On the OPs hand, I would have opened 1D.

[barmar]

morecharac, on 2021-January-04, 14:59, said:

It's the first time I've heard cheaper minor over a 2♣ opener meaning something other than using second negative (2♣-2♦-2M-3♣ or 2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦) to indicate a bust hand.

That is what this means.

As I pointed out above: when there's no available minor suit to bid, 3NT takes its place as the 2nd negative.

[HardVector]

barmar, on 2021-January-06, 13:24, said:

That is what this means.

As I pointed out above: when there's no available minor suit to bid, 3NT takes its place as the 2nd negative.

Larry Cohen says that after 2♣-2♦-3♦ then 3♥ is the negative bid.
https://www.larryco....-opening-part-2

[barmar]

HardVector, on 2021-January-06, 13:51, said:

Larry Cohen says that after 2♣-2♦-3♦ then 3♥ is the negative bid.
https://www.larryco....-opening-part-2

When I've played that, I call it "cheapest 3 bid = 2nd negative". I think Larry confuses things by calling it "cheaper minor" when it's not always a minor.

Of course, that's also true when 3NT is the 2nd negative. But names of bridge conventions aren't always logical. E.g. when you play 2-way New Minor Forcing, one of your minor rebids will usually not be "new". And Unusual 2NT is common, it hasn't been unusual for generations.

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2021-January-06, 13:24, said:

That is what this means.

As I pointed out above: when there's no available minor suit to bid, 3NT takes its place as the 2nd negative.

Thanks Barry. 👍
Isn't it more usual for a negative bid to be one level up from the previous bid in a forcing auction?
eg 1(major) - P - 1NT (I have points but no support for your Trump) - - I vote for the other guy.
or 2(diamonds multi) - P - 2♥
...and so on.

[Stephen Tu]

HardVector, on 2021-January-06, 13:51, said:

Larry Cohen says that after 2♣-2♦-3♦ then 3♥ is the negative bid.
https://www.larryco....-opening-part-2

I suppose that's *a* way to play, but I think it's terrible. Surely it's better to use 3H/3S there to find a potential major fit? You were constrained from bidding 2H/2S earlier from lack of positive values or sometimes suit quality depending on agreements. I want to be able to bid hearts to show hearts. And with spades I want to be able to show length there even if I'm broke, may 4s makes when partner has a fit. Can't show spades below 3nt if you have to bid 3H first.

If you are going to show a 2c-...-3d hand, IMO it's best to just be game forced, and not have any double negatives. If responder is broke, oh well, don't contrive schemes to stop in exactly 4D. If you are uncomfortable with that open 1d.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2021-January-06, 14:16, said:

When I've played that, I call it "cheapest 3 bid = 2nd negative". I think Larry confuses things by calling it "cheaper minor" when it's not always a minor.

Of course, that's also true when 3NT is the 2nd negative. But names of bridge conventions aren't always logical. E.g. when you play 2-way New Minor Forcing, one of your minor rebids will usually not be "new". And Unusual 2NT is common, it hasn't been unusual for generations.

Not to mention various "Law"s. Agree with all your comments, dislike either 3♥ or 3NT as a negative for the reasons spelt out by StephenT above.

[HardVector]

Stephen Tu, on 2021-January-06, 14:25, said:

I suppose that's *a* way to play, but I think it's terrible. Surely it's better to use 3H/3S there to find a potential major fit? You were constrained from bidding 2H/2S earlier from lack of positive values or sometimes suit quality depending on agreements. I want to be able to bid hearts to show hearts. And with spades I want to be able to show length there even if I'm broke, may 4s makes when partner has a fit. Can't show spades below 3nt if you have to bid 3H first.

If you are going to show a 2c-...-3d hand, IMO it's best to just be game forced, and not have any double negatives. If responder is broke, oh well, don't contrive schemes to stop in exactly 4D. If you are uncomfortable with that open 1d.

I kind of agree with that, but I'm not going to argue with Larry on it. I'm sure he is more in touch with what is standard than I am. I personally prefer to use 3n for the trash bid so that 3h/3s can show suits, but I also insist that if partner opens 2c then bids 3m they have 9 1/2 tricks in their hand.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2021-January-04, 11:29, said:

A popular response system over strong 2♣ openings is to play than 2♦ is a waiting bid, and responder can show a very weak hand by bidding the cheapest available minor suit on the 3 level on their next bid. So if opener rebids 2♥ or 2♠, responder bids 3♣ to show less than 4 points; if opener rebids 3♣, responder rebids 3♦ to show this. Any other rebid is natural and shows 4+ HCP.

A problem is obvious if opener rebids 3♦ -- there's no longer a cheaper minor available. In this case, 3NT takes the place of the cheaper minor. It's not an offer to play NT.

There is a cheaper minor available, and that is 4♣. But that bypasses 3NT and 3NT may be the last makeable contract. So the programmer implemented 3NT as the double negative bid for better or worse. That makes opening 2♣ with a long diamond suit a bad idea unless you can, or nearly can, make 3NT in your own hand, or playing in diamonds when you are going to guessing at what level.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2021-January-07, 02:07, said:

There is a cheaper minor available, and that is 4♣. But that bypasses 3NT and 3NT may be the last makeable contract. So the programmer implemented 3NT as the double negative bid for better or worse. That makes opening 2♣ with a long diamond suit a bad idea unless you can, or nearly can, make 3NT in your own hand, or playing in diamonds when you are going to guessing at what level.

I don't think this came from the mind of the GIB programmer. I'm pretty sure I heard it decades ago as the usual way that cheaper minor is played, and we adopted it into the GIB system for that reason.

As others have pointed out, cheaper minor is not really a great convention to begin with. But it's very common among the hoi polloi, and most decisions about GIB conventions were based on what would be familiar to average duplicate players, not advanced and expert players (except perhaps for the choice of using 2/1 Game Forcing as the basic system).

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2021-January-07, 11:25, said:

As others have pointed out, cheaper minor is not really a great convention to begin with. But it's very common among the hoi polloi, and most decisions about GIB conventions were based on what would be familiar to average duplicate players, not advanced and expert players (except perhaps for the choice of using 2/1 Game Forcing as the basic system).

So Two-way game tries, Sandwich 1NT, Soloway Jump Shifts, 3♣ as transfer to diamonds and other 3-level responses to 1NT as splinter were concessions to the hoi polloi rather than a deliberate choice to torture future generations?

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2021-January-08, 16:04, said:

So Two-way game tries, Sandwich 1NT, Soloway Jump Shifts, 3♣ as transfer to diamonds and other 3-level responses to 1NT as splinter were concessions to the hoi polloi rather than a deliberate choice to torture future generations?

That's just a side benefit.