[jillybean]

---

2/1
no bergen
nebulous 2♣

[DavidKok]

2♣, intending to bid spades next round. If we're lucky I get to bid it at the 2-level, which is always nice.

As a side note, I think it is standard to also bid that way with a strong 3=4=4=2 type hand, as well as a host of other balanced hands with 3 spades. This sequence therefore does not promise club length.

[mike777]

Nebulous 2C it is
Welcome to the modern world


Now opener can even rebid a nebulous 2S

Or at some point bid a nebulous 3NT
😉

[jillybean]

---

off to the right start, it wouldn't be a post if North had left us room
3♠ will be 6

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2026-June-28, 16:39, said:

---

off to the right start, it wouldn't be a post if North had left us room
3♠ will be 6

I am not fooling around and confusing my partners with splinters or control bids now.

Just hope they don't take it as quantitative 🙈


4NT

[DavidKok]

4♥, a good spade raise.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2026-June-28, 22:52, said:

4♥, a good spade raise.

That was my first choice as well. I’m assuming that you are not intending to pass a 4S call.

Btw, a comment at large…even if one’s plan is to keycard over 4S (rather than 5C)…..it’s worth bidding 4H because, once in a while, partner will bid something else which may lead to finding a good grand.

So the options seems to be 4N or 5C….hoping for 5D then 5H

[pescetom]

How do those contributing here play Opener's Pass and Double calls over 3♥?

[DavidKok]

Pass: catchall, nothing to say. Can be strong and waiting, or even a trap pass.
Double: takeout, short hearts and the hand isn't extreme enough to unilaterally bid.

Initially I was taught "pass = waiting, double = penalty, shortage = bid something" but I find this wasteful. It requires taking action too often, the penalty double is very rare, and it creates ambiguous situations.

[jillybean]

---

4H would have been better but I still think we are destined for 6

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2026-June-29, 04:18, said:

Pass: catchall, nothing to say. Can be strong and waiting, or even a trap pass.
Double: takeout, short hearts and the hand isn't extreme enough to unilaterally bid.

Initially I was taught "pass = waiting, double = penalty, shortage = bid something" but I find this wasteful. It requires taking action too often, the penalty double is very rare, and it creates ambiguous situations.

Thanks. I was taught the same and made the same migration.

In a situation like this I stretch to bid Pass with a wide range of hands, to give Responder the chance to bid 3♠ keeping the auction low and soundly on the rails.

I was wondering if anyone plays Pass/X more specifically about the major suit here, say:
Pass = need 3 card support
X = only need 2 card support
3♠ = imposes trumps, requests control bid.

[WasWinM]

One of the more ridiculous ideas to dumb down 2/1 is the nebulous 2C bid when there is a perfectly fine alternative. Bergen raise. What? You say.
With Bergen, the 3C bid can be used as a 2-way bid with 3D the relay/ask.

A big benefit of 2/1 is to find double fits early with lots of room for slam exploration. Silly, IMO, to give that up to the god of nebulous bidding.

[jillybean]

WasWinM, on 2026-June-29, 13:47, said:

One of the more ridiculous ideas to dumb down 2/1 is the nebulous 2C bid when there is a perfectly fine alternative. Bergen raise. What? You say.
With Bergen, the 3C bid can be used as a 2-way bid with 3D the relay/ask.

A big benefit of 2/1 is to find double fits early with lots of room for slam exploration. Silly, IMO, to give that up to the god of nebulous bidding.

I haven't completely given up on Marty, it just wasn't available in this partnership.

I'm not sure how the Neb2C hinders finding these double fits, I have one of 3 hands types. The most common is a 3 card gf raise in partners major or I have a balanced hand with the 6 card club suit the third. If partner is 2 - suited he will bid his suitover 2C

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-June-29, 16:52, said:

I haven't completely given up on Marty, it just wasn't available in this partnership.

I'm not sure how the Neb2C hinders finding these double fits, I have one of 3 hands types. The most common is a 3 card gf raise in partners major or I have a balanced hand with the 6 card club suit the third.

And which possible double fit are we talking about missing in this auction (3H jump aside)?

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-June-29, 16:52, said:

I haven't completely given up on Marty, it just wasn't available in this partnership.

I'm not sure how the Neb2C hinders finding these double fits, I have one of 3 hands types. The most common is a 3 card gf raise in partners major or I have a balanced hand with the 6 card club suit the third. If partner is 2 - suited he will bid his suitover 2C

You open 1S. I bid 2C with clubs. You look at your hand and see Kxx of clubs. No matter what you do with a nebulous 2C, it is going to be more difficult than this to know we have a club fit. Especially true when you incorporate 100% forcing NT for your 3-card support hands without a 5-card suit, but that's a whole different discussion.

[mikeh]

WasWinM, on 2026-July-01, 21:00, said:

You open 1S. I bid 2C with clubs. You look at your hand and see Kxx of clubs. No matter what you do with a nebulous 2C, it is going to be more difficult than this to know we have a club fit. Especially true when you incorporate 100% forcing NT for your 3-card support hands without a 5-card suit, but that's a whole different discussion.

I think you are in an ever diminishing minority with your dislike for the ‘nebulous’ 2C bid. These days, if I sat down with a NA expert…a real expert….I’d expect 1S 2C to promise 2+ clubs. Why?

Because it has long been expert standard in NA for a 2H response to promise 5+ hearts and, over the last decade or longer, it’s become increasingly standard for 2D to also promise 5.

And even for those few experts who have not adopted this, 2C as 3+ has been standard for as long as I’ve played bridge…which is a long time.

You argue that you lose definition in the club suit, and you are correct. However when 2C could be on a 3 card suit, and it’s been that way as far back as my memory and my collection of old bridge books and Bridge World extend, there wasn’t a lot of definition there anyway. Meanwhile the 2+ approach slightly lessens the dubious length info aboyput clubs but has the, imo, more than offsetting advantage of defining both 2D and 2H as 5+.

Note that one responds 2C on a doubleton only when precisely 3=4=4=2, so it’s rare and responder always has a fit for spades, such that one is rarely…I’d almost say never…playing in clubs anyway.

Things are slightly different over 1H. With 4=3=4=2 one can bid 1S…all good partnerships have easy ways to force to game after that start. So the only ‘problem’ hand is 3=3=4=3…hence 2C promise 3+.

Now, a lot of pairs these days play 1N as semiforcing which means they can’t risk 1N with a 3 card limit raise. A lot put that hand into 2C. Personally, I think most who do (based on an admittedly small sample) haven’t really thought it through. I’m not saying none have…I’m sure any expert partnership using these methods will have discussed the ramifications. Someone has been writing the method up in the ACBL Bulletin. I didn’t recognize his name so I don’t think he’s a top player and, at the risk of being unfair since he probably had space limits on how much he could write…and he was aiming at non experts….I was not at all impressed by his article.

There’s a huge amount of detail that needs to be agreed upon.

There are other methods. In my main partnership we briefly used 1H 2S as a 3 card LR. And I played a few boards with one of the top NA players a couple of weeks ago and he suggested 1M 3C as 4+ support, constricted limit, opener bidding 3D to ask. A direct 3D was the 3 card LR. That way one can play a semi forcing 1N.

My partner and I may experiment with putting the 3 card LR into 2C. We already use structure over this…2D simply denies 6+ major….and our 2M rebid is always a hand that would go to game opposite a LR so we dodge some of the issues that might arise otherwise. And we gain 1N as semi forcing, ironically adding definition to opener’s 2C bid. Opposite a forcing 1N, 2C is often played as 2+ and never as promising 4 or more. This makes it almost impossible to play in 2C and dangerous to raise to 3C without at least 5. When 1N isn’t forcing, 2C becomes a real suit!