[ManxieRuth]

I've just listened to a YouTube clip taken by Dr Sternberg where he explains his responses to 2C. So Ace = 2 and King = 1. 2D is 1 or 0 controls; 2H is 2 controls - 1 Ace or 2 Kings and 2S is 3 Controls - 1 Ace and 1 King or 3 Kings. I'm just wondering how much this system is used and if it used, how people find it? I play Acol with my partner at my local club. What I am of course, trying to determine, is whether it would be a good convention for my partner and me to adopt.

[TylerE]

I dunno about ACOL land, but I've seen that here in the US.

I have rarely seen it actually help.

It seems to played mostly by the type of players who think people are impressed by the amount of writing on their convention card.

[helene_t]

I think this depends on your 2♣ opening style.

My dad played something like this but it was in the context of a system in which usually only 1-suited and balanced hands would open 2♣, as very strong 2-suited and 3-suited hands would usually open a minor which partner would almost never pass. So unless opener is 5-5 in the major he hasn't much to show in terms of shape and just wants to know if partner has the missing pieces for slam.

But in a system where most 20+ hands open 2♣ regardless of shape, I think you need to respond 2♦ with most hands to give opener space to show two suits below 3NT. And also allow responder to show suit worth talking about while there's still bidding space.

Of course, if responder has two controls you can probably afford to force to at least 4♥, but it's still awkward if for example it starts
2♣-2♥(2 ctrls)
3♥-4♦
5♣ -(and now we are at the 5-level and haven't found our fit yet).

The waiting 2♦ bid is also a bit problematic, since after for example
2♣-2♦
3♦-3♠
it is not really clear what 3♠ is showing. Maybe a decent hands with values in spades but only 4 cards so not enough to bid it straight away. Or maybe a very weak hand with six spades. Or .....

Maybe we could settle for a compromise like:
2♦=0-1 ctrls
2♥=2+ ctrls, no suit to show
2♠=2+ ctrls, 5+ hearts with at least the king in the suit
2NT=2+ ctrls, 5+ spades with at least the king in the suit
3♣=2+ ctrls, 6+ diamonds with at least the king in the suit

Or something like that. Maybe I shouldn't make up stuff like this and post it before I work out the details but hey now I did it anyway.

[smerriman]

Haven't played it myself, and perhaps something has changed in the last 5 years, but if Kit Woolsey strongly recommends it, it's hard to argue..

[Stephen Tu]

I personally don't like it, as it interferes with showing suits. Good suit fits can produce multiple length tricks; aces/kings are important but most people have adequate methods of showing those later in the auction (cue bidding + rkc variants). I haven't really seen good demonstration of hands that can be bid by control showing where an alternate auction querying for controls later doesn't also work. The control advocates like to trot out auctions where opener can like bid their slam on round 2 knowing immediately the controls partner has and having a self-sufficient one-suiter, but you don't get bonus points for bidding contracts in fewer rounds.

I'd rather do something like:
2c-?
2D = 2- controls
2H = 3+ controls
2S/2nt/3c/3d - suits,
perhaps counting Qs as half a control. (With my partners I usu have 2H = 5+ 3/2/1 pts, A = 3 K=2 Q=1).

[Zelandakh]

CAB responses were a pretty big thing at one time in Acolland. Sadly that time was the 1950s and bidding theory has moved on a little in the intervening time. This version appears to be based on control points, also known as relay points or AK points. These work quite well in systems where one hand gets to show their entire distribution but suffers from the same issue as CAB and its variants after a strong, artificial 2♣ opening, namely the already congested bidding space is further compressed. Much experimentation by thousands of expert pairs has shown that Responder does best to stay out of Opener's way as much as possible unless having specific holdings that they can show more efficiently directly. I would suggest following this conventional wisdom until you have a regular partner who wants to try such an approach out and having fun for you both is more important than good results.

[mycroft]

Control responses work. Are they worth learning? If enough people you play with, or want to, play them, then yes.

As others say, they're better the more often your 2♣ openers are one-suited or balanced, where opener can place cards in their hand and know how many tricks they have. Otherwise it frequently takes too much space.

What I always played when I played this (but it's been 20 years) was

• ...
  
• 2♠ A + K
  
• 2NT K + K + K
  
• 3♣ 4+ controls, forcing to 4NT.

Responder to 2♣ never wants to declare NT, but "three kings not led through" is a pretty good reason.

Last thing, though: if you're worrying about your responses to 2♣, you either are a *much* better card-holder than me, or you bid 2♣ on a lot of hands you really shouldn't, or the rest of your system must be rock-solid, or you shouldn't worry about that and work on things that come up more often than a mortgage payment.

[jillybean]

I played controls / 2♣ for a short while. I found we got too high, too quickly and it was unclear to partner what cards responder held.

I have gone back to the very simple 2♥/2♣ showing a "bust", no Ace or King.
2♦/2♣ "waiting" - I find it most useful to stay "out of the way" of the 2♣ bidder and let partner describe their hand.
I very rarely use any "positive" bid over 2♣

[Douglas43]

Hi Ruth, good point from Zelandakh about CAB. I've got a copy of "The Quintessence of CAB" somewhere. Blue Club used to have control-showing responses too over its strong 1♣

Control-showing would help to rule out bad slams early, but hands with a void (or even a singleton) can present a challenge. Consider this hand (deliberately extreme example):
♠ AKQJ1098
♥ QJ109
♦ void
♣ AK

You open 2♣ and partner shows an Ace and a King. If they are both in hearts, you have an excellent 7♠. If one is in hearts, you have a small slam. And if they are in diamonds, you need to stop in game. So, still plenty of work to do before the information helps you.

[ManxieRuth]

Thanks very much for all your replies. We're sticking to the standard 2C responses for now.

[PrecisionL]

I have a partner who plays the following with good results:

2♦ = 0-5 hcp 0-1 control
2♥ = 6+ hcp 0-1 control
2♠ = 2 controls
2NT = 3 controls (3Ks)
3♣ = 3 controls A+K
3♦ = 4 controls
3♥ = 5 controls

This year we have had each of these responses occur with no problem deciding upon the final contract.

Unknown is Richard Pavlick's Scheme:

Call ........... Meaning
2 ♦..........0-4 HCP (no ace) or 8+ HCP or A+K
2 ♥ .........5-7 HCP or an ace (no A+K)
2 ♠..........any 5 card suit, 2 of top 3
2 NT........any 5 card suit, A-K-Q
3 suit.......6 cards, 2 of top 3
3 NT.........any 6 card suit, A-K-Q
4 suit.........7 cards, 2 of top 3
4 NT..........any 7 card suit, A-K-Q

http://www.rpbridge.net/7g72.htm

[jillybean]

ManxieRuth, on 2021-March-17, 05:01, said:

Thanks very much for all your replies. We're sticking to the standard 2C responses for now.

I think that's smart