[mikeh]

Not much to add to some interesting points, especially the idea of reversing responder's 2♠ and 2N over 2♥. I'm not sure if that is optimal, because I'd want to think of the costs....thus we lose the ability for opener to rebid 2N, as some form of artificial call, over a natural trump-setting 2♠ if we used 2♠ to show 3+ trump (which I don't do unless partner likes it that way....Hx is enough for me on some ugly hand types).

In any event, we are rarely going to have that inversion unless we are playing with a very regular partner, and i think the OP was couched in terms of a somewhat generic expert 2/1 method.

One point that I want to stress is that I truly believe that responder should NOT bid 3♣ over 2♥ on the vast majority of 5=4/6=4 minor hands even if one wanted to define that call as natural. Personally, I think it is best used as a 'stall'...a classic would be xx KJx AKJxx Jxx....but it could also include a minor suit hand that was willing to commit beyond 3N if partner were to bid 3N over it.

Consider opener's 5=4=0=4, and while that is a low frequency shape, it does happen and is a difficult shape to bid. Indeed, it is impossible unless you play this as natural and permit it within the 3♣ rebid over 2N. The only question, to me, is under what circumstances, if any, do we bid 3♣ on some 5413....and why

While the differences may be subtle, it seems to me that the auction will usually time out better if responder bids 2N with all minimum to medium range 5=4/6=4 minor hands.

Those hands will rarely be interested in a minor suit contract unless opener shows 4clubs or a strong liking for diamonds.

Bid 3♣, and opener's 3♦ is a mere preference. Bid 2N and opener's 3♦ is a strong statement.....whether it should be 3=1 or could be, as here, Hx xx is a matter of style more than anything....I'd tend to bid 3♦ on the given hand, since my partner could well have 6 diamonds for 2N.

I agree with Justin that opener rebidding 3♣ over 2N on a 5413 minimum is wrong....why not just bid 3N with that?

[gnasher]

I'm going to abstain on the main question, because this:

han, on 2012-May-30, 05:27, said:

3C by partner would have been natural

is just too alien to me. (But at least I did read it.)

On the question of the right contract when opener is 5404 and responder has four clubs, I think it will quite often be right to play in 5♣, especially when responder has a singleton spade. This is the sort of layout:

---

The hands where it's right to play in the suit fit are fairly easy to identify - they're the ones where you have empty suits and lots of aces.

[jogs]

han, on 2012-May-30, 05:27, said:

This is not a real hand, there's no form of scoring or vulnerability.

AQJxx
Kxxx
Kx
xx

1S - 2D
2H - 2NT
??

2D is 100% GF, 2S by partner would have promised 3-card support and 3C by partner would have been natural. Your call?

What's 2NT?

1S - 2D
2H - 3NT
??

What would 3NT be?

[Fluffy]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-30, 10:44, said:

Whats wrong with bidding 3D with this?

Pinpoints a club singleton and partner will have a tough time figuring this out.

[MrAce]

Han, i am so glad you brought this one up bro, i was about to make a whole new topic about this if you didnt.

Me and Tez were practicing in pdship bidding table (and you may have to play with him too if needs to be, but unlikely) he thought this (we had exactly the same auction) 3♦ here shows 3 card [dia] and club shortness. He then bid 4♣ telling me he has no wasted values in my shortness but not good enough to take control etc etc...This didnt sound right to me.

I agree with you and Arend that 3♣ should be 4th suit. I just dont like to do it with Hx ♦ and xx ♣ though where H is A or K (or even Q perhaps).

That said, i would bid 3♦ with the hand you gave. I don't think 3♦ now should show 3 of them or club shortness yet.

[cherdano]

jogs, on 2012-May-30, 13:03, said:

What's 2NT?

1S - 2D
2H - 3NT
??

What would 3NT be?

3NT shows extras (16-17) and is fairly strict in terms of shape - I would expect exactly 2=3=5=3 - as opener must make a decision about strain right away. It shows extras because you need a way to show extras in game-forcing auctions.

[dave_w]

MrAce, on 2012-May-30, 14:16, said:

Me and Tez were practicing in pdship bidding table (and you may have to play with him too if needs to be, but unlikely) he thought this (we had exactly the same auction) 3♦ here shows 3 card [dia] and club shortness. He then bid 4♣ telling me he has no wasted values in my shortness but not good enough to take control etc etc...This didnt sound right to me.

So no wastage in Clubs, no Honour Doubleton in Spades, no Honour Third in Hearts. He must be 1273 or something? Either that or he can't bid (probably the latter).

Bidding 3♦ on this hand is fine. We could be 5431 or 5422 with Hx - partner doesn't have to bid slam just yet. Partner can bid his values in a Major or bid 3NT to show Club values and a hand that wants to play 3NT unless I have extras.

[SteveMoe]

Seems like focusing on the bid after the 2N call is leading us to some difficulty.

What if instead the default is that 2N shows a stopper in the unbid (4th) suit? Then ♠K2 ♥KJ3 ♦AQJ32 ♣653 rebids 3♦, not 2N. This seems like the least worst call, is consistent with the analogous auction in ♣s (as 2♣ might indeed be very short, allows responder to bid 2♦ on 2=3=44 when right, and gets us out of the issues discerned so far with Opener's 3rd bid.

Over 3♦, Opener can raise with ♦Hx as here, and responder can support ♠s with ♠Hx. ♠ in a 5-2 fit might be the most playable game.

Would be interesting to see among 13-15 HCP hands likely for responder's bidding, what % do not have a ♣ stopper. While 2=3=5=3 is the worst possible distribution, 2=3=4=4 is possible.

[jogs]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-30, 13:23, said:

Pinpoints a club singleton and partner will have a tough time figuring this out.

Only in an auction where neither partner had bid NT. On this auction it shows where the values lie.

[phil_20686]

SteveMoe, on 2012-May-30, 20:57, said:

Seems like focusing on the bid after the 2N call is leading us to some difficulty.

What if instead the default is that 2N shows a stopper in the unbid (4th) suit? Then ♠K2 ♥KJ3 ♦AQJ32 ♣653 rebids 3♦, not 2N. This seems like the least worst call, is consistent with the analogous auction in ♣s (as 2♣ might indeed be very short, allows responder to bid 2♦ on 2=3=44 when right, and gets us out of the issues discerned so far with Opener's 3rd bid.

That is pretty much unplayable imo.

You need your 3m calls to seriously suggest that you might like to play in 5m, otherwise getting to minor suit games and slams becomes next to impossible. thats why 1s-2d-2h-3c should be 55, or 64 or a v strong 54. Giving this up to show a stop is really not worth is imo. People worry quite a lot about stops. Normally if you cant find a fit and can't stop below game, 3N is the least worst option.

I normally play that 3c in the OP auction is natural. I just bid 3N with 5422 and 5413 with or without a stop. If partner is looking for clubs or has diamonds good enough to play in a 6-2 fit he will normally bid 3c rather than 2N. 2N is normally like "nothing more to say really, just waiting in case opener has extra shape" like opener is 64 or 55, or 5431 exactly.

[Zelandakh]

This thread reminds me of one of ken's and I cannot believe he has not come in on it yet! I seem to recall he advocates a similar inversion in some other auctions, fourth suit forcing for example. A thought I had when Han suggested the 2♠/2NT switch is whether a full transfer method might be reasonable here, so after 1♠ - 2♦; 2♥, something like: 2♠ = bucket; 2NT = both minors; 3♣ = long diamonds; 3♦ = heart support; 3♥ = spade support; 3♠ = doubleton spade. Or perhaps there is a better use for the 3♠ bid - just thinking aloud really.

Any merit in any of this? It seems like it should be adaptable to other 2/1 auctions easily enough if it seems like a good idea.

[gwnn]

While I was scrolling down to post 'easy 3D on this class of hands' I accidentally saw JLOGIC's post so I can't prove this post is unaffected by his. I do think 3NT is a bit too brave and distorting major suit lengths is really, really a last resort (also on FSF auctions). I wouldn't go so far as to say "Kx is a better fit than xxx!" as I sometimes read, because that's nonsense, but partner should know this sort of hand is possible.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jogs, on 2012-May-30, 13:03, said:

What's 2NT?

1S - 2D
2H - 3NT
??

What would 3NT be?

After 2/1 GF response:
1x 2y 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 3N = 15-17
1x 2y 2z 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 2z 3N = 15-17

[gwnn]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-May-31, 08:45, said:

After 2/1 GF response:
1x 2y 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 3N = 15-17

Yes. Opener can bid 2x as a waiting bid, hence 2NT and 3NT can both be pure hands with well-defined ranges. (you can make them 5332 with a doubleton in partner's suit and stoppers in both trebletons, for example, or something a bit less pure).

Quote

1x 2y 2z 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 2z 3N = 15-17

No. Responder does not have the luxury of a waiting suit bid, so must rebid 2NT on some unappealing hands, i.e. also sometimes with 15-17 and offshape and... That way you can make 2y..3y as a very good 6+ carded suit etc and 2y..3w (especially when x=z) as a pure hand, either 64 or 55.

3NT can be 15-17, but only if you give it also some meaning w.r.t x and z, for example a doubleton in partner's major and a trebleton in z (when x!=z). In the case of jogs' sequence, it would mean responder has 2353 or 2362 and 15-17 (and a club stop! yes, it's rare but you can't jump around like this).

This post is slightly dogmatic but at least I'm writing jlogical/hannian dogma.

[dake50]

Would 3S say "I can play opposite S-xx?"
And some fear of 3NT. I try that.

[olien]

What about reversing openers bids over 2NT where:

3♣ shows 3+D or C doubt;
3♦ shows 5404
3NT shows 5413 or 5422 with CHx

Want to play 3NT when 3-3 in clubs regardless of stopper. Over opener's 3♣ bid, can play natural continuations, or relay...so many options but this particular switch seems obvious on a frequency basis