[nullve]

I'm looking for alternatives to "natural" as the default meaning of non-jump 4-level suit bids in situations where GF has already been established and continuations are just supposed to follow general principles.

For example, the new default could be that if the auction is currently at

* 3♣, then 4♣ is NAT;
* 3♦, then 4♣ and 4♦ are NAT;
* 3♥, then 4♦ is NAT while 4♣ and 4♥ refer to H* and C*, respectively;
* 3♠ or 3N, then 4♣, 4♦, 4♥ and 4♠ refer to H*, S*, C* and D*, respectively;
* 4♣, then 4♥ is NAT while 4♦ and 4♠ refer to S* and D*, respectively;
* 4♦, then 4♥ and 4♠ are NAT;
* 4♥, then 4♠ is NAT.

I haven't thought very hard about any of this, so maybe some of you have better ideas?

* The inspiration comes from Liggins Gerber (4♣ refers to H) and Lissabon (♣,♦,♥ and ♠ refer to H, S, C and D respectively). I'm surprised how often situations seem to come up where I need to be able show a major at the 4-level with a non-jump and create a force at the same time!

This post has been edited by nullve: 2019-December-30, 05:31

[Kungsgeten]

I think it has to depend on context: which suits has been bid and is the player in turn limited or not?

Since a GF has been established we at least don't need a three-level preference as NF. In one of the books about the Swedish standard system they list the following sequence: 1H-1S; 3D. Opener has shown a strong hand with at least 5-4 (but in some version of the system it require 5-5). Now responder have the following options:

3H = Not forcing.
3S = GF, 6+S.
3NT = To play.
4C = Slam invite with heart support (the 1H opening could have been a four card suit).
4D = Slam invite.
4H = To play.
4S = To play.

Anyway, back to the real question If you want general guidelines I think that maybe we need to consider how many suits that have been bid: one, two, three, or four.


One suit:

Here I guess the bidding has gone 1X-1NT; Gazzilli-Positive; 3X (or similar GF auction). Opener has shown a one-suited strong hand and responder is limited. Responder's options:

Skipped suit = Stopper showing or value showing with slam interest (like HHx).
3NT = Suggestion to play.
Raise of minor = Slam invite.
4C when opener's suit is a major = Slam invite with major support.
Raise to 4M = To play.
Other = Natural, own long suit.


Two suits:

Either both players has shown one suit each (in which case opener has probably bid Gazzilli and then shown a one-suiter), or responder has bid 1NT and opener has shown a big two-suiter.
Here your scheme could make sense nullve. Though I think that you probably want two ways to raise a suit: slam invite and "weak"?

In the case of opener having a two-suiter one option could be that a preference to the first suit is slam invitational in the SECOND suit, but that's a convention begging to be forgotten. Probably makes more sense as unsure of strain (NT or not).

Examples:

1S-1NT; 3H (GF)--
3S = Slam invite in hearts.
3NT = To play.
4m = Natural long suit.
4M = To play.

1H-1NT; 3D (GF)--
3H = Slam invite in diamonds.
3S = Skipped suit. Show stopper, but no club stopper.
3NT = To play.
4C = Own suit.
4D = Maybe some kind of specific slam invite.
4H = To play.
4S = Splinter, diamonds support.

1S-1NT; 3C (GF)--
3D = Natural.
3H = Natural.
3S = Slam invitational in clubs.
3NT = To play.
4C = Special slam invite.
4DH = Splinter, clubs support.

These assume that responder would have supported 1M instead of bidding 1NT. It is harder if the auction has started something like 2C-2D; 2H-2S; 3D (strong 2C followed by waiting and Kokish and now opener have Hearts + Diamonds and responder hasn't shown anything).

In the case of opener having shown a one-suiter I think that a rebid from responder should be natural. A raise of opener's minor is a slam-invite and new suits natural. In the case of 1H-1S; 3H (GF) then I guess 3S should be natural, 4C slam-invite and 4D natural (no way to show clubs).


Three suits:

Now opener has shown a two-suiter and responder suit of his own. Most play that responder hasn't denied support of opener's first suit. Luckily its pretty easy since opener's second suit will be a minor and responder's suit will be higher than opener's suits.

Preference = Real support. Now 3NT is non-serious.
Rebid = Natural.
3NT = To play.
Minor raise = Support, at least mild slam invite.
Fourth suit = Stopper asking if at three-level. Otherwise I'm not sure, perhaps some kind of general strength slam try?


Four suits:

This isn't very common, but could happen in an auction where fourth suit forcing is raised (if that's natural in your system):

1D-1S;
2C-2H;
3H--

These are murky waters indeed, since in many systems fourth suit forcing is the only way to go if we have a slam invite. Here your scheme could make a lot of sense nullve, since every suit is a possibility.

[nige1]

Some play 4♣ or 4♦ as a puppet, after which calls are sign-offs.
Other bids are RKC setting the suit.

With English partners, I vaguely remember another simple agreement, which would sometimes allow us to explore for a slam but subside in game.

• 4♣ usually agreed ♥s
• 4♦ often agreed ♠
• A jump in the 4th suit (if different) agreed a third suit.
• 4N was RKC for a missing suit, only if needed.

A Scottish partner and I are now experimenting with KC-Gerber. 4♣ is always RKC for the obvious suit (unless that interpretation of the auction is impossible). For an irregular partnership this can keep the auction low and avoid embarrassment from misunderstood attempts at Kickback and MinorWood.

[nullve]

Kungsgeten, on 2019-December-30, 04:31, said:

I think it has to depend on context: which suits has been bid and is the player in turn limited or not?

Maybe also: which fits have been denied. For example, consider the sequence

2N(strong BAL)-3♣(Puppet); 3♠-?:

Here a heart fit has been denied and Lissabon would lead to the very USP-violating and inelegant

4♣ = referring to H, so presumably a H cue agreeing S
4♦ = referring to S, so presumably S support and if slam interest then no H control. Allows Advancer to double for the lead.
4♥ = referring to C, so presumably 5+ C and slam interest. Clearly much worse than 4♣ showing the same thing.
4♠ = referring to D, so presumably 5+ D and slam interest. Clearly much worse than 4♦ showing the same thing.

But now consider the sequence

1♠-1N; 2♣(Gazzilli)-2♦(positive); 3♠(GF, 6+ S, 1-suited)-?:

Here no fit has been denied and the Lissabon scheme

4♣ = referring to H, so presumably long H
4♦ = S support
4♥ = referring to C, so presumably long C and slam interest
4♠ = referring to D, so presumably long D and slam interest

may not be obviously worse than the natural

4♣/♦/♥ = NAT or cue, depending on who you asked. At least some 2/1 players feel they should be able to invite slam in S over 1♠-1N; 3♠(INV).
4♠ = to play.

[nullve]

Kungsgeten, on 2019-December-30, 04:31, said:

One suit:

Here I guess the bidding has gone 1X-1NT; Gazzilli-Positive; 3X (or similar GF auction). Opener has shown a one-suited strong hand and responder is limited. Responder's options:

Skipped suit = Stopper showing or value showing with slam interest (like HHx).
3NT = Suggestion to play.
Raise of minor = Slam invite.
4C when opener's suit is a major = Slam invite with major support.
Raise to 4M = To play.
Other = Natural, own long suit.


Two suits:

Either both players has shown one suit each (in which case opener has probably bid Gazzilli and then shown a one-suiter), or responder has bid 1NT and opener has shown a big two-suiter.
Here your scheme could make sense nullve. Though I think that you probably want two ways to raise a suit: slam invite and "weak"?

[...]

In the case of opener having shown a one-suiter I think that a rebid from responder should be natural. A raise of opener's minor is a slam-invite and new suits natural. In the case of 1H-1S; 3H (GF) then I guess 3S should be natural, 4C slam-invite and 4D natural (no way to show clubs).

I agree that in these sequences it's probably a good idea to have two ways to support the major, even at the expense of being able to show clubs. But then it's a good idea whether the 4-level scheme-to-be-modified is Lissabon (say) or natural.

And let's say the sequence

1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 3♠

were covered by your system notes, but the sequence

1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦; 3♠-4♣

weren't, at least not explicitly. Then you would have to infer the meaning of 4♣ from "general principles", "general bridge knowledge" or whatever, wouldn't you? I believe that for most partnerships those principles or that knowledge would imply that 4♣ referred to C. (For some it would be a C cue agreeing S, for others it would show a C suit.) And I'm primarily interested in whether we could do better than defaulting to "natural" (or 4♣, 4♦, 4♥ and 4♠ referring to C, D, H and S, respectively) in "undiscussed" situations like this.

[Kungsgeten]

nige1 writings about puppets is interesting. Perhaps something similar to relay end signals could be used.

4!c = Forces 4!d, then some kind of RKC?
4!d = Sign off in game. Partner bids 4!h if he'd pass a non-forcing call of that suit.
4M/5m = Non forcing slam try.

[nullve]

nige1, on 2019-December-30, 06:51, said:

Some play 4♣ or 4♦ as a puppet, after which calls are sign-offs.
Other bids are RKC setting the suit.

Looks like Mulberry, which is typically used only when Teller has shown exact shape so that the sizes of all fits are known to Asker.

Kungsgeten, on 2019-December-30, 17:06, said:

nige1 writings about puppets is interesting. Perhaps something similar to relay end signals could be used.

4!c = Forces 4!d, then some kind of RKC?
4!d = Sign off in game. Partner bids 4!h if he'd pass a non-forcing call of that suit.
4M/5m = Non forcing slam try.

A kind of RKC that simultaneously asks for support if necessary?