what would 3 spades denote in this sequence

[sceptic]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=saq842h54dt532c86&w=sj93hq8daj76ck732&e=st65hakj72d9caqt5&s=sk7ht963dkq84cj94]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     1♥    Pass

 2♣    Pass  3♣    Pass

 3NT   Pass  Pass  Pass

 

[Hanoi5]

By whom and when? I guess you mean by East or West and then, if I'm not mistaken, it would show a spade stopper, in which case West better bid 3♦(he doesn't have the spade stopper). The other possibility is that it asks for the stopper in which case East would bid 4♥, which makes :D .

 

ps I now think that after two or three suits have been shown (in this case ♥s and ♣s) a new suit asks for the stopper to play 3NT (of course, that happens when the supported suit is a minor). When only one minor suit has been shown and supported a new one shows the stopper.

[helene_t]

3♠ by W would show a spade stopper. He might have shown a ♦ stopper with 3♦.

[kenrexford]

In standard methods, I believe that 3♦ would be either a slam probe or a notrump probe, with the assumption being notrump probe. The inference is poor spades.

 

A more vexing problem would be if Opener had instead bid 3♦, and if 3♦ had shown this hand. In that case, it seems that 3♠ would still be either a notrump probe or a slam probe, again assuming notrump first. As the person with the stiff diamond should not be asked about diamond controls for notrump, 3♠ would seem to be a denial cue (denying a notrump control).

 

Notable is that a cue that is an either-or cue (notrump probe or slam probe) should ideally have similar character. What I mean is that a notrump-stopper denial cue (here, 3♠), if later proven to be a slam probe cue, should best be understood as a slam-probe denial cue. This allows intelligent auctions when one person makes a notrump probe but the other is slammish himself. COnsistency makes sense.

 

Had Responder held AKxx in diamonds, the auction might have been the same in 2/1 GF. If so, Opener would bid 3♦ as I play, showing three of the top four hearts (check), two top clubs (check), a diamond stiff that is not the Ace or King (check), and no spade control (check). Responder, on this hand, could simply spurn any notrump probe in spades, signing off, instead, at 4♥. But, if he decided that 3NT would be best opposite Qxx, he could bid 3♠ as a denial notrump probe. If, instead, Responder was slammish, this 3♠ denial probe would be later proven to be a denial cue for slam purposes. Obviously, however, that would make no sense as a "denial" of any control, because then slam would be impossible. However, by "denial," this would show, in this specific auction, only second-round control, whereas a bypass of 3♠ would suggest the Ace or a void.

[SoTired]

game before slam

with 2 suits unbid, a bid "shows" rather than "asks"

So West could bid 3D to show a diam stopper. Then East without a spade stopper and holding a min, would bid 4C. West would probably pass. Clubs by West will make 5.

 

But 3N by West over 3C is not that poor a bid. If spades broken 4-3 or South had 2 spade honors rather than 1, then 3N makes.

[ralph23]

3 of a new suit by West should show (rather than deny) a stopper in standard methods (I think). But if you play it upside-down (as long as your partner is on the same wavelength), -- that is, to deny a stopper in the bid suit and to implicitly confirm one in the unbid suit -- it should not matter.

 

With both stoppers, West bids 3nt.

With only one, West bids the one he has if they play "rightside up" (or the one he DOESN'T have if they play "upside down"). Either way, assuming they have agreement on their method, East gets the message as to what he needs to bid 3NT.

 

Without prior agreement I would assume partner is playing "rightside up" but this could be a bad guess. I just see no advantage to upside-down.

 

Note: There may be an advantage to upside down. Playing rightside up, North has the chance to make a lead directing double, potentially nullifying West's "stopper" (could be King unprotected). Upside down, this can't occur because by hypothesis West is bidding a suit in which he has nothing. I think this is valid reasoning.... North and South can of course overcome this by having their own agreement on "upside down" but will they ?