Survey for a friend

[awm]

Careful, this is a four-handed auction:

 

1♠ - X - P - 2♥

P - 2NT - P - 3♣

 

Of course the 2NT bid shows something like 19-21. What do you think about 3♣?

 

If you have some agreement in a regular partnership about this sequence that differs from what you think is "standard" feel free to comment.

[rogerclee]

I don't see any huge problem with playing Wolff here, but I think that since the hand is already limited, it may be better not to. Without discussion, I would assume 3♣ is nonforcing, since it seems more valuable to have a 4-5 minor signoff than some hand which is slammish in clubs, given that I have already limited my hand with 2♥. I can construct a few hands where presenting 5♣ as an alternative to 3NT is rational, but I think they are too infrequent to seriously consider.

 

In general, it may be better to play a system with as many signoffs as possible.

[Gerben42]

3♣ shows "Help, we might already be too high".

[Cascade]

We have a general rule that 3minor is non-forcing in this sort of auction but 3Major is forcing.

 

The rationale is that we are more likely to need to investigate a major fit for game.

[whereagles]

We have a general rule that 3minor is non-forcing in this sort of auction but 3Major is forcing.

 

The rationale is that we are more likely to need to investigate a major fit for game.

What if advancer has 5 hearts and no points?

[Apollo81]

If I had to guess what Standard is I would guess that forcing is Standard. If discussed I usually play that suit non-reverse bids are NF in these situations. No idea which is theoretically superior.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing.

 

3H would be nonforcing.

 

But give me the right pair of hands and I will surely

agree that it has to be nonforcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

This isn't a Wolff situation. Is it really likely a hand that can only make a simple 2♥ call wants to suddenly go slamming?

 

Without discussion, I'd say 3♣ is trying to improve the contract and isn't forcing. Both 3♠ and 4♣ are available for max 2♥ hands.

[han]

Good one Adam, either option makes some sense and I have never discussed it. Maybe NF is better.

[whereagles]

If I had to guess what Standard is I would guess that forcing is Standard. If discussed I usually play that suit non-reverse bids are NF in these situations. No idea which is theoretically superior.

There's a trend that rebids the suit with a min and bids something else on the side with a not-so-hopeless hand. I like this.

 

In this case, a min hand either bids 3♥ with 5 or passes 2NT with 4 hearts only. A better hand bids 3m and sees if pard can bid 3♥ with 3 cards now.

[mikegill]

It seems to me like forcing makes more sense. if you have a terrible hand with 5+ hearts, you can just rebid 3♥. If you have a terrible balanced hand, you probably just pass and take your medicine in 2n. If you have a terrible hand with 4 hearts and 5 or 6 clubs, then you probably bid 2♣ not 2♥, since you want to get to the better part score when you're not worried about game. You could easily have a reasonable hand, say 5-8 with 4 hearts and 5 clubs (or 5 hearts and 4 clubs) that bids 2♥ since hearts is the most likely game. Now you want to be able to show your clubs and have partner show 3-card heart support, and get you to 4♥ or even 5♣ if it's right.

[pclayton]

It seems to me like forcing makes more sense. if you have a terrible hand with 5+ hearts, you can just rebid 3♥. If you have a terrible balanced hand, you probably just pass and take your medicine in 2n. If you have a terrible hand with 4 hearts and 5 or 6 clubs, then you probably bid 2♣ not 2♥, since you want to get to the better part score when you're not worried about game. You could easily have a reasonable hand, say 5-8 with 4 hearts and 5 clubs (or 5 hearts and 4 clubs) that bids 2♥ since hearts is the most likely game. Now you want to be able to show your clubs and have partner show 3-card heart support, and get you to 4♥ or even 5♣ if it's right.

I think the problem here is that rebidding a 5 card suit isn't always wise.

 

If anything the NT bidder has denied good heart support, . Why would we be forcing ourselves to play a 5-2 here?

[whereagles]

Why would we be forcing ourselves to play a 5-2 here?

huh??? for the same reason you transfer to the major with a weak hand after a 1NT opener

[pclayton]

Why would we be forcing ourselves to play a 5-2 here?

huh??? for the same reason you transfer to the major with a weak hand after a 1NT opener

This is a different situation Nuno.

 

When you make a transfer, the NT opener's length is unknown. Here, the doubler had an option to raise, or cue, to confirm a heart fit.

[P_Marlowe]

This isn't a Wolff situation. Is it really likely a hand that can only make a simple 2♥ call wants to suddenly go slamming?

No, but maybe we are talking about

a hand, which is unsure about the

best game contract.

 

Afterall the 2NT rebid canceled the promise

of support for all other suits, the 2NT bid

may be based on a hand with only 2 hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Apollo81]

If I had to guess what Standard is I would guess that forcing is Standard. If discussed I usually play that suit non-reverse bids are NF in these situations. No idea which is theoretically superior.

Contrast this auction with one like (1♠)-X-(p)-2♦-(p)-2♥. Now I think it is clearly better to play 3♣ as NF since you could bid 2♠ to GF.

[whereagles]

Why would we be forcing ourselves to play a 5-2 here?

huh??? for the same reason you transfer to the major with a weak hand after a 1NT opener

This is a different situation Nuno.

 

When you make a transfer, the NT opener's length is unknown. Here, the doubler had an option to raise, or cue, to confirm a heart fit.

Well, when advancer is broke, even a 5-2 fit usually rolls in more tricks than NT. That's the point.

 

Besides, if you run a simulation you'll probably find out that pard's heart expectancy is closer to 3 than to 2. Why? Because LHO has 5 spades, giving pard a higher chance to have 3 of those.

[Cascade]

We have a general rule that 3minor is non-forcing in this sort of auction but 3Major is forcing.

 

The rationale is that we are more likely to need to investigate a major fit for game.

What if advancer has 5 hearts and no points?

Pass

[Guest Jlall]

3H would def be NF as responder could just bid 3S with a COG. Responder is allowed to have 6 hearts and no points.

 

3m is less clear, I think my meta agreements with my partners would make it forcing but I think NF is better.

[mikeh]

Good problem: I will try to remember to ask my partners this question: I don't know what standard is.

 

Question: with 2=4=2=5 bust, would we bid 2♥ or 2♣?

 

Certainly, with that hand and a 1♦ opening, we'd all bid 1♥. But would we do so over 1♠, where survival is our immediate goal? After all, in standard advancing methods over a takeout double of 1♠, 2♥ is very wide range and thus, because a ten trick game is more attractive than an 11 trick game, 2♥ is more likely to attract a raise than is 2♣.

 

I think that this issue colours the correct approach to the posed question. If we respond 2♣ with the 4=5 bust, we have significantly reduced the number of hands to which we need to cater, playing 3♣ as NF.

[Al_U_Card]

Since we can pass the 2NT bid, I take it to mean, NT is out, take a preference to one of my suits. The proviso is that clubs should be as long or longer than hearts.

[Cascade]

Good problem: I will try to remember to ask my partners this question: I don't know what standard is.

 

Question: with 2=4=2=5 bust, would we bid 2♥ or 2♣?

 

Certainly, with that hand and a 1♦ opening, we'd all bid 1♥. But would we do so over 1♠, where survival is our immediate goal? After all, in standard advancing methods over a takeout double of 1♠, 2♥ is very wide range and thus, because a ten trick game is more attractive than an 11 trick game, 2♥ is more likely to attract a raise than is 2♣.

 

I think that this issue colours the correct approach to the posed question. If we respond 2♣ with the 4=5 bust, we have significantly reduced the number of hands to which we need to cater, playing 3♣ as NF.

I bid 2♣ with that hand.

 

Maybe you are right and this has serious implications for the nature of a subsequent 3♣ when partner shows a very strong hand with 2NT.

 

Nevertheless our current meta-agreement over 2NT is that 3minor is NF and 3Major is Forcing.

[kfay]

Certainly sounds nonforcing to me but I think I like forcing better.

[whereagles]

Question: with 2=4=2=5 bust, would we bid 2♥ or 2♣?

Playing ELC, 2♥ is obvious. Else it's a toss.

 

If, however, one agrees to always bid 2♣, then 2♥+3♣ over 2NT is even more forcing. There may be a point in 3♣ NF playing the other way (ELC or 2♥ mandatory). Still, I prefer forcing.

 

god, that was messy

[jdeegan]

:) 3♣ nonforcing is a useful bid. 3♣ forcing is not a useful bid. Therefore, 3♣ cannot be forcing.