wasted values

[ulven]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

[Codo]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=saj9642hkj92da83c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Opps silent:

 

1D-1S

2C-2H(art, GF)

3S

 

What does this show? What is your plan?

I am thinking about the idea what 3 NT now would have been? Is there a possibility that I will bid 3 NT to play after pd told me that he has 3154 or 3055?

 

I hardly can construct hands where this is useful.I think this should show a good hand for spades. But I would not try it undiscussed.

 

I go for RCKB.

[mikeh]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

How do you bid 0=4=5=4 or a 15 count 1=4=4=4?

[Guest Jlall]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H p 2C p 2S.

[kenrexford]

What's with all the recurring panicking about having four hearts? If you bid 3♥ to show 3 hearts (note: 1♦ initially showed 4♦ and does not deny five diamonds; similarly 3♥ shows three hearts and does not deny four hearts), your pattern will be:

 

1354

0355 (probably a 3♣ call)

0364 (probably a 3♦ call)

0454

1444

 

If you elminate out the "probably something else" options, you end up with:

 

1354/0454/1444

 

If partner wants clarification, he bids 3♠. You can then bid:

 

3NT = 1354

4♣ = 1444

4♦ = 0454

 

If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0355, you can bid 4♥ (club flag) after 3♠.

If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0364, you can bid 4♠ (diamond flag) after 3♠.

[gnasher]

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H  p 2C p 2S.

The fact that you might have a heart fit doesn't mean that your methods have to be able to find it. The benefit of being able to rightside 3NT may well be worth more than the the less frequent benefit of finding a heart fit when one exists.

Edited July 15, 2008 by gnasher

[mikeh]

What's with all the recurring panicking about having four hearts?  If you bid 3♥ to show 3 hearts (note: 1♦ initially showed 4♦ and does not deny five diamonds; similarly 3♥ shows three hearts and does not deny four hearts), your pattern will be:

 

1354

0355 (probably a 3♣ call)

0364 (probably a 3♦ call)

0454

1444

 

If you elminate out the "probably something else" options, you end up with:

 

1354/0454/1444

 

If partner wants clarification, he bids 3♠.  You can then bid:

 

3NT = 1354

4♣ = 1444

4♦ = 0454

 

If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0355, you can bid 4♥ (club flag) after 3♠.

If you insist upon bidding 3♥ with 0364, you can bid 4♠ (diamond flag) after 3♠.

I suspect you are just trolling. But on the off chance that you truly think that what you propose makes sense in a thread on SAYC and 2/1 bidding, consider:

 

Any expert advocating a new approach would, if truly trying to advance the game, look for the problems that will ALWAYS arise from any deviation from existing standard practice. And there ALWAYS will be problems. Even stayman over 1N created a problem: we lost the natural 2♣ response, whether it be played as weak or forcing or constructive.

 

Your treatment is an incredibly bad solution in search of a problem.

 

Why is it so incredibly bad?

 

Consider responder with a good but not slam-forcing 4=2=3=4.

 

1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ ?

 

Your 'solution' is to use 3♠ as an artificial shape ask.

 

Let's ignore the rather basic problem of how responder is to handle a strong hand with long, good spades.. the type of hand shown by a strong jumpshift, except that many, and perhaps most 2/1 players don't play sjs.. let's assume that they are so enamoured of your idea that they adopt sjs and don't need 3♠ as natural..

 

Opener bids 3N. He has 1=3=5=4. Does he have a heart stopper? We don't know. Does he have a good hand in context, such that we should go to 6♣? We don't know. Will 3N be the best contract? We don't know. Does he hold an indifferent 12 or 13 count or a nice 15-16 count? We don't know. Can we set clubs as trump and then keycard? Probably not.. but we don't know.

 

Nice method. Boy, I sure hope that this method 'solves' a very tough, high-frequency problem, because we are going to get screwed a lot of the time.. not to mention we had to agree to strong jump shifts and give up alternate uses for 2♠. How would an old-fashioned pair ever deal with this minor suit fit issue?

 

I'm really old-fashioned. I and every other real bridge player, using 2/1, would have rebid 2N over 2♥ (I am not saying Frances is wrong to suggest 2♠ on some hands.. I am talking about a typical 1=3=5=4 opening hand).

 

Then responder gets to show his club interest via 3♣ and we have lots of room below 3N to find out whether slam is possible, or whether we have a heart stopper, and so on.

 

And precisely WHAT problem are we solving?????? And precisely how does your method solve that problem???? And what other costs are there????

 

I started this post by stating that I was going to assume you were not merely trolling, but by writing about the idiocy of your ideas, I am driven to conclude that you are either a bridge idiot or an utter troll.

 

A troll would write precisely as you do... always advancing arguments to support an absurd proposition while NEVER asking 'do my ideas have issues?'. A real bridge thinker considers the cost of the solution and decides for or against the proposal based on that assessment, which will inevitably incorporate some subjective elements. A troll, otoh, isn't interested in the actual merits of his ideas, only in the petty thrill he gets from riling others.

 

Well, consider me riled B)

 

Of course, the alternative is that you are a bridge idiot (note... I know some remarkably intelligent, thoughtful and good people who, despite their intellects, are hopeless at bridge, so don't take the bridge idiot designation, if you are innocent of trolldom, too much to heart :) )

[kenrexford]

I suspect you are just trolling. But on the off chance that you truly think that what you propose makes sense in a thread on SAYC and 2/1 bidding, consider:

(continued below in quotations)

"Any expert advocating a new approach would, if truly trying to advance the game, look for the problems that will ALWAYS arise from any deviation from existing standard practice. And there ALWAYS will be problems. Even stayman over 1N created a problem: we lost the natural 2♣ response, whether it be played as weak or forcing or constructive."

 

True, sort of. If this were that new of an approach, I would definitely want to consider this. Further, if this is an old approach, I would also want to consider this. I don't necessarily accept that old truths are infallible and that new truths must pass a test; I consider that all truths must pass the same test. I'll accept that sometimes old truths carry gravitas of presumed testing success. That said, I am not convinced that your assessment is accurate as to what is old and what is new.

 

"Your treatment is an incredibly bad solution in search of a problem. Why is it so incredibly bad? Consider responder with a good but not slam-forcing 4=2=3=4.

 

1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ ?

 

"Your 'solution' is to use 3♠ as an artificial shape ask."

 

Now precisely. 3♠ is not exactly an "artificial shape ask." Rather, 3♠ is a bid that expresses general uncertainty in this sequence, which makes sense, as it is a bid in a suit in which Opener has shown shortness. Would you call a "fourth suit forcing" call an "artificial shape ask?" Technically, it is, but it is not so mystical and artificial, especially when the call is in a suit where fit potential has wildly decresed beyond possibility.

 

"Let's ignore the rather basic problem of how responder is to handle a strong hand with long, good spades.. the type of hand shown by a strong jumpshift, except that many, and perhaps most 2/1 players don't play sjs.. let's assume that they are so enamoured of your idea that they adopt sjs and don't need 3♠ as natural.."

 

Actually, this is a poor idea, ignoring the elephant in the room. I am assuming a fairly normal idea of a 1minor-P-2major auction as either weak or intermediate, the latter being my choice. That makes 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♣-P-3♠ a GF rebid. This, of course, solves a world of hurt. But, carry on...

 

"Opener bids 3N. He has 1=3=5=4. Does he have a heart stopper? We don't know."

 

Opener does not bid 3♥ with a heart suit that is not quality, meaning that he does not bid 3♥ unless he would have a heart stopper. So, we actually do know that answer. I am not a slave to nonsense pattern bidding.

 

"Does he have a good hand in context, such that we should go to 6♣? We don't know."

 

Again, actually we do know, at least more than your approach, where you end up making quantitative 5♠ raises because you have no real clue what Opener has and not even an ability to ask. The reason I will know whether partner has a good hand or a bad hand in context is because, you may recall, I use 3♠ to show the same hand with a good hand. Hence, 3♥ is a lesser hand. This was my precise point to bidding 3♠ as a strong shortness bid. Strange that you would argue the deficit of your approach as if it was ythe deficit of my approach, considering that my approach solves this problem that your approach cannot and does not adequately solve.

 

"Will 3N be the best contract? We don't know."

 

Knowing whether 3NT is the best contract is one of the most evasive goals in bridge. You know that. What we do know, however, is more. I know more because I do not combine all hands into 3♥ but add a layer of complexity, one that you lack, with the 3♠ shortness bid.

 

"Does he hold an indifferent 12 or 13 count or a nice 15-16 count? We don't know."

 

Again, yes we do. That, again, is why I bid 3♠ with that "nice 15-16 count" as a shortness bid. Keep up, Mavis.

 

"Can we set clubs as trump and then keycard? Probably not.. but we don't know."

 

Who is trolling now? This is getting silly. The man who blasts 5♠ because he cannot set trumps in friggin' spades now wants to question me about inability to agree clubs? What?!? The answer is rather simple -- yes. Bid 4♣. Then, Opener might even last train with 4♦, ask RKCB-style with 4♥, or cue above 4♠, or I could cue above 4♠ or ask (4♥) after LTTC 4♦. Easy that.

 

"Nice method. Boy, I sure hope that this method 'solves' a very tough, high-frequency problem, because we are going to get screwed a lot of the time.. not to mention we had to agree to strong jump shifts and give up alternate uses for 2♠. How would an old-fashioned pair ever deal with this minor suit fit issue?"

 

Huh?

 

"I'm really old-fashioned. I and every other real bridge player, using 2/1, would have rebid 2N over 2♥ (I am not saying Frances is wrong to suggest 2♠ on some hands.. I am talking about a typical 1=3=5=4 opening hand). Then responder gets to show his club interest via 3♣ and we have lots of room below 3N to find out whether slam is possible, or whether we have a heart stopper, and so on."

 

This, of course, says nothing about the original problem, namely whether 3♠ should be a maxi-3154 or a shortness bid. However, I'll bite for a second. You apparently have 2NT to show anything from Hx in spades and a stiff heart to a heart fragment to a good heart fragment, and you want to unwind this? And you think you can well? And you think you have room to do all of this after focusing a minor (start focusing diamonds here)? Wow. Three bids to unwind the majors AND make slam tries AND check for stoppers. I'd love to see that write-up.

 

"And precisely WHAT problem are we solving?????? And precisely how does your method solve that problem????"

 

Um, all of the problems that you suggested above, as well as the problem of insane wuantitative bash slam sequences because trumps cannot be set below the five-level in a forcing manner.

 

"And what other costs are there????"

 

Explaining bidding theory to "old-fashioned" idiots. It gives me a headache.

 

"I started this post by stating that I was going to assume you were not merely trolling, but by writing about the idiocy of your ideas, I am driven to conclude that you are either a bridge idiot or an utter troll. A troll would write precisely as you do... always advancing arguments to support an absurd proposition while NEVER asking 'do my ideas have issues?'. A real bridge thinker considers the cost of the solution and decides for or against the proposal based on that assessment, which will inevitably incorporate some subjective elements. A troll, otoh, isn't interested in the actual merits of his ideas, only in the petty thrill he gets from riling others. Well, consider me riled."

 

Um, if you read back through this, I hope that you will realize that you are not on solid ground here. All of your assumptions and conclusions seem to have been shown fairly easily to be nonsensical blathering. This is especially sad for you in light of the basic question that you still seem incapable of addressing, namely how you find yourself in the idiotic position of advocating a quantitative 5♠ bid because you cannot set damned trumps even after Opener shows support for you, whereas I have no problem in that respect, can cuebid, can kick in Serious 3NT and Last Train, and all of this with the bonus of distinguishing weak from strong heart-frag hands. Surely you are not so riled that you cannot question your own sanity?

 

"Of course, the alternative is that you are a bridge idiot (note... I know some remarkably intelligent, thoughtful and good people who, despite their intellects, are hopeless at bridge, so don't take the bridge idiot designation, if you are innocent of trolldom, too much to heart B) )"

 

I'll rest on my arguments rather than on your insightful assessments.

[mikeh]

Earth to Ken: in your diatribe you repeatedly attack me for bidding 5♠ as my bid over the 3=1=5=4 extras shown by 3♠. I didn't specify exclusion keycard, but that is what I meant when I said I would keycard over 3♠....5♣ is unambiguously exclusion in spades... at no time did I ever suggest 5♠...I considered it, as I often consider alternatives, and rejected it

 

Nice attempted troll..... B)

[kenrexford]

Earth to Ken: in your diatribe you repeatedly attack me for bidding 5♠ as my bid over the 3=1=5=4 extras shown by 3♠. I didn't specify exclusion keycard, but that is what I meant when I said I would keycard over 3♠....5♣ is unambiguously exclusion in spades... at no time did I ever suggest 5♠...I considered it, as I often consider alternatives, and rejected it

 

Nice attempted troll..... B)

Exclusion? From what you wrote earlier, where you indicated that you have no idea what 5♠ would mean, you now claim that 5♣ would unambiguously be exclusion? OK, I'll give benefit of the doubt on that one. It would be for me, after settoing spades as trumps.

 

You previously described simple keycard, suggesting that 4NT is RKCB for spades. At least you must agree that you have two options -- ask or resign.

 

"Diatribe?" I believe that I was responding tit-for-tat, with no length increase. Who called whom out?

 

BTW:

 

Start 1D-1S-2C-2H (4th Suit GF)

 

Opener:

 

2S = 3-card spades.

Responder can agree spades (3S) and starts cuebidding/Ser3NT/LTTC (and Exclusion, for that matter).

Responder can bid 2NT naturalish, forcing.

Responder can agree minor.

Responder can bid 3H. Natural but not 5-5 (would bid 3H directly over 2C is 5-5 GF). Bid where live.

Responder can bid 3NT, I suppose. Strange, but probably slammish.

 

2NT = Punt. Might not have a heart stop (won’t if 1354-ish)

Responder can bid a minor to set focus. If Opener next bids 3H, this tends to be a denial probe (shape but needs help). Opener could introduce a spade doubleton naturally, as well.

Responder can rebid 3H, as above.

Responder’s 3S is natural, ongoing. 3S directly over 2C would have been GF with spades (with weak, 2S; with intermediate, 2S direct over 1D)

 

3C = 5-5 expected, without spade frag. Logical thereafter.

3D = 6-4 expected, without spade frag. Logical thereafter.

GP = Avoid 3minor with minimum, defaulting 2NT, because 3minor takes up space.

 

3H = Heart frag+, 1454, 1444, 0454 expected. Opener can bid 3S as PUNT.

 

3S = Heart frag+ (short spade); extras. Alternatively, proves fourth heart – bid 3NT with 1354 maximum.

 

3NT = Either 1354 maximum OR ugly-as-sin 2254 with a heart card.

 

Not so difficult. Some detail is of course not present.

[kenrexford]

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H  p 2C p 2S.

The fact that you might have a heart fit doesn't mean that your methods have to be able to find it. The benefit of being able to rightside 3NT may well be worth more than the the less frequent benefit of finding a heart fit when one exists.

Good point, but you can have the cake and eat it too.

[Impact]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

Yes, me too. The "fudge" bid to say that I cannot give more distributional information and lack a H stop since we are already in GF , but 3NT may be the right spot - while warning partner that if he wants to play S he should be prepared to play opposite x.

 

Sure, you COULD retain 3H to show a H suit but more likely that can be untangled over 2NT (promising a H stop) if required...

 

Not by any means certain that a majority of Antipodean experts would play it that way but certainly a very significant proportion.

 

I think the difference stems from use of 4SF initially as a stopper ASK (as well as forcing) down South whereas my understanding of US bidding (from BW over 3 decades mainly) is that the 4th suit is more likely to SHOW values there but still be forcing...

 

Perhaps, mistaken, & Frances can confirm, but old-fashioned UK/Acol style was also

"Antipodean" or Swedish in this style?

regards,

[skjaeran]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

That is not true when opener can have 4 of the suit. This is not the same auction as 1D p 1H p 2C p 2S.

Eh, how could you know what's true over here, being over there?

 

I understand why you don't like the approach, but that's something different! B)

[kenrexford]

Another problem that resolves by unstated agreements. Does Opener liberally or conservatively or never raise 1♠ with 3154? Does Responder have some sort of jump response in spades that tailors later-auction meanings? Does Responder have the ability to jump to 3♥ to show 5-5 GF? All of these questions (and probably others) have varying answers that dictate need, and need often leads to common clique understandings among those who have the same answers to the predicate questions. Not much sense arguing about conclusions without noting differences leading up, again, to the "what now" question.

[gnasher]

Another problem that resolves by unstated agreements. Does Opener liberally or conservatively or never raise 1♠ with 3154? Does Responder have some sort of jump response in spades that tailors later-auction meanings? Does Responder have the ability to jump to 3♥ to show 5-5 GF?

In SAYC the first two of these are, in fact, stated: a single raise requires "good three-card support", and a 2♠ response to 1♦ is a "strong jump shift" which "invites a slam".

 

The SAYC booklet is less helpful about fourth suit bids: apparently fourth suit "may be artificial/conventional". Does that mean that you're supposed to agree whether you're playing Fourth Suit Forcing before you start, or do they really mean "is artificial and may or may not have the suit bid"?

 

Of course, none of this applies to 2/1 systems, or any non-SAYC variant of Standard American, so Ken's point is entirely valid in those instances.

[Finch]

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

Yes, me too. The "fudge" bid to say that I cannot give more distributional information and lack a H stop since we are already in GF , but 3NT may be the right spot - while warning partner that if he wants to play S he should be prepared to play opposite x.

 

Sure, you COULD retain 3H to show a H suit but more likely that can be untangled over 2NT (promising a H stop) if required...

 

Not by any means certain that a majority of Antipodean experts would play it that way but certainly a very significant proportion.

 

I think the difference stems from use of 4SF initially as a stopper ASK (as well as forcing) down South whereas my understanding of US bidding (from BW over 3 decades mainly) is that the 4th suit is more likely to SHOW values there but still be forcing...

 

Perhaps, mistaken, & Frances can confirm, but old-fashioned UK/Acol style was also

"Antipodean" or Swedish in this style?

regards,

"Old fashioned" (still commonly played) UK style is that 4SF is not game forcing. On that basis you need the raise of fourth suit to show extra values with no good bid, typically 2254 or 1354 15-18 or so (much stronger would have bid 3C last round).

 

Personally I still play it that way in one partnership.

 

In the other (where fourth suit is FG) I play, to quote my partner, "Usually Axx or Kxx trying to rightside 3nt"

 

I almost never play 4SF as natural, including in 2/1 auctions, but I know a lot of these strange foreigners do, and I assumed that in SA or 2/1 that 3H over 2H would be natural, as so many posters here said it was.

[mikeh]

As Frances has suggested, part of the conflict and confusion in this thread may arise from different assumptions as to the meaning of 4SF.

 

BWS certainly used to, and I think still does, define some 4SF sequences as forcing 1 round, rather than GF, and it is apparent that many other players have similar strong but not necessarily gf meanings.'

 

However, the OP specified GF. So the answers to the original question have to use that meaning, and discussions of what 3♥ would mean should, in order to be intelligible, specify a different systemic meaning for 4SF if the discussion is based on the idea that 2♥ was not, itself, GF.

 

Thus anyone using it to show extra values and a try for 3N is (I think) discussing a method in which 2♥ was strong, F1, but could be less than gf.. otherwise, why require 'extra values'.

 

FWIW, if 2♥ is not always GF, then the use of 3♥ as extra values trying for 3N makes considerable sense to me, because that is a hand that is otherwise very difficult to show. Of course, it comes at a cost.. the loss of the ability to find the 4=4 heart fit, and I don't think that there is any easy answer to that. Using 2N by opener on a 0=4=5=4 minimum opposite a non gf 2♥ makes me cringe, but even if we get by that, we have problems thereafter.

 

Does 3♥ by responder, over 2N, promise only 4? Then, with 5, we have to jump to 3♥ over 2♣...playable, certainly, but at the cost of committing 3♥ to that use.

 

Not that using 3♥ over 2♥, as I think most do who play the posted method, is a panacea.. responder has problems setting hearts as trump while maintaining a force, and has no room below 3N to both set a minor as trump and keep 3N open.

 

But that is why methods other than 2/1 or SAYC have adherents... relay methods, for example, solve many of these problems, albeit at the cost of inventing others.

 

I have used, for example, a relay response structure to 4SF, and it is very effective.. but I have been trying, in my posts on this thread, to address the issues in the context of the OP (2♥ artificial GF) and variants of 2/1 that incorporate that method.

 

I would be interested in hearing from Ulven and Harald whether their meaning for 3♥ is based on the assumption that 2♥ was not completely GF.. and, if so, whether they would change their usage if forced to play 2♥ as GF. If not, how do they sort out 4=4 and 5=3 heart fits, especially when responder is invitational 5=5 and gf 5=5. These are tough areas for standard bidders.

 

I should also add that there is a huge difference between the posted auction and the apparently related but very different: 1♦ 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ 3♠ sequence.. in which opener has denied 4 spades.

[awm]

It doesn't seem that bad to me to play:

 

1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT as any of:

 

(1) 2254 with a a heart honor

(2) 1354 with decent hearts

(3) 1444/0454

 

Now responder's rebid of 3♥ shows 4+♥ and:

 

(1) 2254 takes a preference to 3♠.

(2) 1354 bids 3NT, which shows specifically this shape.

(3) 1444/0454 raises 3♥, or cuebids at the four-level.

 

Then 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥ is a "right-siding" action with 1354 and weak or anti-positional hearts.

 

My preferred general agreement is that when we have bid three suits, bidding the fourth suit is a probe for a stopper and/or strain, whereas once we have bid three suits and notrump, the fourth suit becomes natural.

[gnasher]

FWIW, if 2♥ is not always GF, then the use of 3♥ as extra values trying for 3N makes considerable sense to me, because that is a hand that is otherwise very difficult to show.

If 2♥ were game-forcing, wouldn't it make equally good sense to you to play 3♥ as trying for 3NT but not promising extra values?

[mikeh]

FWIW, if 2♥ is not always GF, then the use of 3♥ as extra values trying for 3N makes considerable sense to me, because that is a hand that is otherwise very difficult to show.

If 2♥ were game-forcing, wouldn't it make equally good sense to you to play 3♥ as trying for 3NT but not promising extra values?

No

 

No approach is perfect, but the main drawback to 3♥ as a try for 3N with either no stopper or a positional holding that would prefer partner to declare with Qx or Qxx is the difficulty posed for a responder with a game force minor suit raise, of either minor, but insufficient values, or the wrong values, to commit beyond 3N.

 

There is also the interesting issue of how on earth responder is to guess when Qx is an adequate holding for 3N... obviously, if opener has Axx it is, but it may be second-best if opener has xxx :unsure: Now Qx opposite xxx suggests that 5 minor or 4♠ on a 6-1 may not be wonderful either, and of course the hearts might not run for 5 tricks. But there will be hands on which we have 11 aces in 5minor or 10 winners in 4♠ but 5 heart losers in 3N.

 

And we can all construct hands on which the key, for 3N, is the possession of ANY stopper, positional or otherwise... when and how does responder know that xx is enough for 3N, since partner holds Axx and either we run 8 side winners or hearts are 4-4?

 

But the main drawback, for me, is the difficulty handling minor suit fit hands with choice of games/level issues.

 

I suspect that my concerns are based in large part on my preference for imps, where exploring minor suit contracts plays a far more important role than in mps.

 

I admit that my alternative, when playing a natural approach, with 4SF gf, is hardly perfect either: I would rebid 2N with 1=3=5=4 with or without a stopper, and rely on bidding at the 3-level to afford me an opportunity to clarify stoppers, and this obviously runs the risk that we wrongside 3N. And I admit that using the raise to 3♥ to show 4 can cause problems on near-slam hands with a heart fit.

 

But I think that it is more likely that we have a fit in one of the two suits already shown by opener than that we have a fit in the only suit not yet bid... and that accordingly it is more important, on a frequency basis, to cater to that possibility if we can do so at relatively modest cost. The modest cost is the occasional wrong siding of 3N and some problems with slam zone 4=4 heart fits.

 

While I understand Adam's suggestions, I don't like the idea of rebidding 2N with 0=4=5=4 and then trying to untangle the hands should we discover a heart fit... or, for that matter, a minor suit fit. I can see problems (admittedly low frequency) in slam auctions when responder likes a minor and has to try to find out if opener is, for example, 0=4=5=4 or 2=2=5=4 or 1=3=5=4 and also try to find out where his controls/high card are, and whether he has extras, etc. That's putting a lot of stress on the sequences after 2N. Again, I am not saying that my preferred approach avoids all of these issues, but I think it reduces their impact.

 

Whether one adopts your ideas, or Adam's or mine probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference.. as in almost all areas of bidding, the pair that has detailed agreements will usually outbid the other pairs, even if the detailed agreements are not theoretically optimal.

[cherdano]

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

[mikeh]

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

Take a look at the posts by Ulven/Impact/Skaeran... the first two expressly include both Axx and xxx as acceptable heart holdings for 3♥ and Harald appears to endorse this idea.

[skjaeran]

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

Take a look at the posts by Ulven/Impact/Skaeran... the first two expressly include both Axx and xxx as acceptable heart holdings for 3♥ and Harald appears to endorse this idea.

I'm used to going even further - in many partnerships I play 3♥ here as xx/xxx.

[awm]

It seems fairly clear to me that:

 

(1) The approach where you bid 3♥ on 1354 without a heart stopper is superior when you have that hand. The hand is otherwise hard to bid; bidding 2NT with no stopper can wrong-side the contract or just lead to the wrong contract whereas any other call potentially shows more length in a suit then we have. It's true that the 3♥ call cramps the auction, but the information conveyed (exact distribution, weak hearts, presumably values in the minors) is quite precise and will help responder a lot in the slam zone (i.e. he knows which spade honors might be wasted, he knows he needs a heart control for slam).

 

(2) The approach of bidding 2NT with 1444/0454 allows responder to set a minor suit at the three level, leaving ample space to explore slam prospects. While bidding 3♥ to show this distribution is more descriptive in terms of shape, it also removes an entire level from your slam exploration and makes it harder to locate the values. Playing this style recently, I had a responder hand with 5143 shape and needed to get to 6♦ if partner's hearts were fairly weak (or ace-empty) and stop in 3NT if partner's values were wasted in hearts, and I had absolutely no clue how to do that. I think when responder is trying to look for slam in one of opener's minors, bidding 2NT with 1444/0454 is a big winner.

 

(3) The main time that bidding 3♥ with 1444/0454 is a big winner is when you in fact have an eight or nine card heart fit and this sequence allows you to find it without any awkwardness or ambiguity. However, notice that:

 

I think that it is more likely that we have a fit in one of the two suits already shown by opener than that we have a fit in the only suit not yet bid...

 

It is also hard to try for slam in hearts in this auction, as after 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥ there is a noticeable lack of forcing heart bids. Slam bidding is actually easier in this sequence when we rebid 2NT and see the auction 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT-3♥-cuebid. Of course, in exchange there is some loss when we have an eight-card heart fit with five in responder's hand and three in opener's.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure if I am reading this right, but it seems there may be some return to love implicitly shown by Mikeh. :)

 

Just a re-note. If 2♥ is GF, then having...

 

2NT with 1354 but trash hearts

3♥ with 1354, 1444, or 0454 and good hearts (xxxx = good), minimum

3♠ with 1444/0454 maximum

3NT with 1354 maximum...

 

...seems to meet some of the discussion points rather well, especially with the assumptions of 1♠...3♥ as 5-5 GF and 1♠...3♠ GF.

 

Putting the 2NT 1354 trash hearts into 3♥ and taking some other the others to 2NT seems plausible but strained. The shuffling might be workable, though.