2/1 - what's your bid

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sak7432h5dkqj3c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1♠ - 2♥ (GF)

2♠ - 3♣

?

 

Since this is a minimum playing Fantunes style, your first rebid is 2♠. If you don't like this, please assume you were playing standard and you didn't have ♦Q, leaving 11 HCP.

 

What is the meaning of 3♦ for you? Natural, 4th suit forcing, could be both?

[Fluffy]

1♠-2♥-2♠, I will normally bid 3♦ next if I can

[whereagles]

3♦ (natural) seems fine. Maybe pard can now bid 3♠ with 2 cards.

 

I think this is going to end in 3NT, but I don't want to take that decision just now, as pard might be quite strong still.

[mtvesuvius]

3♦ Natural. Why would 4th Suit forcing apply in a GF auction? Partner may still have more to describe in this auction, although I have a feeling I will be dummy in 3NT.

[Codo]

And again what I play is not mainstream: The 4. suit always asks. So here, it simply asks for a stopper.

I bid 3 NT, because this is the last chance to do so. 3 ♠ will bury 3 NT, because partner surely has no stopper in diamond.

 

(when 3 Diamond is natural, I would prefer that of course. But for me it is not.)

 

And btw. good luck with this natural approach when your and partners minors are switched.

[mtvesuvius]

And again what I play is not mainstream: The 4. suit always asks. So here, it simply asks for a stopper.

I bid 3 NT, because this is the last chance to do so. 3 ♠ will bury 3 NT, because partner surely has no stopper in diamond.

 

(when 3 Diamond is natural, I would prefer that of course. But for me it is not.)

 

And btw. good luck with this natural approach when your and partners minors are switched.

Then we bid 3♠ or 3NT :).

[P_Marlowe]

FSF.

 

I know, with this view I am in the minority here on

the forum.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

3♦ 4sf, my agreements aren’t anywhere near sophisticated enough to play it any other way.

This 6th ♠ looks more like 5 :)

[whereagles]

That's funny. If something, AKxxxx looks more like 7 to me :)

[Hanoi5]

By the way, isn't 4SF only used by responder? I had no idea opener could bid that convention, too.

[jdonn]

And btw. good luck with this natural approach when your and partners minors are switched.

You mean if he had rebid 3♦ instead and I held clubs? I don't understand what you are saying.

[kenrexford]

Negative probe. Either interested in 3NT but needing a stopper OR a denial cuebid with club support. If partner bids, says, 3NT, and I bid 4♣, 3♦ will have been "proven" to have been a cuebid denying a diamnd control. Hence, a 4♣ bid by me, instead, would guarantee a diamond control.

[neilkaz]

FSF.

 

I know, with this view I am in the minority here on

the forum.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Pardon me for being blunt, but why do we need 4sf in an auction that is allready gf ?

 

3♦ natural and wondering how else to bid this hand I have been dealt.

[Fluffy]

I am trying to come to a hand where I would like to play 4th suit forcing in this position.

 

I have no 6th spade to show

I have no 2nd heart to show

I have no diamond stopper

I don't have support in clubs

 

This doesn't leave me many hands left.

[awm]

The other side of this argument is, will you ever realistically have a 4-4 diamond fit on this auction? Partner has already shown 5+♥ and 4+♣ and even if he was 0544 he might've bid diamonds at second turn. So what is the use of bidding a suit naturally when you can never have a fit there?

 

On the other hand:

 

Kxxxxx

Q

xxx

AKx

 

Yeah you could rebid your spades again on king-empty, but otherwise you might want a temporizing bid.

 

Kxxxxx

x

AKx

AKx

 

Too good of a hand to bid 3NT. But 3♠ seems misleading as partner will generally expect both a weaker hand and a better suit. Temporizing with 3♦ and then bidding 3NT over 3♥ (or cuebidding over 3♠, or quantitatively raising 4NT) should imply this hand.

 

KJxxx

x

Jxx

AQxx

 

Yes you have four clubs, but do you really want to bypass 3NT on this terrible hand?

 

KQxxx

x

Axxx

Kxx

 

Okay, this time you have a diamond stopper, but 3NT will play better from partner's side and if partner has singleton diamond and 5-5 in the round suits you might be better off in clubs.

 

AKQJx

xx

xxx

Kxx

 

You could preference to hearts. But is this hand really about hearts? Even if partner has six of them you could easily be better off in 3NT. It'd be nice for 3♥ to promise a doubleton honor, or at least a side doubleton that could develop into a ruffing value.

[peachy]

3D natural. Shows suit, shows shape, and has doubts about 3NT or NT in general. We are not going to attempt to set diamonds as trump...after three other suits have been bid.

What other reason is there to bid 3D [natural/ish] than "I don't like my hand for NT = translate that as 'I have heart singleton' " and what other reason is there to bid 3D instead of 3NT than "I don't think we should be in NT unless you want to be there knowing I have singleton heart". If the agreement is 4th suit forcing, my question is "Forcing to what?". Gameforce was already established first round of bidding.

 

Who knows, maybe I'm confused, but the auction seems easy to me and 3D Natural the only sensible meaning.

[jillybean]

Interesting. I’d like to change my vote. What is 3♦ (2way)?

[Gerben42]

3D natural. Shows suit, shows shape, and has doubts about 3NT or NT in general. We are not going to attempt to set diamonds as trump...after three other suits have been bid.

 

Partner's hand:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=shak742da862ckqj5&s=sak7432h5dkqj3c32]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

How would you bid it, then, after

 

1♠ - 2♥

2♠ - 3♣

3♦ (4th suit forcing)

 

Anyway, I thought since 3♦ would be 4th suit, I'd better bid 3NT to give partner a chance to bid 4♦ with this hand. Partner thought 3♦ would have been natural so he didn't bother to introduce ♦, and a good slam was missed B)

[mikeh]

opener can't bid fourth suit forcing. that, however, is not the same as saying that opener can't punt or, as roth used to say, mark time by way of an ostensibly natural bid that doesn't match his hand.. if the stall/punt/mark time is the best call.

 

3♦ is obvious to the point that I don't understand the merits of any other call.

 

To me, the biggest single reason for the call is that it allows partner to clarify his hand. I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

 

Now, responder, with xx or Hx in spades, can't raise.. maybe he has Qx AKxxx xx KQxx.. he rebids a natural 3♣ and over 3♦ can own up to his spade support.

 

There is no reason for us to bid notrump at this stage, and some reason not to.

 

Yes, if we hold Adam's 6=2=3=3 hands with xxx in diamonds, we would also punt with 3♦. Partner will bid a bad 3N only with 1=5=2=5.. with 2 spades or 6 hearts, he will bid those suits... and if he has 1=5=2=5 with no diamond stopper, maybe the suit will not run, maybe they won't lead it, maybe he has a stopper, and maybe no game makes... so it isn't the end of the world.

[jdonn]

Yes, if we hold Adam's 6=2=3=3 hands with xxx in diamonds, we would also punt with 3♦.

I think either 3♥ or 3♠ is acceptable on such a hand (6-2 in the majors without 14 cards). I don't understand why 3♦ would ever be anything but natural. Sure you can invent examples with terrible suits you don't want to rebid, but that doesn't change the meanings of the bids. Defining everything naturally (3♠ = 6, 3♥ = 2, 3♦ = 4, 4♣ = 4) never leaves you without a bid unless you are unfortunate enough to lose a card and hold 5133. This never even requires you to bid notrump if you don't like your diamond holding!

[skjaeran]

I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

Why is that? To me a 2♦ rebid would be absolutely obvious. And I play 2/1. (I did see the "not universal" part.) I know that many would rebid 2♠ on a 6-4 minimum, but the reasoning behind doing it on 5-4 eludes me.

[Echognome]

I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

Why is that? To me a 2♦ rebid would be absolutely obvious. And I play 2/1. (I did see the "not universal" part.) I know that many would rebid 2♠ on a 6-4 minimum, but the reasoning behind doing it on 5-4 eludes me.

I think Mike means over a 2♥ response. 1♠ - 2♥; ?

 

In this situation it is common to rebid 2♠ even holding a 4-card minor.

[mikeh]

I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

Why is that? To me a 2♦ rebid would be absolutely obvious. And I play 2/1. (I did see the "not universal" part.) I know that many would rebid 2♠ on a 6-4 minimum, but the reasoning behind doing it on 5-4 eludes me.

Hi Harald. I always respect your views, but you must now be playing in a game I don't recognize... I have never been allowed to get away with a 2♦ rebid after partner's 2♥ response. I have argued that this is a true reverse.. showing substantially fewer values than a 3♦ bid, but no Director has yet upheld my argument, and my partners refuse to participate in appeals on the issue. They keep muttering something about 2♦ being 'insufficient'.

[awm]

I don't really understand Mikeh's view that the 3♦ bid is "natural" but then at the same time it can be bid with three small diamonds on an awkward hand.

 

Either this bid shows diamonds or it doesn't. If it is ambiguous:

 

(1) Is responder supposed to bid notrump on 1525? The chances of avoiding a diamond lead here are vanishingly small as it is the one suit that has not been bid naturally...

 

(2) Is responder supposed to raise diamonds on 0544 without substantial extras? If so, you are really in the soup when opener bid diamonds on three-small (total misfit and here you are at the four-level without extra values, and 4NT probably isn't even to play). If not then how has it helped you to "show" your four-card diamond suit in the first place?

[mikeh]

I don't really understand Mikeh's view that the 3♦ bid is "natural" but then at the same time it can be bid with three small diamonds on an awkward hand.

 

Either this bid shows diamonds or it doesn't. If it is ambiguous:

 

(1) Is responder supposed to bid notrump on 1525? The chances of avoiding a diamond lead here are vanishingly small as it is the one suit that has not been bid naturally...

 

(2) Is responder supposed to raise diamonds on 0544 without substantial extras? If so, you are really in the soup when opener bid diamonds on three-small (total misfit and here you are at the four-level without extra values, and 4NT probably isn't even to play). If not then how has it helped you to "show" your four-card diamond suit in the first place?

I don't really understand Adam's view.. I'm not sure that I know what it is.

 

I am assuming, and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, that he likes 3♦ to be systemically a punt on a holding such as xxx.. and I think Harald agrees with him.

 

I am going to make one further assumption: that Adam would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand and 5 spades/4 diamonds or 5=5.. that for him, as for most but not all 2/1 players, 1♠  2♥  3♦ shows extras.

 

If that assumption is in error, then what follows is less relevant, because he will need to be able to bid diamonds (over 3♣) naturally only with 6-4 hands, not with the more common 5-4 hands nor the occasional 5-5.

 

So I want ask what his rebid, as opener over 3♣, would be on:

 

1. QJxxxx x AKJ Jxx

 

2. KQxxxx x AQxxx x

 

3. AQxxx x AJxxx xx

 

4. AKxxxx x AJxx xx

 

I suspect that we all agree that the first hand bids a wtp 3N. The reason I include that example (or many hands with chunky diamonds... say AKxxx xx AQx xxx) is to anticipate the unlikely argument that responder can take the 3N call as showing 4+ diamonds)

 

But if, and it may be a big if for some, we accept that systemically hands 2-4 rebid 2♠, what are our choices over 3♣? Surely we are not bidding 3N with 2 and 3.. and don't we want to find out if partner can preference to spades on 4?

 

So what choice do we have other than 3♦?

 

Even if we systemically decide that the 'book bid' with xxx with Jxxxxx A xxx AKx is 3♦, does that mean that 3♦ 'shows' xxx? if it shows xxx, then we can't bid my examples 2 3 and 4 intelligently.. can we? (again, assume that we don't rebid 3♦ over 2♥)

 

My argument was not that we should systemically have 3♦ as ambiguous. For me, 3♦ is a natural, usually weak, bid, altho if I pull 3N, it makes it a powerhouse 6=4. I was arguing that it is possible that there could be a hand with xxx in diamonds on which no call is 'right' and that one might choose to fudge the 3 call as the least of evils.

 

BTW, please don't read this post as an argument in favour of making the 1♠  2♥  3♦ call on weak hands.. I've heard and read all of the arguments, and (outside of a strong club method) I don't find them persuasive, even tho on some hands they work better than the alternative.