bid

[the hog]

3♣, though I probably should have bid clubs before.

3C here would not be natural, but 4th suit forcing, asking for a stopper.

[ONEferBRID]

I might have bid 2C on the previous round. I will bid 2NT now. Really the C T is an excellent card here.

Which is weaker 2♣ or 2♦?

None of them.

 

Bidding 6-6-4 is weaker than 6-4-6.

 

Although I agree with the 3C bid now rather than earlier,

2NT ( nonforcing ) looks better. Not only is the CT a good card, the HK has been elevated.

[655321]

My 2♦ shows 6

Ok, and what do you bid with 1 spade, 4 hearts, 5 diamonds and 3 clubs,

and a hand to weak to make a reverse?

1nt

1NT with a singleton is not usually a good idea for a rebid. This would be an exception to 2D showing six, or--some people use 2C here as an agreed system bid, or just as a noise to get out of the problem and create a different problem.

This is just wrong, of course. Jillybean is correct, 1NT is usually the only rebid with 1453.

[jillybean]

My 2♦ shows 6

Ok, and what do you bid with 1 spade, 4 hearts, 5 diamonds and 3 clubs,

and a hand to weak to make a reverse?

1nt

1NT with a singleton is not usually a good idea for a rebid. This would be an exception to 2D showing six, or--some people use 2C here as an agreed system bid, or just as a noise to get out of the problem and create a different problem.

This is just wrong, of course. Jillybean is correct, 1NT is usually the only rebid with 1453.

I think its just a matter of style, theres no perfect system to cater for every hand. Yet another thing to discuss with your partner.

[Fluffy]

3♣, though I probably should have bid clubs before.

3C here would not be natural, but 4th suit forcing, asking for a stopper.

Sorry Ron, but you don't know Hannoi's system better than him :).

 

I play everything from opener as natural, but when the suit has been denied and it is the 4th suit it shows the lonelly ace (Ax or Axx). A reasonable option with this cards, but I prefer 2NT

[skjaeran]

I might have bid 2C on the previous round. I will bid 2NT now. Really the C T is an excellent card here.

Which is weaker 2♣ or 2♦?

None of them.

 

Bidding 6-6-4 is weaker than 6-4-6.

Yes, we all agree on that. But that wasn't the question. The question was what's weaker the previous round of 2♣ and 2♦. The answer to that is none of them. The minimum strength for both is the same - a minimum opener in your style.

 

It's true that the 2♣ rebid can include stronger hands (of several types) than the 2♦ rebid though.

[vuroth]

1NT with a singleton is not usually a good idea for a rebid.  This would be an exception to 2D showing six, or--some people use 2C here as an agreed system bid, or just as a noise to get out of the problem and create a different problem.

This is just wrong, of course. Jillybean is correct, 1NT is usually the only rebid with 1453.

I realize this is quite common, but I hate it. :(

[mikeh]

My 2♦ shows 6

Ok, and what do you bid with 1 spade, 4 hearts, 5 diamonds and 3 clubs,

and a hand to weak to make a reverse?

1nt

1NT with a singleton is not usually a good idea for a rebid. This would be an exception to 2D showing six, or--some people use 2C here as an agreed system bid, or just as a noise to get out of the problem and create a different problem.

This is just wrong, of course. Jillybean is correct, 1NT is usually the only rebid with 1453.

This simply is NOT true.

 

What is true is that there is a school of thought that plays it this way, and they do so because they believe it to be the most effective way of handling this pattern, and that the undoubted cost to other auctions of the uncertaintly engendered by this approach is worth incurring ....or... as is so often the case amongst the majority of players... they don't think about cost-benefit... they just adopt something they heard of somewhere.

 

There is another school of thought that holds that the cost of rebidding 1N with a stiff is too high to make the approach worthwhile... altho some of the '1N promises at least 2 card support' crowd probably play it from inertia: they learned it this way and changing makes life too complex for them.

 

I don't generally play that 1N is the appropriate rebid on 1=4=5=3.... I admit to being slightly old-fashioned... I'd usually rebid 2♦ with a good suit or 2♣... with, usually, a preference for that call. Since I almost never open 1♦ with 4=5, my partners will rarely pass me in a 3-3 fit.

 

I would rebid 1N with a stiff A or K, and maybe Q.

[ArtK78]

Interesting discussion.

 

Everyone seems to be assuming that 2♥ is forcing. For those of us who play Extended PLOB, the 2♥ bid would be nonforcing (3♣ would be artificial and forcing). This would leave opener with three choices:

 

(1) take a preference to 2♠, expecting to play a 5-2 fit (I suppose 6-2 is possible, but unlikely).

(2) rebid 3♣, hoping that partner is either 5404 or 5422 or 5431, but not 5413.

(3) rebid 2NT nonforcing and hope to find 8 tricks in that contract.

 

I would bid 2♠, getting out at the lowest possible playable contract.

 

If 2♥ is forcing, 2NT seems to be a standout bid.

[Fluffy]

Interesting discussion.

 

Everyone seems to be assuming that 2♥ is forcing. For those of us who play Extended PLOB, the 2♥ bid would be nonforcing (3♣ would be artificial and forcing). This would leave opener with three choices:

Impressive, my pick up expert partner on a TM left me on this very same sequence when I rebid 2♥ on something like:

 

AQJxxx

KQx

Qx

xx

 

I though that he should be the only person on earth to believe this sequence its non forcing, but obviously that's not true :(.

 

I don't mean to be harsh, this method has obvious upside of playing 2♥ but I think it is a small target.

 

If you have to rebid 3♣ with this, how do you find about club stopper?

[the hog]

3♣, though I probably should have bid clubs before.

3C here would not be natural, but 4th suit forcing, asking for a stopper.

Sorry Ron, but you don't know Hannoi's system better than him :).

 

I play everything from opener as natural, but when the suit has been denied and it is the 4th suit it shows the lonelly ace (Ax or Axx). A reasonable option with this cards, but I prefer 2NT

Fluffy, Hanoi can play whatever he wants, but if you are going to make a post which contains bidding that is not standard, then you should explain the bidding. Agree? 3C here is 4th suit forcing for practically everyone. Why show a 4th suit naturally when 3 have already been bid?

[ONEferBRID]

I agree with those who say 3C by Opener is natural.

 

If anything, I would play Responder's "cheapest" new suit forcing ( 2H!)--and may be artificial--over Opener's 2minor rebid, analogous to NMF over a 1NT rebid.

[the hog]

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

[mike777]

i bid 3nt 2 or 3 days ago.

 

May we please,,,,,please move on to next deal.....you are way too slow!

[the hog]

i bid 3nt 2 or 3 days ago.

 

May we please,,,,,please move on to next deal.....you are way too slow!

Oh thats right, you are the one who went 3 off aren't you?

[helene_t]

2N. I assume this is forcing.

Interesting. I wouldn't take 2NT as forcing without discussion but I can see it makes sense.

[pooltuna]

You've already shown you have a minimum opener and partner has shown at least invitational values and probably more since he didn't bail after 2♦. So bid what you think you can make...3NT

[ONEferBRID]

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

2H! may not be a real suit.

After a rebid by opener of his minor, there is a need for Responder to have

a forcing vs non-forcing continuation..... just as in NMF over a 1NT rebid by Opener.

 

One way to do that is to make the "cheapest new suit " as forcing ( 1 Rnd, not GF )

by Responder. Responder has taken control ( as in NMF ).

 

Let's take a different auction:

-- - 1C

1S - 2C

??

2D! = forcing and could be artificial whereas,

2H = natural, non-forcing ( a weak 5/4 )

 

Over 2D!, Opener may be able to bid ( in order of priority )

............. 2S = 3 card support

......... or 2H = 4 card, natural 2nd suit

.........or 2NT = none of the above but stop(s) in other Major, Hts ( as in NMF )

.........or 3D = 4 card, natural 2nd suit

.........or 3C = I can't believe I opened this crap

[Cascade]

2N. I assume this is forcing.

2N. I assume it is not forcing.

3N. I assume it is not forcing.

[bill1157]

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

I can see the rationale for the 4th suit being relatively natural, i.e. showing something in the suit as opposed to asking about the suit. Probably a better treatment for most partnerships.

 

Bill

[Cascade]

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

I can see the rationale for the 4th suit being relatively natural, i.e. showing something in the suit as opposed to asking about the suit. Probably a better treatment for most partnerships.

 

Bill

Against that why would we need two bids to show the fourth suit - 3♣ and 2/3NT?

 

Especially given that 3♣ may just wrong side a possible 3NT contract or help the opponents to not lead that suit.

[ONEferBRID]

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

I can see the rationale for the 4th suit being relatively natural, i.e. showing something in the suit as opposed to asking about the suit. Probably a better treatment for most partnerships.

 

Bill

Against that why would we need two bids to show the fourth suit - 3♣ and 2/3NT?

 

Especially given that 3♣ may just wrong side a possible 3NT contract or help the opponents to not lead that suit.

 

- - - 1D

1S - 2D

2H - ??

 

I agree.

If you use 2H as natural, then no need to bid the 4th suit 3C as "showing", but "asking" ( for a stop as a first priority ).