A few questions

[aguahombre]

I thought this was all standard stuff?

I don't know about "standard", but the sequences you posted, and their meanings, are pretty much what we use.

[barmar]

Not only is it unnecessary, it is manifestly inferior. Suppose you held the following hand: AQxxx x xxx AQxx, partner opens a diamond, if you bid a spade and partner rebids 2N, you now have no way to introduce clubs as a possible strain below 3N. If partner has, say, Kx Axx AQJx KJxx that could be a very costly problem.

That's a problem for other conventions, like Wolff Signoff, isn't it? Even if you play 3♣ as natural, how would partner know that you're so strong? Do you only introduce the suit if you have extra?

[aguahombre]

Even if you play 3♣ as natural, how would partner know that you're so strong? Do you only introduce the suit if you have extra?

Acknowledged that you asked Phil the question, but mostly yes would be a reasonable answer. Offering a new suit in this situation is probably best used to suggest extra strength or extra distribution or both....some reason to recommend 3NT might not be the best final level and strain.

[Phil]

I nominate Jdeegan's post as the first entry for "post of the year" in 2012.

 

Classic!

[Codo]

I think you're talking about

 

1♣-1♠

2NT-3♦

3♥

 

when the opening post is about

 

1♣-1♠

2NT-3♥

 

but maybe I'm wrong about what the opening post is about.

 

Unluckily, this was not clear, I understood the auction like Adam.

[Fluffy]

In my country everybody plays 3♣ askng and the rest natural (with some poeple playing 3♠ for clubs). The answers to 3♣ are very easy to remember:

 

3♥= I have hearts (4 if new suit, 3 if parnter's suit)

3♠= I have spades (See above)

3NT= I have nothing

3♦= 4-3 in the majors

[phil_20686]

Unluckily, this was not clear, I understood the auction like Adam.

 

I was talking about

1c-1s

2N-3d

3h

 

which is why I put that auction in the OP. I thought it was obvious i was asking about the sequence in the OP.

[blackshoe]

I was talking about

1c-1s

2N-3d

3h

 

which is why I put that auction in the OP. I thought it was obvious i was asking about the sequence in the OP.

 

Geez, Phil. Next thing, you'll be expecting people to understand that when you say "the sky is blue", you're talking about the color of the sky. What the heck's the matter with you?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[phil_20686]

Geez, Phil. Next thing, you'll be expecting people to understand that when you say "the sky is blue", you're talking about the color of the sky. What the heck's the matter with you?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

The sky is actually red. Thats why it looks blue. Don't you know anything!

[gwnn]

oops. I don't know why the poll was confusing to me, anyway (but I suspect it was because I can't read). I'm afraid it was confusing to more people though since I'm inclined to agree with awm's assertion that 3♥ should be a semi-punt.

 

I have thought about these natural 3m bids (that I've never heard before, for some reason). They do look interesting. You lose some on hands with diamonds (because opener has a handy 3♦ transfer completion available) but you win some on hands with clubs (probably more than . You also lose sometimes when opener would like to know whether his/her partner has 5 or 6 cards and you give away some free info to opponents when responder just wanted to go to game all along. I'm sure I'm missing some cases, but surely you see that natural is not obviously better than transfers?

[phil_20686]

oops. I don't know why the poll was confusing to me, anyway (but I suspect it was because I can't read). I'm afraid it was confusing to more people though since I'm inclined to agree with awm's assertion that 3♥ should be a semi-punt.

 

I have thought about these natural 3m bids (that I've never heard before, for some reason). They do look interesting. You lose some on hands with diamonds (because opener has a handy 3♦ transfer completion available) but you win some on hands with clubs (probably more than . You also lose sometimes when opener would like to know whether his/her partner has 5 or 6 cards and you give away some free info to opponents when responder just wanted to go to game all along. I'm sure I'm missing some cases, but surely you see that natural is not obviously better than transfers?

 

My contention was that it was obviously better than NMF. I actually like transfers, although I like to be able to get clubs into the auction. My favourite solution is basically not to have a natural 2N rebid available. I use this rebid as a GF with 54 hands as well as 18-19 balanced. This works well in the context of transfer walsh as you can use 1c-1d/h-1N=18-19 balanced with out 44 card support. Thus you open your 18-19 balanced 1c even with 5 diamonds (though not with a 5cM) and this problem vanishes except over 1h-1s, but for 1h-1s partner should not be responding on junk so its fine to force to game with 18-19 balanced and you can have artificial continuations. I think the gain of playing jumps to 3 of a lower ranking suit as 5-5 GF is significant, particularly 1s-1n-3x.

 

Course, some people like to be able to play in a natural 2N after partner has responded to your 1m opening. Fortuneately I dont play bridge with any of those people.