The least understood seqeunce is....

[mike777]

assuming 4d is not clear kickback then it seems

 

 

 

4s can be to play and can be confusing.......

 

for the 99%

 

--

 

 

 

but I am told we nonexperts lose for 99% other reasons....

 

so can we focus on that??

[PhilKing]

For me 4♣ is not necessarily a slam try. I could have ♠Kx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣Qxxxx. If partner bids 4♠ or 5♣, fine and if he cues a red, I bid 4♠, non-forcing. Maybe he has: ♠AQJxx ♥Jx ♦AK ♣AJTx, or ♠AQJTx ♥xxx ♦A ♣AKJx which I gather from a recent thread many people still foolishly bid 3♣ on.

 

Hands that want to cue spades have other options (4NT is a substitute spade cue), but for hands that want to give partner a choice of game, this is the clearest way to do it. And sometimes partner can now bid a slam no one else reaches when two black fillers was all he required:

 

♠AQJxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣AKxxx

[barmar]

Comparing degrees of artificiality, I think 3♣ that shows a strong hand but can be a doubleton (Zel) is no simpler than 2♣ that shows an undefined strong hand. So my preference is for 2♣ as it gives double the room to explore fits and game suitability. That being the case, jumps should show specific shapes/strengths that can then be removed from the alternatives covered by the general purpose 2♣, so its subsequent descriptions are more precise.

If 2♣ would be forcing, what does opener do with a minimum opener? I assume 1NT was forcing, so he can't pass. And even if it's only semi-forcing, he shouldn't pass if he's unbalanced, so how would he show a minimum 5=x=x=4 or 5=x=x=5?

 

In standard, natural bidding, opener's jump shift is just a game force, showing 5 in the original major and usually 4 in the new suit. If you don't want to have to waste space like this, play a big club system.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

♠Kx ♥xx ♦K9xxx ♣Axxx

 

1♠ - 1N

3♣ - 4♣

4♦ -

 

Your call, and do you agree with 4♣

This SJS GF sequence ( 1M - 1NTF, 3m )shows up at least 4 times a year.

 

Here is one ( 1S - 1NTF, 3C - ? )from January.

 

mikeh mentions " Jeff's Magic Elixir " if 3C! is a multi type hand .

 

My approach, also not standard, is as follows ( post # 7 in the above ) :

 

1S - 1NTF!

3C - ??

......... The following 4 bids show ♠ support or not ... and NO interest in ♣:

......... 3D

......... 3H

......... 3S

......... 3NT

......... 4S

 

......... The next 4 bids would "show" RKC for ♣ w/ 4+support :

......... 4C! = 0

......... 4D! = 1

......... 4H! = 2 - ♣ Q

.........4NT! = 2 + ♣ Q

 

... [ Zelandakh showed an "improvement" ( post # 8 ) ]

 

Anyway, Responder would show ONE key card on this hand ( 4D! bid above ), and Opener is in a good position to make an informed decision .

[Zelandakh]

... [ Zelandakh showed an "improvement" ( post # 8 ) ]

LOL, one of those suggested "improvements" was precisely the same as I suggested here for natural bidding. At least I am being consistent!

[helene_t]

That is why I bid 5D and not 4H or something. else.

So 5♦ is a natural bid and not a cue for clubs? Or is partner supposed to make an insufficient 5♣ bid if he doesn't have a heart control either?

[mikeh]

I've been holding off on this topic but:

 

I think it standard, at least in NA, for 3♣ to be played as 3+. How else does one rebid with a gf 6223 or 6133 etc? I suppose one could make a committal 3N or 4M call, but (especially if 1N could conceal a limit raise) this can make constructive bidding awkward. In addition, I am a big fan of being able to differentiate between 4 and 5 card heart suits, so that for me 3♣ is artificial. I will ignore that in the rest of this post since it isn't part of the OP structure.

 

I wouldn't have bid 4♣. Kx in spades is very important....we can almost always get back to clubs at the 6-level, and spades is definitely where we want to play any game.

 

I would be planning on bidding 4♣ over 3N and 4♦ were he to continue patterning out with 4♣.

 

As it is, having bid as if my clubs were better than they are, I have to own up to the spade card eventually, so 4♠ it is.

 

This should (almost) always be the K, not a stiff....if I have a stiff spade and no heart control, I must bid 5♣ regressive or 4N, still encouraging but denying any convenient cue.

 

One reason is that the K is far more likely to be slam-positive than is a stiff, and the second is that we have to be able to play 4♠ on many layouts on which the bidding to date has been impeccable (assuming that you feel the 4♣ raise was ok). Imagine we held Kx xx QJxxx Axxx. We'd bid the same way, and he might hold AQJ10x Qx Ax KQJx. 5♣ requires a diamond finesse while 4♠ is virtually cold.

 

We won't miss slam by 4♠...partner should know that we think 5♣ (at least) is playable because we chose to make a strong club raise over 3♣, but in the meantime we have identified the heart flaw. He can and should move with a heart control....indeed, think of AQxxx Ax Ax KQxx.....the spade K was exactly what he needed to hear about.

 

Back to more general musings: does everybody here have a clear understanding of how to differentiate between a weak hand with a spade preference and a limit raise, if playing a method in which a 3 card limit raise of 1♠ goes through 1N? Which it does in traditional 2/1 methods. I appreciate that many here play different/better methods:) so this 'everybody' should be limited to the 2/1 crowd!

[Flem72]

Back to more general musings: does everybody here have a clear understanding of how to differentiate between a weak hand with a spade preference and a limit raise, if playing a method in which a 3 card limit raise of 1♠ goes through 1N? Which it does in traditional 2/1 methods. I appreciate that many here play different/better methods:) so this 'everybody' should be limited to the 2/1 crowd!

 

I don't know whether everyone does, and maybe I don't have such an understanding either, but what I do unless playing Meck Adjunct or Eisenberg 3C is to bid 4M with an hand that wants to play 4M, 3M with the bad 2-card 5-7 support, 3N with 6-9 stops, 3X or 4 of the jump shift minor with one of the good 1NTF hands, including the 3-card LR, and 5m with a bad hand and m fit. "X" = "values here" and 9+-11 HCP.

 

Stodgy but practical.

[Gerben42]

I bid 4♠ (two without the trump Q).

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Back to more general musings: does everybody here have a clear understanding of how to differentiate between a weak hand with a spade preference and a limit raise, if playing a method in which a 3 card limit raise of 1♠ goes through 1N? Which it does in traditional 2/1 methods. I appreciate that many here play different/better methods:) so this 'everybody' should be limited to the 2/1 crowd!

1S - 1NTF!

3C - ??

......... 3S = minumun response hand, could be as few as 2 card support

......... 4S = 3 card limit raise - - a hand that would have jumped to 3S over 2C/2D rebid

[mikeh]

1S - 1NTF!

3C - ??

......... 3S = minumun response hand, could be as few as 2 card support

......... 4S = 3 card limit raise - - a hand that would have jumped to 3S over 2C/2D rebid

The problem, which I am sure you already know, is that you have now committed a jump to 4♠ without telling your partner anything about how well your limit raise fits for slam purposes.

 

For example, give him AKJxx x Ax KQJxx and you xxx KQJx KQxx xx and now on a bad day even game goes down, such that bidding to the 5-level is really a bad idea, but you'd bid the same way with Qxx xxxx KQxx Ax and now 12 tricks are virtually laydown.

 

Now, I play semi-constructive single raises, and for me a jump to 4♠ shows 3 card support, too weak for an immediate raise, and thus by definition a hand that cannot offer a play for slam.

 

This threatens to overload 3♠, but I deal with that by using 3♦over 3♣ as a 'noise' or 'stall'. As I mentioned in my first post, I prefer a method in which 3♣ is artificial (either a gf 1-suiter, just a hair under a 2♣opening, or real clubs or precisely a 4 card heart suit. This fits very well with using 3♦ as a stall on the given hand, since opener can bid 3♠ (1-suiter), 3♥ (precisely 4....all gf 5 card heart suits jump to 3♥), 3N (4 card clubs) or 4♣ (5-5 or better).

 

So I show the limit raise via the 'preference' and that preserves the entire 4 level as well as 3N (artificial) for slam exploration.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

@ mikeh :

 

I like it..... including the 3C! multi aspect.

 

[ I know you have mentioned this treatment before... but this time I thoroughly read it ].

[kenrexford]

Here is why i bid 5D at this point...

 

Partner has made slam noises expecting me to have no spade fit, while lacking the two black Kings. I cannot imagine any holding for him where the diamond King also in my hand is not enough for slam and where 5S is not a reasonable landing zone. If i bid 5D, he should figure out that i have no heart control but a landing zone at the five level that is not in clubs, meaning per force in spades. Thus, my weird call can only be worked out as something like this hand.

 

I am forced into this by the odd 4C call. But, given the OP, i must live with that. So, to compensate, only this call works, IMO.

[fromageGB]

If 2♣ would be forcing, what does opener do with a minimum opener? I assume 1NT was forcing, so he can't pass. And even if it's only semi-forcing, he shouldn't pass if he's unbalanced, so how would he show a minimum 5=x=x=4 or 5=x=x=5?

We are digressing from the OP, but if opener has a minimum 5xx5 etc he cannot show it with a 2♣ bid, even if you play jump shift as strong. 2♣ has to be either real clubs or a balanced hand, surely, if 1NT is forcing and you play a natural 2♦ rebid. Forcing NT means you cannot show a weak real club suit.

[Zelandakh]

Back to more general musings: does everybody here have a clear understanding of how to differentiate between a weak hand with a spade preference and a limit raise, if playing a method in which a 3 card limit raise of 1♠ goes through 1N? Which it does in traditional 2/1 methods. I appreciate that many here play different/better methods:) so this 'everybody' should be limited to the 2/1 crowd!

I am not part of the 2/1 crowd but I thought it was standard for 3♠ here to show 2 card support and no better bid or 3 card support and slam interest, and therefore that a direct 4♠ is weak. In the specific auction you can perhaps afford to define the 3♠ bid slightly more tightly by using the 3♦ grope for more hands but that is my understanding of how (at least) 2/1ers play this.

[madongjun]

Mabye 3♠ replaced 4♣ was better.now I bid 4♠.

[fromageGB]

Back to more general musings: ...

I'm in the 2/1 crowd, but I don't play this 3♣ GF. If I did, 4♠ is weak and 3♠ is strong, both having support. The 4♠ bid would be a sub-minimum 3 card raise (too weak for 1♠ 2♠), or a no-better-place-to-play with a weak hand 2 card support, and 3♠ is 3 card limit raise to allow cue bids.

 

My main partner is female, so gropes are out of the question. 3♦ would be a stronger hand with no support suggesting NT may be a viable place to play.