Stuck for a bid?

[Fluffy]

3♥ is a 3 suiter or overweight in ♥ like AKJ.

[Wackojack]

After reading and trying to take in all this discussion it seems to me that the essence is answering the questions:

1. What should 4th suit forcing mean?

2. How should you respond to a 4th suit bid?

The issues have prompted me into examining whether or not my present methods could be improved. That is why I have put "should" in the questions.

 

1. I have no idea what the beginners class says. However, I firmly believe that a 4th suit forcing bid should be saying to partner "Please tell me more" More fully: "I cannot make a bid that accurately gets over to you what you might need to know, so I will make a waiting bid. All I am telling you is that I have the strength to take the bidding to ...." If an unfamiliar partner (normally Acol style) asks me what level I would like a 4th suit bid at the 2-level to force to, I will say 2NT. I am not sure that this is best, but that is another story.

 

2. I don't think that as partner of the 4th suit bidder, you must bid no trumps if you have a stopper. After all if you were 6160 with the singleton ♥Ace it would be ridiculous to bid no trumps. The question is: "How distributional does your hand have to be before distribution takes priority in your response?" If the bid is forcing to 2NT, then I think that any distributional feature you haven't already mentioned should take priority. In the example sequence 1♠ 2♣, 2♦ 2♥, I take Opener as showing at least 5♠4♦, so after 2♥, I take:

2♠ = 6 spades

3♣= 3 clubs (therefore 5143)

3♦ = 5 diamonds (therefore 55)

3♥ = 4 hearts (therefore 5440)

I notice with interest the fairly popular treatment of 3♥ to mean "I have half a stop"

 

Then we come to 5242 or even 5341 without a heart stop. Clearly, you have no more to say within these defined rules. So a lie has to be told. Judgement has to be used as to which is the least potentially damaging lie. Before I get to that point, I ask myself the question; "If 2♥ is a game force, does this change things?" Well I suppose it could do, if you decided that your first duty was to show a stop and leave additional distribution until later. But that method is foreign to me , so I will listen and learn.

 

Anyway, back to the example. With ♥Q8 my vote was narrowly in favour of 2NT with 3♣ as second choice. Suppose pd had ♠A5,♥752♦972,♣AKQ97. Well, 3NT and 4♠ are hopeful and 5♣ is reasonable. So I would have to make my excuses if pd raises to 3NT and opps take the first 5 tricks and the diamond finesse is right. However, if my hand was ♠K974,♥108, ♦AKJ2, ♣J9, then I would definitely bid 3♣. It seems to me that with nothing more to say, the bid that is least likely to get you into trouble is 3♣. So I believe that if your spades are not good enough to play in game opposite ♠Ax, Kx or Qx in a 5-2 fit, then you should bid 3♣ on any doubleton. If your shape is 5341 with 3 small hearts and poorish spades, then I would risk a bid of 2NT.

 

Side issues:

1. If the rules and ethics authorities want my partner to alert my bid of 2NT knowing that I might not have a normally defined stop, I am sure she would be happy to comply.

2 I think that I agree with Helene, that 2NT should show 12-14 or 18-19 and 3NT 15-17. The principle of slower arrival shoing strenth should only apply with suit support sequences.

3. 1S 2C, 2D 2H, 2NT 3H I would take as showing 5 hearts and therefore 6 clubs. If you have any other way of showing this distribution, then I suppose you could use 3H (The Whereagles way) as saying "Are you kidding me with 2NT or not?"

 

Phew

:)

[aray]

since 2♥ is game frocing, unless partner is mad enough to jump over my 2♠, it is the right rebid.

 

if partner now rebids 3♣ i bid 3♥ and if he continues over that with 3♠ me 3nt showing semi stop

 

over his 3♦ again same and over 3♠ bid 3nt to calrify semi stop.

 

I do not understand since when 2♠ rebid is 6 carder. If any chnace i have a good 6 card ♠ suit, i might have rebid it without biding 2♦ anyway.

[cherdano]

Wackojack, only one comment to your long answer: I don't know anybody who would not play this 2♥ bid as game forcing.

 

I think I would bid 2NT if playing 2/1 (partner usually has hearts, and if it's just 3 small, he can still offer me a choice in case he has Hx of spades), and 2♠ if playing SAYC (partner may have bid 2♥ just to be able to make a forcing 3♣ or 3♦ bid, in which case I should get out of his way to let him do that).

 

Arend

[reisig]

2NT - why is everyone thinking that 2!h denies a stopper of any kind?

Partner might have anything ..including a non-positional stopper in !h like Axx and would like the NT played from your side...if possible. Even if Kxx - our Qx makes the NT far better from our side. Generally - we don't use the 2 level to ask stoppers. Overstating your !s holding may become a disaster later in the auction.

[Chamaco]

2NT - why is everyone thinking that 2!h denies a stopper of any kind?

Partner might have anything ..including a non-positional stopper in !h like Axx and would like the NT played from your side...if possible.  Even if Kxx - our Qx makes the NT far better from our side. Generally - we don't use the 2 level to ask stoppers. Overstating your !s holding may become a disaster later in the auction.

I have been taught that Qx is only a half-stopper , not a real stopper.

 

So, if 2H explicitly promises a stopper, 2NT seems nice :-)

BUT, if 2H does not deny NOR promise a stopper, and pard can have anything, it seems to me that 2NT should promise a full stopper and not simply describe shape...

 

Bottomline, let's decide what 2H does promise: does it ABSOLUTELY promise a full stopper ? If no, then 2NT seems suspect. If yes, 2NT seems great :-)

[Guest Jlall]

2N. For those saying if pard bids 3H over 2S that asks for a HALF stopper, thats really funny. I guess pard cannot be 5-6. Qx of hearts is fine, 2H shows either hearts or a 2335 hand that doesnt like a 2N bid (if he had 6 clubs, 4 diamonds, or 3 spades he would bid those now in a 2/1 structure). If he has Axx or Jxx then NT is fine if he has xxx then NT is fine.