Best use of redundant stopper probe

[steensland]

This is my first topic, so please bear with me.

 

(Sorry for confusing topic description, which I cannot edit. Should have said "where X is already denied by partner")

 

I am wondering about the best use of bidding 3 of the only remaining suit in a stopper showing sequence, after partner having implicitly denied that stopper.

I think that the situations only apply when SHOWING rather than ASKING for stoppers, when there are multiple potential suits unstopped.

Please submit your recommended usage of these bids. If you believe that the vast majority of players is playing something different than you, please also submit your view of the what the majority is playing.

 

Many auctions qualify. Feel free to point out differences between the auctions below or supply better example auctions, if you think my examples are flawed. I am looking for a general guide line.

 

Ex 1:

1♣ : 3♣

3♦¹ : 3 ♥²

3♠?

 

¹) ♦ stopped, some suits still not stopped, else 3NT

²) ♥ stopped, ♠ unstopped, else 3NT

 

Some possible meanings of 3♠ that I can think of:

a) half stopper, inviting partner to bid 3NT with also half a ♠ stopper

b) stopper, but wanting partner to declare (perhaps based on ♠A vs possible ♥K with partner)

c) shortness

d) something else

 

Ex 2:

1♠ : 2♣

3♣ : 3♦¹

3♥?

 

¹ ♦ stopped, ♥ unstopped, else 3NT

 

Ex 3:

1♦ : 2♣

2♦ : 3♦

3♥¹ : 3♠?

 

¹ ♥ stopped, ♠ unstopped, else 3NT

 

Thank you

[apollo1201]

I think it is most commonly used as half a stopper (or maybe a blank and short A and fearing after it is gone soon after the lead, 8 more tricks cannot be made at once). Saying it is best used, I dunno🤣

[FelicityR]

I'm no expert on the 2/1 type of bidding (as shown on your profile), so I'll let someone who is to advise you here, but the first sequence I assume is an inverted (pre-emptive) raise 1♣ - 3♣ so opener would have to be strong to continue bidding.

 

As for the other examples, sequence two I would take as asking for a half-stopper, as you have. That looks logical.

 

Sequence three I would take 3♠ as a mmmm...I'm not sure because if opener had both ♥s and ♠s stopped then would have bid 3NT, and probably wouldn't have bid 2♦, the weakest bid over 2♣.

 

That is my interpretation, but there are plenty of better theorists/commentators on here, so I'll be interested in their take on things.

[rmnka447]

I think your sequences are nearly correct. There's a pretty guideline to follow when exploring for NT - "Bidding the 3rd suit tells and bidding the 4th suit asks"

 

The first sequence asks for a half stopper. If opener had a good stopper, then 3 NT would have been bid. Responder's auction to that point that point has denied a full ♠ stopper. So opener bidding ♠ (the 4th suit) asks for a half stopper something like Jxx or Qxx. If responder has the half stopper, 3 NT should be bid. Likely, opener has something like the mirror half stopper Qxx opposite Jxx or Jxx opposite Qxx.

 

The second sequence is exactly right - 3 ♥ (the 3rd suit) asks about a ♠ stopper(s) for NT.

 

The third sequence is another half stopper ask. 3 ♠ (the 4th suit) asks about a half stopper, else responder would just bid 4 ♦.

[steensland]

Thanks for the replies so far. I hope to see more.

 

Regarding 3rd suit shows and 4th asks, that is the common norm for the first stopper bid. If three suits have been bid naturally, a bid of the fourth asks for a stopper (after a minor suit raiser). That is very logical, as that is the most likely thing stopping you from bidding 3NT.

But in my examples, the bidder knows that his partners does not have the stopper, so the 4th suit is not asking for a (full) stopper.

 

Half stoppers is perhaps the most natural use of the bid, but the reason I asked the question in the first place was that I was surprised that this bid was not more commonly discussed, as half stoppers in not anything we regularly care for or have the ability to indicate. In fact, I found very little information online regarding these bids.

 

I did find this from Richard Pavlicek, though::

If there is only one unbid suit, a bid in that suit shows the ace and no desire to declare notrump, or shortness (singleton or void).

 

Source: http://www.rpbridge.net/3f00.htm

 

I think it has merit, but if he is the only one playing it, then perhaps the half stopper is better anyway.