[gareth]

---

I play 2/1 with a good partner who is more familiar with 2/1 than myself. Absent discussion is there a standard meaning for a jump to 3NT, does it show extra values?

If you bid 2NT and partner raises to 3NT are you bidding again? If not, what should partner be bidding over 2NT holding extras, e.g. AKQxx AKxx xx xx? How do either of you show extra values in the subsequent auction?

If 3NT shows this hand including the extra values, then suppose you hold a hand such as Kx Kxx AQ109x Axx which wants to keep other strains in the picture. This hand surely bids 2NT, but the question remains how does either player show extras?

[gwnn]

You can play 3NT=exactly 2-3 in the majors (i.e. an almost-fit for both suits), 15-17 hcp. In that case of course you have a problem when you have 2-2 in the majors, that's life. There will be some guessing and playing (even going down 1!) in 4NT involved.

[32519]

You can continue with a convention called Fourth Suit Forcing. From the bidding though (and North's actual holding), it does appear as though you are headed for 3NT. South never made a jump bid advertising extra values.

[rhm]

gareth, on 2012-April-26, 03:26, said:

---

I play 2/1 with a good partner who is more familiar with 2/1 than myself. Absent discussion is there a standard meaning for a jump to 3NT, does it show extra values?

yes, this shows a strong notrump by responder 15-17 or some would say 16-17.

Quote

If you bid 2NT and partner raises to 3NT are you bidding again? If not, what should partner be bidding over 2NT holding extras, e.g. AKQxx AKxx xx xx? How do either of you show extra values in the subsequent auction?

Having standard agreements you should not bid 2NT, exactly to avoid this problem. 2NT shows 12-14(15) or 18+. With 18+ you bid again past 3NT

Quote

If 3NT shows this hand including the extra values, then suppose you hold a hand such as Kx Kxx AQ109x Axx which wants to keep other strains in the picture. This hand surely bids 2NT, but the question remains how does either player show extras?

No I would not bid 2NT, mainly because if notrump is right, it might have to be played by partner. (give him ♣Qx for example...)
I would bid 3♣ and take it from there. I am more interested in a trump contract and think chances for slam are much better there than in notrumps.
But I admit if partner bids 3NT, showing something in clubs and at most a doubleton in diamonds, I will pass and could possibly miss slam, e.g. partner holding ♠AQJxx,♥Axxx,♦Jx,♣Kx
But this hand fits your hand remarkably well for the auction. Partner might have the same hand without the jacks, where no contract beyond 3NT would be safe.

Rainer Herrmann

[daveharty]

32519, on 2012-April-26, 04:45, said:

You can continue with a convention called Fourth Suit Forcing. From the bidding though (and North's actual holding), it does appear as though you are headed for 3NT. South never made a jump bid advertising extra values.

Disagree. Why would "Fourth Suit Forcing" be applicable in an auction where a game force is already established? Wouldn't it be preferable to make a descriptive bid, rather than a bid that simply says "Just in case you didn't hear my 2/1 bid the previous round, I'm artificially forcing to game again"? In a sense this is just terminology; obviously 3C is forcing, and it is the fourth suit, but "4SF" is typically used in auctions where responder is checking on one of two things: do we have a fit, or do we belong in NT. I agree that the auction hear appears to be heading toward NT...so I would suggest bidding it, since you are the one with the minors under control. 3C in the OP's situation would deny the ability to bid NT. I agree with rhm...3NT should show this hand.

[cherdano]

This is a textbook 3NT rebid. Jumps to 3NT in a game-forcing auction show extras.

[32519]

gareth, on 2012-April-26, 03:26, said:

---

daveharty, on 2012-April-26, 11:20, said:

Disagree. Why would "Fourth Suit Forcing" be applicable in an auction where a game force is already established? Wouldn't it be preferable to make a descriptive bid, rather than a bid that simply says "Just in case you didn't hear my 2/1 bid the previous round, I'm artificially forcing to game again"? In a sense this is just terminology; obviously 3C is forcing, and it is the fourth suit, but "4SF" is typically used in auctions where responder is checking on one of two things: do we have a fit, or do we belong in NT. I agree that the auction hear appears to be heading toward NT...so I would suggest bidding it, since you are the one with the minors under control. 3C in the OP's situation would deny the ability to bid NT. I agree with rhm...3NT should show this hand.

I have a very good reason for bidding 4SF. Have another look at the two hands. If opener has 5♠ and 5♥...Bingo! Most (if not all) of opener's HCP MUST be in the majors. The ♥ slam suddenly looks very good.

I have a second reason. I want opener to play 3NT. I want to protect whatever the honour holding in the ♥ suit is as well.

[daveharty]

32519, on 2012-April-26, 12:01, said:

I have a very good reason for bidding 4SF. Have another look at the two hands. If opener has 5♠ and 5♥...Bingo! Most (if not all) of opener's HCP MUST be in the majors. The ♥ slam suddenly looks very good.

My point is that 3C isn't "4SF"; a game-force has already been established, so ANY bid below game at this point is forcing. 3C, therefore, has a subtly different meaning than, say, 2C would in this auction: 1D-1H-1S-2C, where 2C is 4SF. In this auction, responder needed to economically establish a forcing situation, either because he wanted to know about secondary heart support OR he wanted to know is partner could bid NT with club stopped. That's not the case in the OP.

My further point--also made by cherdano and rhm--is that 3NT shows this type of hand: balanced, minors under control, extra values. If your hypothetical 5-5 partner has the facts about your hand, he is in a good position to know whether to move over 3NT or not.

[daveharty]

32519, on 2012-April-26, 12:01, said:

I have a second reason. I want opener to play 3NT. I want to protect whatever the honour holding in the ♥ suit is as well.

This doesn't fly. Your 3C "4SF" bid conveyed zero information about clubs; how is your partner ever going to be able to bid 3NT over it? You already know he doesn't have a club stopper!

[gnasher]

Quote

Why would "Fourth Suit Forcing" be applicable in an auction where a game force is already established? Wouldn't it be preferable to make a descriptive bid, rather than a bid that simply says "Just in case you didn't hear my 2/1 bid the previous round, I'm artificially forcing to game again"?

The term "Fourth Suit Forcing" was originally used (by its inventor) to mean an artificial bid in the fourth suit which asks for further information and doesn't show length in the suit, but simply denies the ability to make a more descriptive bid. Despite the name, the key feature was its artificiality, not the fact that it was forcing. This meaning is accepted by, amongst others, The Bridge World and the ACBL Encylopedia of Bridge.

If a bid in the fourth suit has this artificial meaning, it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as "Fourth Suit Forcing", regardless of whether we were already game-forced.

[daveharty]

gnasher, on 2012-April-26, 12:55, said:

...but simply denies the ability to make a more descriptive bid.

I agree completely. The "forcing" part is simply a corollary of the "artificial" part, as responder needs another chance to clarify his intentions. But that's not the case here. I don't really know if Norman Squire would have called the use of 3C in the OP "4SF" or "Fourth Suit Artificial" or whatever; every example I've ever seen of the convention's use is at the 1- or 2-level and is used when no other convenient forcing bid is available, but it's really not very important what you call it. The reason I took issue with 32519's post was that he recommended the use of "4SF" in an auction where it wasn't necessary for two reasons: a game force already existed, and a more descriptive (even, as cherdano says, textbook) bid does exist.

[the hog]

rhm, on 2012-April-26, 04:49, said:

yes, this shows a strong notrump by responder 15-17 or some would say 16-17.

Having standard agreements you should not bid 2NT, exactly to avoid this problem. 2NT shows 12-14(15) or 18+. With 18+ you bid again past 3NT

No I would not bid 2NT, mainly because if notrump is right, it might have to be played by partner. (give him ♣Qx for example...)
I would bid 3♣ and take it from there. I am more interested in a trump contract and think chances for slam are much better there than in notrumps.
But I admit if partner bids 3NT, showing something in clubs and at most a doubleton in diamonds, I will pass and could possibly miss slam, e.g. partner holding ♠AQJxx,♥Axxx,♦Jx,♣Kx
But this hand fits your hand remarkably well for the auction. Partner might have the same hand without the jacks, where no contract beyond 3NT would be safe.

Rainer Herrmann

So you expect partner to bid NT over 3C when 4th suit forcing asks for a stopper. What Club stopper is he supposed to have? Well I suppose on the bidding to date he could be 5404.
As posted by Cherdano, this is an obvious 3NT bid.

[32519]

daveharty, on 2012-April-26, 17:21, said:

I agree completely. The "forcing" part is simply a corollary of the "artificial" part, as responder needs another chance to clarify his intentions. But that's not the case here. I don't really know if Norman Squire would have called the use of 3C in the OP "4SF" or "Fourth Suit Artificial" or whatever; every example I've ever seen of the convention's use is at the 1- or 2-level and is used when no other convenient forcing bid is available, but it's really not very important what you call it. The reason I took issue with 32519's post was that he recommended the use of "4SF" in an auction where it wasn't necessary for two reasons: a game force already existed, and a more descriptive (even, as cherdano says, textbook) bid does exist.

I think you’re fussing unnecessarily here. If after 3♣ (let’s call it 4th Suit Artificial as suggested by yourself),
1. Opener does hold a 5th ♥, then responder raises to 4♥ and opener maintains control over any RKCB sequence. Responder doesn’t have any honours in the ♥ suit. So who better than opener to decide at what level to end the auction?
2. Opener denies holding a 5th ♥, he simply returns to the ♠ suit and responder plays 3NT.

You end up in the same place.

To stick rigidly to “text-book” bids won’t solve the myriad of problems that inevitably arise at the table. So now you need to “manufacture” a bid when an option for merely finding game versus a possibility of finding slam exists (albeit a small possibility).

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2012-April-26, 23:37, said:

So now you need to “manufacture” a bid when an option for merely finding game versus a possibility of finding slam exists (albeit a small possibility).

In Standard (American) 2/1 the bucket bid for Responder to find out more is 2NT which does not promise a club stopper. That allows 3♣ to be natural. It seems to me that you want to reverse these meanings, for 2NT to show club values and for 3♣ to pass the buck. Effectively you are in the same situation as the auction 1♠ - 2♦; 2♥ - 3♣; 3NT as the OP's question regarding 1♠ - 2♦; 2♥ - 2NT; 3NT. The suggested use of the 3NT rebid sidesteps these issues by showing the extra values at once.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2012-April-26, 17:54, said:

So you expect partner to bid NT over 3C when 4th suit forcing asks for a stopper. What Club stopper is he supposed to have? Well I suppose on the bidding to date he could be 5404.
As posted by Cherdano, this is an obvious 3NT bid.

The 3C bid was suggested for the alternative hand responder might have Kx Kxx AQ109x Axx, mentioned in the opening thread, not what bid one should make with J8 958 AQT94 AKQ over 2♥.
You might profit from reading a bit more carefully before starting to object.

Rainer Herrmann

[daveharty]

32519, on 2012-April-26, 23:37, said:

1. Opener does hold a 5th ♥, then responder raises to 4♥ and opener maintains control over any RKCB sequence. Responder doesn’t have any honours in the ♥ suit. So who better than opener to decide at what level to end the auction?

The one with more complete information about the combined assets of the partnership, that's who. In your proposed sequence, how is opener supposed to make an informed judgment about when to move over 4♥ when responder hasn't shown his substantial extra values?

Quote

2. Opener denies holding a 5th ♥, he simply returns to the ♠ suit and responder plays 3NT.

So now how is responder supposed to know when it's right to support spades, since opener would bid the same way with 6-4?

You are surely right about not solving all the problems that come up at the table; and it's true that there are many hands that don't conform to textbook hands where you must think creatively about how to bid them. But your reluctance to use textbook bids on textbook hands is misplaced; the textbook was written to solve problems, not create new ones. If there is a bid that accurately describes your hand in terms of shape, stoppers, values, etcetera, why would you needlessly complicate things by introducing an extra level of artificiality?

[mike777]

gareth, on 2012-April-26, 03:26, said:

---

I play 2/1 with a good partner who is more familiar with 2/1 than myself. Absent discussion is there a standard meaning for a jump to 3NT, does it show extra values?

If you bid 2NT and partner raises to 3NT are you bidding again? If not, what should partner be bidding over 2NT holding extras, e.g. AKQxx AKxx xx xx? How do either of you show extra values in the subsequent auction?

If 3NT shows this hand including the extra values, then suppose you hold a hand such as Kx Kxx AQ109x Axx which wants to keep other strains in the picture. This hand surely bids 2NT, but the question remains how does either player show extras?

prefer to play a jump to 3nt as a dead minimum 2/1 so here I bid 2nt. FWIW both hand examples would be a pretty normal 2nt rebid for me.


If opener has extras, per your example, he will bid past game level......unbalanced opener hands in the range of 14-16 become a bit of a problem so opener will at some point have to show extras...often by bidding past game with as much as your example, but pass with a bit less.
To reduce this issue we often open 1nt with offshape 14-16 hands so this becomes somewhat of a rare problem.

So here the bidding would start:

1s=2d
2h=2nt
4nt=?
pass or 6nt depending on responders hand.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2012-April-27, 10:01, said:

prefer to play a jump to 3nt as a dead minimum 2/1 so here I bid 2nt. FWIW both hand examples would be a pretty normal 2nt rebid for me.

As previously mentioned by Cherdano, Gwnn, and RHM, there are lots of us who don't believe fast arrival should be applied to jumps in notrump within a 2/1 structure. In its earliest mentions, fast arrival did not include NT jumps, but somewhere along the line the idea got perpetuated.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

In Summary:

After 2/1 response:

1x 2y 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 3N = 15-17
1x 2y 2z 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 2z 3N = 15-17

The last "picture bid" applies to OP's hand ( w/16 hcp ):
1S - 2D! ( 2/1 GF )
2H - 3NT ( 15-17 )

[aguahombre]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-April-27, 10:45, said:

In Summary:

After 2/1 response:

1x 2y 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 3N = 15-17
1x 2y 2z 2N = 12-14 or 18-19 (18-19 will bid above 3N)
1x 2y 2z 3N = 15-17

The last "picture bid" applies to OP's hand ( w/16 hcp ):
1S - 2D! ( 2/1 GF )
2H - 3NT ( 15-17 )

Good summary. Those who disagree might consider the fact that opener is not yet clarified as to strength or extremeness(?) of shape. When his next bid must be at the 4-level with many hands, his strength is a serious issue when we are already at the game level. So, we want to gobble up bidding room with very narrowly defined hands.