[mcphee]

You have shortness you show, it can not be helped that partner thought you a million cards outside C. Looks to me like partner took over with a wasted K and felt bidding key card will solve problems, instead the revere happened. Surely he was all done after 3S cue ot they felt you wuld not know what to do next. The 5S response to key card appears you should review responses.

[Phil]

I play 3 ♣ as a min in a Jacoby sequence in all my partnerships. You can also bake in a limit raise to 2N and use 1M 3M as mixed.

You can make the followups as simple or complicated as you want but I play:

3C min
3D/3H stiffs
3S club stiff
3N extras no short
4x 2nd suit

After 3C, 3S shows a limit raise. 3D asks then:

3H/3S/3N c/d/h shortness
4C no shortness

The other benefit of this method is after 1M 2N 3c responder can bid game on a hand unsuitable for slam and reveal nothing about openers hand.

[cherdano]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-28, 07:32, said:

Does this mean you don't think much of Swedish responses (or whatever they're called) - 3C as 'any min', where 3HSN show shortage and nonmin?

No.

[helene_t]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-28, 07:32, said:

Does this mean you don't think much of Swedish responses (or whatever they're called) - 3C as 'any min', where 3HSN show shortage and nonmin?

It's not about whether the system is good or bad. Jacoby 2nt is IMO an awful convention but once you have agreed to this system you have to stick to it.

[neilkaz]

WTP here? Your PD got overexcited with a near and flattish min and Kxxx opposite your stiff and you showed an extra key card in response to 4NT.

Save your marriage....LOL ..best way to save it is to open another bottle of wine and forget about it.

[diana_eva]

neilkaz, on 2015-June-28, 10:31, said:

WTP here? Your PD got overexcited with a near and flattish min and Kxxx opposite your stiff and you showed an extra key card in response to 4NT.

Save your marriage....LOL ..best way to save it is to open another bottle of wine and forget about it.

We did just that obv, I wasn't all that serious. But the root of all evil was this misunderstanding where after 3♣ and 3♠ he was already convinced I've got some monster hand exploring slam.

[neilkaz]

diana_eva, on 2015-June-28, 10:58, said:

We did just that obv, I wasn't all that serious. But the root of all evil was this misunderstanding where after 3♣ and 3♠ he was already convinced I've got some monster hand exploring slam.

To me your 3♠ cue is just cooperating with his 3♦ cue since he could have a monster hand and need your ♠ control for slam. Others might play that you don't cue bid 3♠ with such a minimum and just try to sign off in 4♥ (comments please from those who play "standard" responses to J2NT).

But here's where serious or semi serious or just a punt 3NT comes into play. You've shown a 9 card major fit and a club stiff and cue bid controls in pointed suits. It is extremely unlikely that 3NT is the best contract. Your PD doesn't have a really good hand after your 3♣ and if he announces any slam interest with 3NT you will sign off happily in 4♥ and end of problem.

[Mbodell]

neilkaz, on 2015-June-28, 11:36, said:

To me your 3♠ cue is just cooperating with his 3♦ cue since he could have a monster hand and need your ♠ control for slam. Others might play that you don't cue bid 3♠ with such a minimum and just try to sign off in 4♥ (comments please from those who play "standard" responses to J2NT).

But here's where serious or semi serious or just a punt 3NT comes into play. You've shown a 9 card major fit and a club stiff and cue bid controls in pointed suits. It is extremely unlikely that 3NT is the best contract. Your PD doesn't have a really good hand after your 3♣ and if he announces any slam interest with 3NT you will sign off happily in 4♥ and end of problem.

Agreed. The 4nt is ill considered. No reason to steal a full level of bidding by opener when they can cue their spades, so 3♠ doesn't show extras to me. If partner bids 3nt and hears 4♥ they know they have a club loser, a diamond finesse for a loser, and might still have a loser in hearts or spades or on a really bad day both.

[gszes]

3n over 3s

It is totally unreasonable to expect 3n to be the right strain so it has a vastly superior use in the form of serious/non-serious. The decision of how to interpret is also important. When partner's hand is UNlimited it becomes non serious and the opposite when p has limited their hand. This means the partnership can cue bid up to 3n w/o either showing extras. On this hand over 3s responder should simply have bid 3n (non serious since opener's hand is unlimited). Opener has nothing extra (and some would say they have already promised too much hehe) and opener bids a happy 4h and another marriage is saved:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Note that it would be wrong for responder to jump to 4h and waste bidding space when it is so easy to cue bid and then try to put on the brakes later with 3n if feasible.

[alok c]

Imo, 3C or any other bid apart from sign off in 4H is not apt for such minimum & control poor hand.Partner will get encouraged unnecessarily & will be very difficult to put a brake later on.

[helene_t]

What about agreeing that openers next bid is:
-3nt with an intermediate hand
- bid game with a minimum
- a cuebid with a max

This is consistent with the initial rebid and also with non serious 3nt so should be easy to remember.

I am not saying this is anywhere near optimal but you need some way to resolve openers strength and this is a simple way of doing it.

[lycier]

helene_t, on 2015-June-29, 00:57, said:

but you need some way to resolve openers strength and this is a simple way of doing it.

Not only opener but also you need some way to resolve responder's strength.
In fact,the biggest problem is 4M to show minmum,you lose all the bidding room if responder is strong.

[PhilKing]

lycier, on 2015-June-30, 02:30, said:

Not only opener but also you need some way to resolve responder's strength.
In fact,the biggest problem is 4M to show minmum,you lose all the bidding room if responder is strong.

This.

When you are in a game force and one play has "defined" their shape (via 3♣ in this case), we are in a classic serious/non-serious position.

You can use step 1 as non-serious here and higher bids as serious (or vice versa if you want). So partner can jump to game with a horrible club holding, bid 3♦ with a decent hand that need you to hold at least a few extras, and cue to say slam is likely. In this sequence you can make it slightly fancier and say that new suits above 3♦ are shortage, 3M is extras no shortage and 3NT is a singleton in non-serious suit (diamonds).

Once you get used to the rhythm of this method it can be transported to many other situations.

[Zelandakh]

3♣ ought to be unanimous in the OP poll - think that is obvious.

There are many alternatives for rebids, some of which are really designed for 2NT being limit+. My own idea is for 3♣ and 3♦ to show an unknown shortage, one with and the other without extras, and then 3♥ and 3♠ can show different ranges without a shortage. It is no more complicated than regular Jacoby and (imho) slightly more effective. For a more complex scheme you can search for some of fred's old posts, although they use the variation of 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 3♣ being the GF raise.

[ArtK78]

I am late to the thread, but I don't see the problem here.

The opening bid is clear. This is a full opening bid in 1950's style Goren Standard American - 11 HCP plus 2 for the singleton = 13 points. Everyone and his grandmother would open the bidding on these cards. Quite frankly, this is not even a bad minimum opening hand. You have lots of spots in your long suits. I would not be the least bit defensive about opening this hand.

Playing standard Jacoby 2NT, opener is requested to show a singleton if opener has one. Opener has a singleton club. So opener bids 3♣. I can't believe I used 24 words to spell out anything so obvious.

After that, both opener and responder are supposed to use reasonable judgment to determine if this is a game or slam hand. From what I have seen above, this may be the root of the problem. It certainly is not either of opener's first two actions (assuming that opener's second action was 3♣).

Now, whether standard Jacoby 2NT is a good game and slam bidding tool is certainly open to debate. But that is not the issue here. The pair had certain agreements and they should follow them.

[billw55]

Agree with Art. 1♥ is obvious and 3♣ is mandatory.

[rmnka447]

I also agree with Art.

I don't see a problem with the auction through the 3 ♠ bid. But at that point, neither partner knows exactly how much the other holds. Either opener or responder could still have anywhere from a minimum to a moose from their partner's viewpoint. The bidding through 3 ♠ has been cooperative bidding of values held in case partner has a hand to continue moving toward slam.

However, I think that after 3 ♠, responder should simply bid 4 ♥. If opener has a hand with extras that merits continued slam exploration, let opener drive the auction. Opener's 3 ♣ bid has somewhat reduced the value of responder's hand. ♣ Kxxx is of questionable value opposite a stiff or void unless partner holds the stiff ♣ A. Also, after 3 ♠, responder doesn't have anything else to cue below 4 ♥. (Since opener has announced at least a 2nd round ♣ control with the shortness bid, it would seem like a 4 ♣ cue must show the ♣ A.)

4 ♥ by responder sends the right message to opener. It says "Partner, I have enough to drive to game with 4 trump and a ♦ control, but don't have enough to continue slam exploration unless you have a big hand." Here, of course, opener with feather weight values, will pass 4 ♥.

[lycier]

PhilKing, on 2015-June-30, 04:40, said:

This.

When you are in a game force and one play has "defined" their shape (via 3♣ in this case), we are in a classic serious/non-serious position.

You can use step 1 as non-serious here and higher bids as serious (or vice versa if you want). So partner can jump to game with a horrible club holding, bid 3♦ with a decent hand that need you to hold at least a few extras, and cue to say slam is likely. In this sequence you can make it slightly fancier and say that new suits above 3♦ are shortage, 3M is extras no shortage and 3NT is a singleton in non-serious suit (diamonds).

Once you get used to the rhythm of this method it can be transported to many other situations.

Of course,I know this.However you have to consider some problems,for example,how to use Jacoby 2nt for responder? -how many points? with extra values or no? balanced or unbalanced? even how to show differences between singleton and void? etcetc,this is not a simple thing.

[PhilKing]

lycier, on 2015-June-30, 17:10, said:

Of course,I know this.However you have to consider some problems,for example,how to use Jacoby 2nt for responder? -how many points? with extra values or no? banced or unbalanced? even how to show differences between singleton and void? etcetc,this is not a simple thing.

I was agreeing with you.

Anyway, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that solving range and differentiating between singletons and voids is just too difficult - not systemically, but in practice it just increased the chances of partner making a fatal error and/or using up so much extra time remembering the responses that we get in to time trouble yet again. So I just use continuations that can be used in multiple sequences.

Voids can still be diagnosed sometimes via cue-bidding or making a step 5-6 answer to RKCB.

[kuhchung]

Did we save your marriage, Diana?