[hrothgar]

MPs White versus White

You're playing basic 2/1 with almost no discussion

The following auction occurs

1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (3♣)
3♠ - (P) - 4♥ - (P)
???

What's going on?

[Winstonm]

I would think that this is an attempt to show an initial 3-card limit raise by cue-bidding the lowest control. It simply makes no sense to me to introduce hearts as a genuine suit at this point of the auction.

[Phil]

Partner has a lot of hearts. He can cue 4♣ to show a big spade hand.

Richard - did you mean to say "no interference"?

[mikeh]

ask yourself this: what is partner to do with a decent 7 card heart suit not strong enough to game force?

then ask yourself this: if he has an improbable slam try in spades on this auction, can he show that hand in some other way?

Obviously I agree with Phil's post, but these are the reasons why. On the first question, he cannot get to hearts other than by bidding them. x KQJxxxx Kxx xx, your call on the auction.

On the second, firstly it is vanishingly unlikely that he has a slam try and yet has neither 1st or 2nd round control in a minor, and secondly, it is standard that when the opps have been in our auction and we have no room, a cuebid of their suit says nothing about controls but is just a power raise. Thus 1♠ (3♥) 4♥ is not a heart control but a strong raise to 4♠. By analogy, partner has 4♣ as a generic strong raise to 4♠.

[billw55]

Lacking imagination, I see this as natural. I expect an opening preempt type hand, with 0-1 spade.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2015-June-29, 08:58, said:

Lacking imagination, I see this as natural. I expect an opening preempt type hand, with 0-1 spade.

Thanks

I held (approximately)

♠ T98
♥ AQJT
♦ KT98x
♣ x

I thought that this was better described as a three card limit raise.
Following partner's 3♠ bid and the 3♣ overcall, I thought that it was worth exploring slam

Sadly, I also thought that 4♣ would promise a first round control and bid 4♥

Oh well. Live and learn

[helene_t]

Somewhat depending on what an initial 3♥ or 4♥ would have been, but undiscussed I suppose it would have been DNE.

Anyway, this is natural. I would have taken 4♦ as natural also although that may be less obviuous.

[Phil]

hrothgar, on 2015-June-29, 09:05, said:

Thanks

I held (approximately)

♠ T98
♥ AQJT
♦ KT98x
♣ x

I thought that this was better described as a three card limit raise.
Following partner's 3♠ bid and the 3♣ overcall, I thought that it was worth exploring slam

Sadly, I also thought that 4♣ would promise a first round control and bid 4♥

Oh well. Live and learn

Its largely accepted that if you didn't get the overcall that 4♥ would be a spade cue - Axx AQxx xx xxxx

Well, not entirely accepted - there's some nagging doubt in my own mind that I'd like to have 4♥ reserved for x KQJxxxx xx xxx.

4m is DEFINITELY a cue however.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2015-June-29, 08:56, said:

ask yourself this: what is partner to do with a decent 7 card heart suit not strong enough to game force?

then ask yourself this: if he has an improbable slam try in spades on this auction, can he show that hand in some other way?

Obviously I agree with Phil's post, but these are the reasons why. On the first question, he cannot get to hearts other than by bidding them. x KQJxxxx Kxx xx, your call on the auction.

On the second, firstly it is vanishingly unlikely that he has a slam try and yet has neither 1st or 2nd round control in a minor, and secondly, it is standard that when the opps have been in our auction and we have no room, a cuebid of their suit says nothing about controls but is just a power raise. Thus 1♠ (3♥) 4♥ is not a heart control but a strong raise to 4♠. By analogy, partner has 4♣ as a generic strong raise to 4♠.

Isn't 1S-3H still non-forcing in basic 2/1?

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2015-June-29, 13:31, said:

Isn't 1S-3H still non-forcing in basic 2/1?

no

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2015-June-29, 13:34, said:

no

Thanks

[Jinksy]

What is it (1S 3H) normally played as?

[mikeh]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-29, 13:50, said:

What is it (1S 3H) normally played as?

strong jumpshift is standard, at least in all the reading I have done.

I have seen variants in which this is used as constructive, with long hearts and invitational values, and make no comment on how good an idea it is, but I have never seen that described as basic or standard 2/1. FWIW, I play two different uses for it. In one approach, 3♥ is a gf splinter in any of the 3 suits (opener asks), which allows us to hide the splinter from the opps when opener has no slam interest...our splinters are limited in hcp and also allows the use of 3n as natural and 4m as artificial raises with specific definitions. In the other, we play that 3♦ is a transfer to hearts, and 3♥ is a 4 card invitational spade raise.

Please note that when the question is 'what is standard' that isn't the same as 'what do you think is best'.

[MrAce]

There is no one left who plays basic 2/1 anyway. It is actually an old system and in its original notes all 2/1 responses were GF. Such as 1♣--2♦ or 2♥ showed GF values 5+ suit. Nobody plays that anymore. So basically 3♥ here is what you agreed it to be. I play it invitational do that all my 2/1 bids are genuine gf. 1 NT and then hearts show much weak hand with long hearts. I think in NA it is either soloway jump shift or another strong option is popular as Mike said. If I play somewhere else with a pick up pd I would assume it to be something other than strong version.

Some use it mini splinter
Some use it invitational
Some use it weak
Some use it a bergen version of it. (too good for preemptive 3♠, not good for limit raise)
Some use it fit + natural inv+

[helene_t]

Even with six hearts, or five very good ones, I would still make a natural 4♥ bid. Am I supposed to raise spades with 1-6 in the majors? Or would 4♦ mean "chose between the majors"? Undiscussed I would think that 4♦ would be natural and 4♣ would be a spade raise.

[SteveMoe]

Since 1♠-3♥ is either weak or strong (or mini splinter by some), and 1♠-4♥ is a (maxi) splinter, The only way to play a game in ♥ based on extra length (not power) is 1NT Forcing first.
Agree with Helen that 4♣ is slammish in ♠, but propose 4♦ is similar, denying a ♣ control. There is little/no need to try to play in 4m on this auction. On those hands i pass 3♠.