[Free]

P_Marlowe, on May 13 2005, 12:23 PM, said:

Free, on May 13 2005, 05:49 AM, said:

Imo there are only 3 choices, depending on your agreements:
- 2♠ = the default answer, doesn't show anything else, no special agreements
- 2NT = 5422 distribution, responder can ask for a stopper again (so distribution before controls)
- 3♥ = showing half a stop

Personally I'm a shape-freak, so I like the 2nd agreement the most...  Without agreements, 2♠ is obvious imo.

You forgot 3D, which some play as the default
rebid instead of 2S, the resaon being,
that 6-4 is more common, showed via bidding
2S than 6-5.

Of course I learned 4th suit forcing Acol style,
i.e. 4th suit forcing promises merely invitational
strength, in case the bid is made on the 2 level.

... and in this case 3D may be to high.

With kind regards
Marlowe

3♦ only shows 5-5, which I don't have...

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on May 13 2005, 07:14 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on May 13 2005, 12:23 PM, said:

Free, on May 13 2005, 05:49 AM, said:

Imo there are only 3 choices, depending on your agreements:
- 2♠ = the default answer, doesn't show anything else, no special agreements
- 2NT = 5422 distribution, responder can ask for a stopper again (so distribution before controls)
- 3♥ = showing half a stop

Personally I'm a shape-freak, so I like the 2nd agreement the most...  Without agreements, 2♠ is obvious imo.

You forgot 3D, which some play as the default
rebid instead of 2S, the resaon being,
that 6-4 is more common, showed via bidding
2S than 6-5.

Of course I learned 4th suit forcing Acol style,
i.e. 4th suit forcing promises merely invitational
strength, in case the bid is made on the 2 level.

... and in this case 3D may be to high.

With kind regards
Marlowe

3♦ only shows 5-5, which I don't have...

Sorry, you are right, that 3D showes only 5-5, (for me as well),
but the argument that showing the 6th card in the mayoris more
important than 5th card in a minor is still valid, altough I do not
subscribe to this theory.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

2NT = weak stopper (about Kxx)
3NT = good stopper (like AJ10)

2NT could be a good choice, it is close to 2♠, I think I would pick 2NT but 2♠ is probably the correct bid.

[Free]

P_Marlowe, on May 13 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

Sorry, you are right, that 3D showes only 5-5, (for me as well),
but the argument that showing the 6th card in the mayoris more
important than 5th card in a minor is still valid, altough I do not
subscribe to this theory.

With kind regards
Marlowe

That's why 2♠ shouldn't show a 6 card suit, but just a garbage bid most of the time. If he bids another suit again, or ♠s, then he sure has 6+♠s, but at this point it's not necessary. I even think this approach (rebidding the first suit after 4th suit forcing as no right response) is quite standard. There have been several threads with similar problems, and most of the time rebidding first suit is used when there's no right bid, especially when you can rebid that suit at 2-level.

[mike777]

Walddk, on May 13 2005, 02:59 AM, said:

Without revealing what my choice would be (could be 2NT, who knows), I'd like to ask all the 2NT bidders:

In the post-mortem after the opponents have cashed their 5 heart tricks against 3NT, how are you going to explain to your partner that you thought Qx was a stopper?

Roland

I guess later in the bar my spiel will go:

1) P we play 2c promises 14+hpc almost always.
2) At the table I tried to figure out your hand with 14HCP that would not rebid 3 clubs, raise D or support Spades with very poor hearts but I kept coming up with more examples of jxx of H.
3) You knew my strong bias toward showing shape or bidding suits where my HCP are.
4) I hoped you would rebid 3h to see if I really had a stopper
5) They never lead H when you bid like this
6) I was thinking how stinky my Baseball Cubs are this year and how the play without a stopper in the bullpen, why can't I play without one.
7)STOPPER, WHO NEEDS STINKING STOPPERS!
8) Ok OK cannot disagree with Marlowe sending me back to novice class.
9) Heck hearts always break 4-4 for you

[awm]

It actually matters a lot whether you play standard or 2/1, as well as some stylistic issues.

Playing 2/1 with Li-Chung, in a style which includes a natural, forcing 2NT response to 1♠, I would bid 3♣ over 2♥. Holding 5143 distribution I would virtually always raise clubs directly, since the 2♣ response guarantees five and my shape provides enough "extras" to justify the raise in a game forcing sequence. So after the 2♥ bid, a 3♣ preference is normally on doubleton.

Playing a version of standard with Elianna, we use opener's 2♦ rebid as a catch-all showing either a natural diamond suit or any hand without four hearts which is too weak to force game opposite 10+ points (we find this is somewhat more efficient than using 2♠ as the catch-all; it's lower and also permits us to play 2♠ on the 5-2 when we're not going to game). In this style I would bid 3♦ over 2♥ to guarantee a real suit. We also respond 3♣ directly over 1♠ with a game-forcing single-suited club hand, so a 6-2 club fit is unlikely.

With many partners, I would bid 2♠ directly with six spades, planning to bid diamonds later on a 6-4 hand. Even though a 2♠ rebid could initially show only five spades, with 5-4 I would obviously bid diamonds at first turn, so 2♠ followed by 3♦ should show 6-4. With this style, I would tend to bid 2♠ over the fourth suit since I can't really have six spades (would've bid those directly).

Anyways, I don't think there's one clear answer to this.

[awm]

I guess my point is, there are a lot of questions to be answered here. First of which, are you playing standard or 2/1? Some questions:

(1) How many clubs does partner have? If a natural, forcing 2NT was available then it will be 5+. If 2♣ followed by 3♣ is game forcing, then this sequence may deny holding six clubs. Playing standard, a wide range of 4+ may still be possible (since 3♣ rebid would be NF).

(2) Is it possible for partner to hold 4+♦? In standard, probably so. In 2/1, probably partner raises to 3♦ with this.

(3) Is it possible for partner to hold 3+♠? Most likely the answer is no, but I suppose if 2♠ is a nonforcing preference on doubleton and 3♠ shows a limit raise with club values, then it might be possible.

(4) Does 2♦ guarantee four diamonds? Certainly I know some people who like to temporize on three card suits here. Does it deny 6+♠?

(5) What would a direct club raise have shown? Does it guarantee three? Four? Does it show extras? Would a 5143 eleven-count (for example) be sufficient to bid 3♣?

Depending on the answers to these questions, any of 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦ could be reasonable. The idea is:

(1) If the 2♦ bid denies 6+ spades and guarantees 4+ diamonds, it seems clear to rebid 2♠ now. Partner will know this is just a punt.

(2) If partner's sequence denies holding as many as six clubs, as many as three spades, or as many as four diamonds, then the only possible distribution without a natural heart suit is 2335 exactly. In this case it will be reasonable to bid 2NT as partner might have Jxx or the suit might be 4-4, and it's hard to imagine that the other game options will play particularly well on this pair of hands.

(3) If opener would've frequently raised clubs directly with 5143, then 3♣ is available on honor-doubleton. Partner will not take this as a real fit.

(4) If 2♦ didn't guarantee a real suit, and/or 2♥ denies holding 4♦s, then 3♦ becomes reasonable as a way to locate the values. Partner will not get overly excited without 4+ cards in support.

[HeartA]

IMO, most of the questions are not really questions.

Quote

I guess my point is, there are a lot of questions to be answered here. First of which, are you playing standard or 2/1? Some questions:

(1) How many clubs does partner have? If a natural, forcing 2NT was available then it will be 5+. If 2♣ followed by 3♣ is game forcing, then this sequence may deny holding six clubs. Playing standard, a wide range of 4+ may still be possible (since 3♣ rebid would be NF).

Be SAYC or 2/1, ♣ should be 5+ in this sequence.

Quote

(2) Is it possible for partner to hold 4+♦? In standard, probably so. In 2/1, probably partner raises to 3♦ with this.

I don't think so, especially if they play 2/1.

Quote

(3) Is it possible for partner to hold 3+♠? Most likely the answer is no, but I suppose if 2♠ is a nonforcing preference on doubleton and 3♠ shows a limit raise with club values, then it might be possible.

not possible.

Quote

(4) Does 2♦ guarantee four diamonds? Certainly I know some people who like to temporize on three card suits here. Does it deny 6+♠?

of course.

Quote

(5) What would a direct club raise have shown? Does it guarantee three? Four? Does it show extras? Would a 5143 eleven-count (for example) be sufficient to bid 3♣?

usually 4, 3 should be the minimum.

Quote

Depending on the answers to these questions, any of 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦ could be reasonable. The idea is:

(1) If the 2♦ bid denies 6+ spades and guarantees 4+ diamonds, it seems clear to rebid 2♠ now. Partner will know this is just a punt.

first of all, 2♦ does not necessarily deny 6+ spades. even if 2♦ denies 6+ spades, 2♠ should show extra strength.

Quote

(2) If partner's sequence denies holding as many as six clubs, as many as three spades, or as many as four diamonds, then the only possible distribution without a natural heart suit is 2335 exactly. In this case it will be reasonable to bid 2NT as partner might have Jxx or the suit might be 4-4, and it's hard to imagine that the other game options will play particularly well on this pair of hands.

2-3-3-5 is quite possible. 6-card clubs should not be a surprise.

Quote

(3) If opener would've frequently raised clubs directly with 5143, then 3♣ is available on honor-doubleton. Partner will not take this as a real fit.

With Jx doubleton, I wouldn't raise at this moment.

Quote

(4) If 2♦ didn't guarantee a real suit, and/or 2♥ denies holding 4♦s, then 3♦ becomes reasonable as a way to locate the values. Partner will not get overly excited without 4+ cards in support.

see comments above.

[luke warm]

wow, maybe i shd have read before i voted... oh well, i voted 3♣.. this denies a stopper in hearts but i'm not sure it doesn't mislead pard into thinking i'm 5143..

the only real alternative i see is 3♥, if it's understood as a half-stopper (or stopper ask)

[beatrix45]

Walddk, on May 13 2005, 12:59 AM, said:

Without revealing what my choice would be (could be 2NT, who knows), I'd like to ask all the 2NT bidders:

In the post-mortem after the opponents have cashed their 5 heart tricks against 3NT, how are you going to explain to your partner that you thought Qx was a stopper?

Roland

A bid of 2NT.

Heavens to grandma. Partner advertises a good hand with hearts. It is scared bridge for me to worry about hearts, and scared bridge is losing bridge. If partner does not have hearts on this auction, she better have a plan. How bad can it be?

Q5
752
972
AKQ97

In my world, better 3♦ or 3♣. If you wanna play a relay system triggered with an artifical bid, then do so. Otherwise, leave my bidding alone!

[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]

reisig, on May 31 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

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 :-)