[Phil]

T9
Axx
ATxx
AJ9x

AJ
KJxx
Qx
KQTxx

Matchpoints.

1D 2C
3C 3H
4C 4S
6C

Fairly standard 2/1. 3C denied a 4 card major.

[Cyberyeti]

Am I missing something (I don't know 2/1), does either hand have a clue whether the other is a 13 count or a 19 count ?

[ggwhiz]

I'm not a fan of cue bidding 1st OR 2nd round controls.

Although I understand the merits they really painted north into a corner here so I blame the methods.
A 3♠ cue allows north to bid 3nt and limit their hand but I don't see that they can do anything different when south is unlimited and they have all those bullets. From souths point of view, north never got to limit their hand either.

Last train, DI 4nt etc. with 1st round cues handle auctions just as well and often better imo.

[Zelandakh]

If 3♣ does not show extras, North has to bid 3♠ on the third round. Bypassing 3NT there shows extras imho. Note that standard 2/1 is a little awkward for 1♦ auctions as the original methods kept a non-GF 2♣ response and there are different schools for how to structure the following auction in the GF approach. If TWO4BRIDGE were here he would no doubt post the Hardy rebid structure at this point.

[rmnka447]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-March-14, 10:36, said:

If 3♣ does not show extras, North has to bid 3♠ on the third round. Bypassing 3NT there shows extras imho. Note that standard 2/1 is a little awkward for 1♦ auctions as the original methods kept a non-GF 2♣ response and there are different schools for how to structure the following auction in the GF approach. If TWO4BRIDGE were here he would no doubt post the Hardy rebid structure at this point.

Agree that there are "different schools" for follow ups. You suggest that 3 ♠ has to be bid if 3 ♣ doesn't necessarily show extras. Does that mean that after ....3 ♥, that --

3 ♠ - 3 NT
4 ♣

shows a minimum hand not suitable for NT,

3 ♠ - 3 NT
Pass

says yes, I was looking for a partial spade stopper so we could play NT, and,

4 ♣ directly over 3 ♥ shows extras and no interest in no trump?

[Zelandakh]

 rmnka447, on 2016-March-14, 15:01, said:

Does that mean that after ....3 ♥, that --

That is one way of playing it and indeed rather a good one but definitely would require agreement. An alternative would be for 3♠ followed by 4♣ to be an advance cue sequence and the direct 4♣ to suggest spade weakness. Playing the second way means that a weak hand with club support not interested in 3NT has to bid 5♣ immediately.

[rmnka447]

Thanks, Zel!

I suspect quite a few of us if faced with these sequences might not be sure which way we were playing it unless playing within a long established partnership. Over a period of time, agreement about such sequences is achieved and understood. It's one of the big advantages that such partnerships have. If they don't have an explicit agreement, they each also pretty well know their partner would think or bid when anything unfamiliar comes up.

[WesleyC]

I think North should bid 3S(Asking for a stopper) over 3H and then pass 3NT.

[rmnka447]

Aside to Wesley C - I think that 3 ♠ would have to show a partial or potential partial stopper something like ♠ Qxx or possibly ♠ 109x. With good ♥ and ♠ stoppers, responder could have bid 3 NT directly over 3 ♣. Since opener denies 4 in a major with a 3 ♣ rebid, 3 ♥ shows a ♥ stopper and tends to deny a ♠ stopper but is still searching for 3 NT. If opener has the ♠ stopper 3 NT could be bid over 3 ♥. So 3 ♠ would seem to suggest to responder to bid 3 NT with a partial stopper.

Back to main topic -- In discussing the actual bidding sequence, there is an inference that I think was missed. It's often valuable in any bidding sequence to consider the things that your partner bid AND the things that were not bid.

For opener, after responder bids 3 ♥ and 4 ♠ over 4 ♣, the question should be "Why with a ♠ control and a ♥ stopper didn't responder bid 3 NT?" It might be possible, though not likely, with something like stiff ♠ A that responder might bid 3 ♥ to find if opener has some additional help in ♠ for NT. Certainly with something like ♠ AQ or ♠ AK and a ♥ stopper, responder could bid 3 NT directly. The inference being a possible ♠ loser may exist if responder holds ♠ Kx or ♠ Ax. If so, then responder needs to have cards that insure either opener or responder can make enough pitches to make the ♠ loser go away. ♥ KQJx
or doubleton ♠ with ♦ KQ tight might do. But opener can never know if these cards exist, so jumping to slam is a bit aggressive.


BTW, I'd be likely to bid 3 NT over 3 ♣ with responder's hand because of the bias toward NT games vs. minor games at MPs. At IMPs, 3 ♥ is right where getting to the best game is more important.

[mike777]

 Phil, on 2016-March-14, 09:40, said:

T9
Axx
ATxx
AJ9x

AJ
KJxx
Qx
KQTxx

Matchpoints.

1D 2C
3C 3H
4C 4S
6C

Fairly standard 2/1. 3C denied a 4 card major.

For sake of discussion I am going to assume North open light, opens on crap.
1d=fine=assume 11-13
2c=gf=14+=fine
3c=natural, not extras fine...so assume 11-13
3h=natural....looking for best game. but may be xtras slam

at this point north has a minimum balanced hand 11-13 balanced..he needs to make a minimum rebid in your style. This is either 3s or 4c.

Please note North needs to show a minimum hand at some point----------------------
===================
===================


My guess is and only a guess is south forgot that north opens often of crap.....the second issue is hands in the range of rougly m 14-16/17 by responder are tough in this style of bridge bidding.

-----


I am going to speculate that south had a maximum...midrange bid and overbid but also partner hand a minimum balanced hand but maximum in your style and overbid

[WesleyC]

 rmnka447, on 2016-March-15, 00:48, said:

Aside to Wesley C - I think that 3 ♠ would have to show a partial or potential partial stopper something like ♠ Qxx or possibly ♠ 109x. With good ♥ and ♠ stoppers, responder could have bid 3 NT directly over 3 ♣. Since opener denies 4 in a major with a 3 ♣ rebid, 3 ♥ shows a ♥ stopper and tends to deny a ♠ stopper but is still searching for 3 NT. If opener has the ♠ stopper 3 NT could be bid over 3 ♥. So 3 ♠ would seem to suggest to responder to bid 3 NT with a partial stopper.

Obviously we're arguing about style to some extent, but in my experience of 2 over 1, opener's 3C raise does not deny a 4cM. Why would you ever want to introduce hearts on a balanced hands like [T9 Axxx ATxx AJ9] or [AT xxxx ATxx AJ9] which have weak heart suits and great slam potential in clubs?

I also don't understand why the only bid below 3NT should show such a specific holding as a partial stopper? It might not be a problem on this hand where dealer has such an excellent hand for clubs, but if North were holding a much less slammish hand like [xxx KJ QJxx KQxx] and the auction progressed the same way, the 3S would be absolutely automatic because you know that 3NT played by partner could easily be the last making contract.