[helene_t]

Probably Gordon meant that (asked if) North should bid 3♥:
1♥-2♣
2♦-3♥

I would do that undiscussed as I am not confident that 2♥ promises 3, and that we may not have agreements about how to show the extra values otherwise. It is clear the 3♥ shows extras and it probably demands a cuebid.

[kenberg]

Oh! I took it as 1H-2C-2D-3H rather than 1H-2C-2D-2H-3H. As you say, the S hand is at the top rather than the bottom.

Anyway: This topic has produced some differing views at a fundamental level. I do think 2H shows three and I think 3C then shows three. One hand of course proves nothing but it seems that you significantly increase your chances of ending in 6C if you play this way. If opener has not yet shown his three card club support after his first three calls, it will be difficult to later convince partner he has them. At least you would need to have had some very detailed discussions of some lengthy and perhaps complex sequences. With most people I play with there are ambiguities in simple auctions, we never get around to how to show three card club support on the fourth round of bidding.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-March-27, 13:36, said:

Oh! I took it as 1H-2C-2D-3H rather than 1H-2C-2D-2H-3H. As you say, the S hand is at the top rather than the bottom.

Anyway: This topic has produced some differing views at a fundamental level. I do think 2H shows three and I think 3C then shows three. One hand of course proves nothing but it seems that you significantly increase your chances of ending in 6C if you play this way. If opener has not yet shown his three card club support after his first three calls, it will be difficult to later convince partner he has them. At least you would need to have had some very detailed discussions of some lengthy and perhaps complex sequences. With most people I play with there are ambiguities in simple auctions, we never get around to how to show three card club support on the fourth round of bidding.

When I look at auctions like this I start with what they should not be. First, there is no point in making a false preference at the 2-level so 2H must be at least 3-card support and game forcing. That said, what is it about opener's hand that makes 3H a better call than 4H. Obviously, it is a hand that is: A) good but with no cue bid available or B) 3H is a cue bid.

I like the second use because it solves a problem in slam bidding: trump quality. I suggest that the 3H bid here should should the top 3 trumps, a cue bid of trumps, so to speak.

[gordontd]

 helene_t, on 2016-March-27, 12:49, said:

Probably Gordon meant that (asked if) North should bid 3♥:
1♥-2♣
2♦-3♥

Yes

[gordontd]

 Winstonm, on 2016-March-27, 14:44, said:

When I look at auctions like this I start with what they should not be. First, there is no point in making a false preference at the 2-level so 2H must be at least 3-card support and game forcing.

I've seen hands where it seemed that false preference was the best choice. Unless you think that 4SF still applies after a 2/1 response?

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2016-March-28, 01:48, said:

I've seen hands where it seemed that false preference was the best choice. Unless you think that 4SF still applies after a 2/1 response?

After a 2/1 g.f. response, we avoid false preferences...and sometimes will use the fourth suit as a stall. "4SF" is redundant since everything is forcing below game.

1H-2C
2D-2S! Perhaps JXX AX KXX AKXXX

[kenberg]

 gordontd, on 2016-March-28, 01:48, said:

I've seen hands where it seemed that false preference was the best choice. Unless you think that 4SF still applies after a 2/1 response?

I agree with the water guy above, A few more words.

This thread has brought to light some pretty basic differences in outlook. I sent the OP hand to a 2/1 partner and asked for his thoughts. He agreed that 1H-2C-2D-2H shows three hearts, but I found that we did not agree on what we would do after 1h-2C-2D with a 3=2=4=5 shape, We do not play together a great deal, and he prefers much more gadgetry than I do.

My thought:
If my three card spade holding is decent, I bid 2NT.
If my three card spade holding is modest, I bid 2S.
My thinking is that after either of these calls, partner can now bid 3C with a suitable hand.

His thought, although I did not really follow it all: He uses 2NT as some sort of good/bad bid. If he has the range that is shown by 2NT, he bids 2NT. If not, he rebids his clubs.

Some of this comes down to basic outlook. He plays a lot, has been on this list of top 500 for the last couple of years, takes it all very seriously. Less so for me. I like 1H-2C-2D-2H-3C as showing, in order, hearts, clubs, diamonds, hearts, clubs. Sometime I may have to improvise, that's true in all systems, but if I improvise with 2S with my 3=2=3=5 shape I doubt it will go far wrong.

If the auction begins 1H-2C-2D-2H-3C, showing clubs, he had the following suggestion: 4D is now kickback for clubs, 4S is kickback for hearts (I take his word for this) and so the club hand could now bid 4S. If the response is 5H (two keys for hearts), then pass. If the response is three keys for hearts, presumably or at least hopefully the minor suit aces and the K of hearts, then bid 6C. This actually had occurred to me (honest, it did) but my general lack of enthusiasm for gadgetry led to thinking that possibly it might work maybe, but I am not signing up yet.


My SAYCish partner suggested 1H-2C-3C. No. I am sure it begins 1H-2C-2D. If responder is 3=2=4=4 he bids 2C over 1H, and it would be an error to miss the diamonds. If not playing 2/1 gf, I think one should play that the 2/1 bid is forcing to at least 2NT. That could help here since responder, though strong, could still bid 1H-2C-2D-2H. And then 3C seems to follow naturally. But since no one else is talking about SAYC or variants thereof I will now drop this.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2016-March-28, 06:48, said:

If the auction begins 1H-2C-2D-2H-3C, showing clubs, he had the following suggestion: 4D is now kickback for clubs, 4S is kickback for hearts (I take his word for this)

I think everything except 3♥, 3NT and 4♥ should confirm the double fit and that 4♠ should therefore be 6KCB. With a hand that simply wants to ask for key cards in hearts, first bid 3♥ and follow up with 4♠ on the next round. More interesting are the differences between 3♦, 3♠ and 4♣ - with so much bidding space available here there is room for lots of inventiveness but that only works if it is also transferable to other similar auctions.

[kenrexford]

This whole discussion is (1) why I wrote my Book, and (2) why 2/1 GF gets a bad name at times.

I am not saying that my own approach is the only one plausible. There are other reasonable approaches. However, how can you play any system if you are unaware what the difference is between a 2♥ and 3♥ rebid by Responder, or what a 3♣ call by Opener means at the point of discussion? These should be fairly well established, as this is the auction type that the entire system of 2/1 GF was designed to enable. It is sort of like agreeing to play 3♣ as Muppet Stayman but then not knowing how Opener answers the 3♣ call.

As to the 3♣ rebid, there are several schools. The two main schools are the pattern school and the control school. Within each are variants, such as a sort of quantitative-pattern type (nuanced difference between 3♣ and a spade splinter) or variants of control (my style, classic Italian, American, quantitative-control fusion, denial, spiral, etc.). Asking a mass of people what 3♣ means is like asking a mass of people what 2♠ means without specifying opening, response, or rebid or any other context.

As to the 2♥/3♥ nuance, this also has the same problem. For me, for example, this shows diamond support and heart shortness, which is hardly mainstream. If I were to answer "diamond support shortness in hearts," that would be silly. My answer would be a lengthy discussion of my entire approach, concluding with "diamond support shortness in hearts."

[jogs]

Is there really any way during the auction for one to know clubs can make 12 tricks and hearts can't?

[kenberg]

 jogs, on 2016-March-31, 17:53, said:

Is there really any way during the auction for one to know clubs can make 12 tricks and hearts can't?

I think that the honest answer is no. But perhaps a fantasy.

1H 2C
2D 2H
3C 3H
4C 4NT
3 heart keys 6C

Logic

1H 2C
2D 2H
3C
Establishes for me, (not for everyone) that opener has at most one spade. 1=5=4=3.
Thus, with second round control a fact, opener would bid 3S over 3H only with first round control. Lacking that, he bids his club card. Now (we hope) opener still thinks hearts are trump. So he replies 3 keys to 4NT.
Responder, knowing opener lacks the spade ace, thus knows what the three keys are, and knows that tis is enough as long as the contract is in clubs.
Finally, responder bids 6C, openers huh and ponders for a bit, then passes.

Don't send me the bill if you try this and it doesn't go as outlined. But it may not be completely crazy. The 3C bid is on three, the 2C bid could easily be on only four, so opener, knowing they have eight hearts, may well treat hearts as trump for the rkc call. .And, hopefully, he passes 6C.

I have given up on the search for truth and am now seeking a good fantasy.

[aguahombre]

Most of the time with 2 5-3 fits the partnership can just go into trick mode and figure out if there are 12 tricks...but there was a write-up in the Bulletin a few months back where the minor suit slam makes and the major doesn't....simply because the minor was not solid and the major was.

[kenberg]

 aguahombre, on 2016-March-31, 21:12, said:

Most of the time with 2 5-3 fits the partnership can just go into trick mode and figure out if there are 12 tricks...but there was a write-up in the Bulletin a few months back where the minor suit slam makes and the major doesn't....simply because the minor was not solid and the major was.

I'll look that up. Do you recall who wrote it? Here, of course, the issue is getting 12 before they get two.

Five clubs, fiver hearts, one diamond and one spade add up to 12, but we have to lead a spade to establish the trick and this could be a problem in a heart contract. To complicate matters, if we change the hands a bit then hearts might be right. Suppose that opener has three heart keys including the the stiff ace of spades but lacks he king of hearts. If opener has the diamond Q then we want opener to play this in 6H. Of course 6C would still be a decent contract, making if the diamond finesse is on, and possibly still making if it isn't, but but 6H would be better. Actually, since we are giving opener the ace of spades and the diamonds Q, 6NT played by opener would be great. 12 highly like tricks and no effective defense.

We play this game because the best choices are not always obvious.

[jogs]

South can't know about North's two rounded jacks. North doesn't know South has ♠KQ. I suspect most pairs bidding slam would land in the unmakeable 6♥.

[kenberg]

 jogs, on 2016-April-01, 18:06, said:

South can't know about North's two rounded jacks. North doesn't know South has ♠KQ. I suspect most pairs bidding slam would land in the unmakeable 6♥.

If the club hand can determine that the heart hand has the two minor aces and the heart king
and
if the club hand is confident of the shape of the heart hand
then,
if slam is to be bid, I think he can see it should be bid in clubs and he will do it.
With the above assumptions on shape and keys, 6C is a make requiring only 3-2 in both hearts and clubs. He could well think that those odds are not good enough and not bid slam, but if he is to bid a slam I should think he would pick clubs. With two mormal splits 12 tricks are in plain sight.

Whether he can really be confident of the two minor suit aces and the heart king, and of the three card club support, there's the rub. If he is confident of this, then it seems like 6C is the clear choice.

I am referring to the club hand and heart hand because the heart hand is on top but labelled South. This has already inadvertently led to confusion.

[dave_beer]

2♥ shows Hxx and 3♣ is just patterning out. It helps partner evaluate which cards are working and sometimes leads to playing in a better trump suit.

I would have rebid 3♥ as responder which shows HHx and at least mild slam interest.

[kenberg]

 dave_beer, on 2016-April-02, 06:55, said:

2♥ shows Hxx and 3♣ is just patterning out. It helps partner evaluate which cards are working and sometimes leads to playing in a better trump suit.

I would have rebid 3♥ as responder which shows HHx and at least mild slam interest.

The first choice, 2H showing Hxx, surprises me. Earlier, Helene expressed doubt that 1H-2C-2D-2H unequivocally shows three. There were others who agreed. You are saying it shows Hxx?

For me, after 1H-2C-2D I would bid hearts, usually 2H, holding 3 and not bid 2H on two. Holding two hearts I would keep in mind that the best contract still might be 4H, but I would wait. Holding three, I would think it likely that the right contract is in hearts but I would take it easy. I would expect 1H-2C-2D-4H to show three hearts, five clubs decent enough to force to game, and nothing else of any interest. It is true that I do not have any clear agreement with anyone as to just what 1H-2C-2D-3H means, but I would expect a strong three card holding as you say, and some interest in more than game. 1H-2C-2D-2H is the bid on any other three card heart holding.

Playing pickup on BBO, as I do, I often agree to play 2/1 with minimal discussion of what that means. Obviously this is dangerous, a sense of humor is definitely required, but this thread is a great illustration of how iffy such casual agreements really can be.

[dirtbag]

 helene_t, on 2016-March-25, 09:14, said:

Standard is that 3♣ is patterning out, showing three clubs and thereby showing the spade shortness. But of course you can agree to play it as a control bid.

BTW I don't think it is universal that 2♥ promises three cards. If it doesn't then obviously 3♣ is natural since we are still looking for our fit.

this is a 2/1 auction 2♣forces the auction to game. 2♥ definitely establishes ♥ as trump and by bidding 3♣ declarer is exploring for a slam almost certainly holding the ♣ace, by not using fast arrival and jumping to 4♥ declarer is showing extra values or distribution.

[dave_beer]

 Winstonm, on 2016-March-27, 14:44, said:

First, there is no point in making a false preference at the 2-level so 2H must be at least 3-card support and game forcing.

Hardly ever but after 1♠-2♣-2♥ you can have a hand like Kx-xxx-xxx-AKQxx that

• can't rebid 3♣ because the suit isn't good enough
  
• doesn't want to rebid 2NT because there is no ♦ stopper
  
• doesn't want to bid 3♦ because that could get a preference to 4♣ that will cause problems

If I had the ♥K instead of the ♠K I might bid 3♥ for similar reasons but here I am violating the rule about needing 4-card support.

 kenberg, on 2016-April-02, 07:22, said:

The first choice, 2H showing Hxx, surprises me. Earlier, Helene expressed doubt that 1H-2C-2D-2H unequivocally shows three. There were others who agreed. You are saying it shows Hxx?

I would like to have Hxx and I think partner should expect it but I won't always deliver. Aside from the exception above there are hands with xxx where I might surpress my support especially if we are playing (non-)serious 3NT it can be very difficult to get to 3NT instead of 4M if I show it now.

[kenberg]

 dave_beer, on 2016-April-02, 12:04, said:

Hardly ever but after 1♠-2♣-2♥ you can have a hand like Kx-xxx-xxx-AKQxx that

• can't rebid 3♣ because the suit isn't good enough
• doesn't want to rebid 2NT because there is no ♦ stopper
• doesn't want to bid 3♦ because that could get a preference to 4♣ that will cause problem

I was having a discussion with pard the other day, pard thinking 3C simply showed five, me claiming it showed six, but I would agree that a very good five would do. So I am taking your comment here as supportive of my general view.

His thinking as that since the initial 2C bid could be quite short (2D and 2H would both be five card suits) that it is essential to get the five card length shown. It is true that, when playing 2C in this ambiguous way, opener would not raise clubs on three cards so he has a point. Still, I think a very good five is the minimum.