Two Over One Question - Two Parter

[Carl]

A hand from a Mike Lawrence quiz I am having problems with. Two over one game forcing, all vulnerable, North deals and opens, you are south in this uncontested sequence:

1S - 2D;
2H - ?? - quiz choices are 2NT 3C 3H 3NT


South: 2 AQ7 KJT96 A974

Part Two after we chew over this bid.....

[sbt]

In article <04d4f368-f59b-40be...@googlegroups.com>,

3C (what's the problem?)

NT bids distort the hand, 3H distorts the degree of support. 3C shows a
suit you actually hold. Partner could, after all, be 5404 or have the
tenace(s) that should be declaring.

--
Dennis Cohen

[David Stevenson]

Carl wrote

Interesting. I cannot see any reason for 3H, showing 4 cards I do not
have, or 3NT which appears to be a minimum hand useless for slam with no
feature of any sort, ie nothing like my present hand. But while i
consider 2NT automatic, I suppose it might wrong side it opposite C Qx
so 3C is interesting.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[Nick France]

I'm bidding 2NT which to me shows 12-14 or 18+. I play the jump to
3NT is 15-17 and does need to be balanced. I'm not a fan of 3C on
such a weak suit nor 3H with only 3 hearts. Partner will now have a
lot of space to show his hand.

Nick France

[RonfromLao]

2NT, what is the problem? 3C is silly as it is 4th suit forcing unless you play a weird version of 2/1.
Ron

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 7:23:34 PM UTC-7, RonfromLao wrote:

> 2NT, what is the problem? 3C is silly as it is 4th suit forcing unless you play a weird version of 2/1.

2D was already forcing to game, so there's no need for a "fourth suit forcing" convention here. The way I understand it, fourth suit bids like 3C in this position are not artificial, but they are suspect--i.e. responder *could* be manufacturing the bid but it's more likely than not to be natural. I agree that with this mediocre suit, there's not that much reason to show it naturally (although opener *could* be 5=4=0=4), unless you're thinking as David did that notrump should be played from partner's side. But since I'm holding the 9 I'm not too worried about that.

-- Adam

[Bob M]

Only 2 choices for me;2NT and 3C. I like what Nick France has to say so I'll go with 2NT too.
Bob M

[RonfromLao]

Adam, 4th suit forcing asks for a C stopper. With no C stopper this bid is forced upon responder.
What else are you going to bid on:J AK7 AJT96 x974
Ron

[Sid]

"Carl" wrote in message
news:04d4f368-f59b-40be...@googlegroups.com...

A hand from a Mike Lawrence quiz I am having problems with. Two over one
game forcing, all vulnerable, North deals and opens, you are south in
this uncontested sequence:

1S - 2D;
2H - ?? - quiz choices are 2NT 3C 3H 3NT


South: 2 AQ7 KJT96 A974

=====

You are in a forcing-to-game situation. It is incumbent now to make the
most appropriate bid to assist partner.

That bid is 2NT. Club stopper, awaiting instructions.

That gives partner lots of space to get to 4H when he is 5-5 minimum,
and even 6H may be the right spot.

Sid

[Sid]

"sbt" wrote in message
news:261020121708343462%dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid...

In article <04d4f368-f59b-40be...@googlegroups.com>,
Carl <Ca...@carlritner.com> wrote:

> 1S - 2D;
> 2H - ?? - quiz choices are 2NT 3C 3H 3NT
>
>
> South: 2 AQ7 KJT96 A974
>

3C (what's the problem?)

NT bids distort the hand, 3H distorts the degree of support. 3C shows a
suit you actually hold. Partner could, after all, be 5404 or have the
tenace(s) that should be declaring.

===

And if you had 32 AQ7 AKJxx Jxx ?

Sid

[Carl]

OK. Here's what Mike has to say about 2NT and 3C (I hope we can agree to dismiss 3H and 3NT as clearly wrong):

2NT I gave you a big hint in the introduction to this hand. You have lots of things you would like to show but no specific thing that you WANT to show. Better to bid 2NT, forcing, and get more news from partner.

3C This is the bid that many would make but it takes up bidding room in an insidious way. See the postmortem for more.

---------------------------------------------

Carl: I felt that 3C shows shape. Since you do not need FSF, 3C ought to show an honest 4-card suit. This puts the minors at very likely 5-4.

The majors thus can be:

0-4 No, I would have raised hearts on the second round
1-3 Yes, Possible and the only choice as I see it
2-2 No, I would have bid 2NT on the second round
3-1 No, I would have raised spades on the second round
4-0 No, I would have raised spades on the first round

So I feel that this shows 1-3-5-4 with a high degree of confidence, although it does not help nail down strength. Not yet.

2NT does nail down strength, but I feel it misrepresents my shape. I feel like I do have something I WANT to show - my clubs and my shape. I also do not see 3C as taking up bidding space; it is only one more step, for Pete's sake.

So, please comment on my rationale above, so I might learn more, thanks.
----------------------------------

Anyway, here's Part Two:

1S - 2D;
2H - 2N;
3H - ?? quiz choices are 4C and 4H

[HoneyMonster]

2N seems right on the previous round. 4C (slam try in Hearts) looks a
fair effort now.

[Bob M]

Yes. I had doubts about 2NT but now I'm convinced Sid, that's the right bid.

[jadelo]

I'm bidding 2NT

If partner is 5404 she can bid 3c.

Jeff

[Bob M]

Right on!
Bob M

[RonfromLao]

I have already commented but you don't seem to want to listen. How do you ask for a C stopper from partner if you don't play 4th suit forcing here; so, yes, you need 4th suit forcing!
Ron

[Paul Hightower]

"RonfromLao" <ronfr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ccca24dc-f58f-4ef0...@googlegroups.com...

This is a problem with obsolete terminology. In North America, the 4th suit
was ALWAYS forcing. In ancient Acol, it wasn't; so when the gadget bid was
added, it acquired the name Fourth Suit Forcing, which was later imported to
ACBL-land. A more descriptive term would be Fourth Suit Artificial -- which
is what you are arguing for. I agree with you -- the fourth suit typically
tells partner you have notrump shape but lack a stopper in the unbid suit.

I agree with the 2NT call. In my style this neitehr promises nor denies
extra values; "fast arrival" doesn't apply to notrump bids where no fit has
been established and partner may not have completed description of his
shape.o 4C has to carry strength implications as well as a control. I have
no idea how useful my diamonds are opposite partner's 5-5. I think I'll
content myself with a raise to 4H, having shown opening bid values, a
diamond suit, three card support for hearts, no more than two spades and
something in clubs. I could have a much stronger hand; also, to high hearts
limits my ability to provide spade ruffs. If partner has a fitting diamond
honor he might be able to continue over 4H.

[Carl]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 6:05:25 AM UTC-4, RonfromLao wrote:
>
>
> I have already commented but you don't seem to want to listen. How do you ask for a C stopper from partner if you don't play 4th suit forcing here; so, yes, you need 4th suit forcing!
>
> Ron

The arguments I listed in favor of my decision were made before I posted this. That is why I said I was having problems with this hand and posted it for other's opinions. If I hadn't wanted opinions I would not have bothered posting.

Apparently you are not interested in hearing how I got here. Others might be, might not.

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan wrote

>2D was already forcing to game, so there's no need for a "fourth suit
>forcing" convention here.

Whatever you play in this position, I have never understood the logic
which says 4SF is unnecessary when you have already forced to gams. 4SF
shows a hand which cannot find a natural alternative bid, and grew up
out of the idea that if you hold the 4th suit, you bid NT, so 4th suit
bids tend to deny a stopper there.

This is a very useful treatment even if a force to game is already
established. So, while it is reasonable to agree that the fourth suit
is natural, to say that there is no need for a fourth suit bid as
artificial is very wrong: you will definitely run into some hands where
such an agreement is very useful.

[Carl]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:24:26 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> Whatever you play in this position, I have never understood the logic
>
> which says 4SF is unnecessary when you have already forced to gams. 4SF
>
> shows a hand which cannot find a natural alternative bid, and grew up
>
> out of the idea that if you hold the 4th suit, you bid NT, so 4th suit
>
> bids tend to deny a stopper there.
>
>
>
> This is a very useful treatment even if a force to game is already
>
> established. So, while it is reasonable to agree that the fourth suit
>
> is natural, to say that there is no need for a fourth suit bid as
>
> artificial is very wrong: you will definitely run into some hands where
>
> such an agreement is very useful.
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
>
> Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
>
> <webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
>
> bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

Thanks! For reasons unknown, this explanation got through my thick skull. I can see now, 3C was asking for a stopper, not showing one. I just hate bidding 2NT with a stiff in partner's suit.

It's hell getting old.

[Eric Leong]

On Oct 26, 4:40 pm, Carl <C...@carlritner.com> wrote:

I would bid 2NT so partner can volunteer three card diamond support.
If I bid 3C and partner bids 3D I can't be sure if partner is making
the bid on a doubleton diamond and no club help. Further, if I bid 3C
and partner bids 3H I really want to cuebid 4C but it sounds like I am
5-5 in the minors.

Eric Leong

[Steve Willner]

>> 1S - 2D; 2H - ??

>> South: 2 AQ7 KJT96 A974

On 2012-10-26 10:23 PM, RonfromLao wrote:
> 2NT, what is the problem? 3C is silly as it is 4th suit forcing
> unless you play a weird version of 2/1.

I agree with Adam that "fourth suit artificial" would be a better name,
and with Ron that 3C is artificial here. It's still my choice. I'm
more concerned with which game to play than a nebulous slam, and we may
need to play notrump from partner's side. 4H, even on a 4-3 fit, is the
likely alternative, but 6H isn't ruled out.

If partner volunteers 3NT directly over 3C, I'm bidding 4H. That
transforms 3C into an advance control-bid, which is fine. If partner
bids 3D, 3H by me should lead to 3NT if partner has a partial club stopper.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[RonfromLao]

Steve, my problem with 3C is that if partner bids 3D this now does not really show real D support but is rather a waiting bid. I agree 3C should be called 4th suit artificial.
Ron

[judyo...@gmail.com]

If 3C can be artificial waiting, the partner is not not not allowed to make a neutral waiting bid. The partner must choose the least-misdescriptive reply.

Carl

[france...@googlemail.com]

I agree with Adam that "fourth suit artificial" would be a better name, and with Ron that 3C is artificial here. It's still my choice.

If partner volunteers 3NT directly over 3C, I'm bidding 4H. That transforms 3C into an advance control-bid, which is fine.

I don't understand this part of your campaign. You bid 3C, artificial, and partner bids 3NT showing a decent club stop. Now you want to pull that to 4H, when you know that partner doesn't have anything useful in diamonds for you.
I agree that 3C then 4H shows a good hand with 3-card heart support, but you seem to be an ace light for that.

This seems a recipe to avoid 3NT when it is the right contract. Just think of something like

KJ109x
KJxx
x
KQx

opposite. 4H is probably safe, but you feel a bit silly not playing 3NT.

[derek]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 10:11:48 AM UTC-3, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> If 3C can be artificial waiting, the partner is not not not allowed to make a neutral waiting bid. The partner must choose the least-misdescriptive reply.

Not not not allowed by whom? It's legal (though clearly requires an alert if it may not be natural).

[derek]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:05:25 AM UTC-3, RonfromLao wrote:
>
> I have already commented but you don't seem to want to listen. How do you ask for a C stopper from partner if you don't play 4th suit forcing here; so, yes, you need 4th suit forcing!

And you don't seem to want to read the conditions. Whether 3C as 4SF is reasonable or not (and I like both Carl's and Mike Lawrence's thinking - neither one of which requires 3C to be 4SF), the fact is that the bidding in Lawrence's quiz doesn't permit 3C here.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Not allowed by any rational bidding arrangement that aims to reach the best game. Not allowed by bidding theory.

[derek]

OK, I can agree with that. The third not would be for "not allowed if you don't want a physical disagreement with partner".

[RonfromLao]

Eh! What on earth are you talking about? 3C is an option in the Lawrnce quizz and there is no comment as to what it does or does not mean.
Ron

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-11-01 10:50 PM, RonfromLao wrote:
> my problem with 3C is that if partner bids 3D this now does not
> really show real D support but is rather a waiting bid.

I agree that 3D could be 5422 or even 5413, but I don't see why that's a
problem. Just bid 3H and let partner place the contract.

I don't think 2NT is terrible, but you may play 3NT when 4H, 5D, 5H, or
even 6H is better. I confess that at the table, I might bid 2NT myself.

Re Frances' comment: she's right, I was wrong. I don't know what I was
thinking. (Probably not thinking: too much wine with dinner.) If
partner bids 3NT directly over 3C, pass is correct.

[derek]

Read the post. 3C was an option WHICH LAWRENCE DISMISSED - and part two continues with _Lawrence's_ auction. I don't particularly care one way or the other how it's played and whether 3C is appropriate, as long as my partner and I are in agreement, but it's not an option here.

[RonfromLao]

Derek, an option means a possibility, regardless of whether you dismiss it or not.
Ron

[derek]

You entirely miss the point. You complain that the OP isn't paying attention to your pet methods. Unfortunately, it _isn't_ a "possibilty", because he's asking for what you do after 2NT, NOT 3C.