[kfay]

Scoring: MP

3♣-(P)-?

You don't play anything special.

---

Scoring: MP

3♣-(P)-?

You don't play anything special.

---

Scoring: MP

3♣-(P)-?

You don't play anything special.

---

[kenrexford]

First one. I play "nothing special." Does that include Blackwood? If I play absolutely nothing, I suppose partner promises two of the top three clubs, so I'd blast 6♣. Otherwise, I'd ask questions.

Second one. 4♥, if that is to play. 3♥...4♥ otherwise.

Third one. 3♠. I need partner to have the diamond Ace to make this an odds-on slam, I think.

[Trumpace]

Agree with rexford on 1 & 3.

On 2, if 3H is passable I bid that, else pass 2S planning to run to 3H if doubled. If opps come in, I am ok with defending this hand. 4H on this seems a bit too much to me.

[jdonn]

3♥, 4♥, 3♦.

3♠ on the third one should be "natural", like 3505, as far as I'm concerned.

[Trumpace]

On 1, If 3♥ is forcing, it is a good bid. 6C or 4NT makes it impossible to find the better scoring heart slam.

Not sure why 3S should be natural on 3. The frequency of a ♦ void is probably low enough...

Sorry if I have polluted this thread.

[jjbrr]

3♠ is definitely 3505 imo

[manudude03]

3♥, 4♥, 4♠

[jdonn]

Trumpace, on Dec 15 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Not sure why 3S should be natural on 3. The frequency of a ♦ void is probably low enough...

That you would want to use the higher off-suit bid to show it?

[Trumpace]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Trumpace, on Dec 15 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Not sure why 3S should be natural on 3. The frequency of a ♦ void is probably low enough...

That you would want to use the higher off-suit bid to show it?

Well, it depends on what you can show with 3S and what you lose with having 3S show a ♦ void, what 3♦ means etc. I have no clue...

If someone were to pull 3S (without agreement) on me on that sequence, I would take it as a cue, though. Probably not ideal, but keeps the memory load low I suppose.

[hanp]

I would also assume natural.

I would start by bidding 3D which would just show a strong hand imo.

[Old York]

1. 3♥ Forcing
2. maybe pass would work
3. The hand seems too strong for UNT, maybe start with a double. 4♣ may work after partner's 3♣ shows nothing

Tony

[kenrexford]

More analysis:

On the first one, 3♥ would be more appealing IF we played something special. We don't. As a result, it seems to me that bidding 3♥ risks making it difficult to use RKCB for clubs. Playing something special, this is not a problem as much. If partner raises hearts, 4NT is RKCB for hearts. If partner does not raise hearts, then for me 4♠ is RKCB for clubs. That works wonders.

On the third one, the reason that I bid 3♠ is that I play that anything new is a cue. Not playing that, I suppose that 4♠ makes sense. But, I don't like that with a worthless doubleton in diamonds. 3♦ suffers from that same problem, as partner cannot really tell whether I have xx or KQx or AKx in diamonds.

[Apollo81]

First: 3♥. We're certainly bidding game, and we're likely bidding a club slam. Let's get some more information before we take any more decisive action.

Second: 4♥. Even if partner provides zero help, we'll likely make 3♥. I don't think it's right to play partner for zero help.

Third: 3♦, by process of elimination. We can't bid 3♥ (that shows a 6th heart), 3♠ (that shows spades), or 3NT (that shows a diamond stopper). The only other call we could make is 4♣, and there's no reason to bypass 3NT or take up that much space when we've got a cheap 3♦ call available.

[Jlall]

3H and 4H are obvious, the last one the question is whether to bid 3D or 4S I think. Since 4H and 3N are possible contracts, I'll go with 3D.

[Codo]

yes 3♥ and 4 ♥ are clear.

For the last one: I have never heard that 3 spade is natural, so I can bid it.

[hanp]

What is going on here, how many people have been talking to Rexford in private? Since when do you need to hear about a bid being natural before you assume it is natural?

[billw55]

3♥, 4♥ weren't too hard.

On (3), playing "nothing special" I assume to mean a casual partner. In which case I would worry that 3♦ might be interpreted as a control. Ergo I bid 4♠. Admitedly, I would not think of 3♠ as natural. But why allow room for doubt when I can be 100% clear.

[kenrexford]

hanp, on Dec 16 2009, 06:14 AM, said:

What is going on here, how many people have been talking to Rexford in private? Since when do you need to hear about a bid being natural before you assume it is natural?

Actually, you don't have to talk to me on that. It seems that a corollary to Eric Kokish applies. Kokish says that the third suit call is often shortness. If one call shows two suits, then a corollary would suggest that the next call is shortness.

In fact, this is a relatively common theme. Transfer, show second suit, then show shortness, for example.

[hanp]

The auction 1NT - 2D - 2H - 3C - 3H is extremely different. In that auction, there is a heart fit. Showing shortness is a very good idea. Also, since you are already in a GF you don't need a bid to say "I am strong, where should we play?".

In our auction, we haven't found a fit yet. We might want to play in clubs, hearts, spades or notrump. Having 3D as a probe is important, and if we can't bid spades naturally, we can't find our spade fit.

In a sense the auction is more similar to 1S - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H, which everybody I know plays naturally, not as a cuebid.

[kenrexford]

hanp, on Dec 16 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

The auction 1NT - 2D - 2H - 3C - 3H is extremely different. In that auction, there is a heart fit. Showing shortness is a very good idea. Also, since you are already in a GF you don't need a bid to say "I am strong, where should we play?".

In our auction, we haven't found a fit yet. We might want to play in clubs, hearts, spades or notrump. Having 3D as a probe is important, and if we can't bid spades naturally, we can't find our spade fit.

In a sense the auction is more similar to 1S - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H, which everybody I know plays naturally, not as a cuebid.

Actually, showing shortness makes finding a spade fit easier, in the sense of more flexibility where you need it, and a more natural follow-up. Let me explain.

If calls are natural, then overcaller can only bid 3♠ with a three-card suit, right? 3♦, presumably, can be a two-card suit, either for patterning purposes or for a notrump probe, as actual pure length in the minor is less important. This creates a pinch if overcaller has 2-0 or 2-1 with longer spades and wants to probe or pattern.

If calls are shortness, this is solved. 3♠ shows shortness in spades and suiggests either notrump probe or pattern, where technical length in diamonds is less important. 3♦ shows shortness in diamonds, and hence infers some length in spades, whether for strain, pattern, or probe. Advancer can cater to this more easily because he now has a 3♠ call to suggest strain interest.

In the "bid length" scenario, artificiality kicks in at this point. If 3♦ showed diamonds, and hence shortness in spades, Advancer's 3♠ repkly cannot make sense as natural and must therefore have some surrogate meaning (offering diamonds as a strain?). This becomes convoluted.

Plus, in the end, shortness seems to allow spades to be focused as a possible strain more easily, whereas natural focuses diamonds as a strain more easily. I think I'd rather focus spades, personally.