[kgr]

Bidding:
1D-1S
2C-2H
?
=> 2NT/3NT

We play that 2C is natural, but forcing (and 3C mini-splinter).
2H is 4th suit GF.

We agreed that 2NT shows extras and 3NT is minimum (12-13). Because we have not yet limited our hand it is important to do that somehow.

But 3NT is not a nice bid (as mentioned by someone in another post):
Opener can have a minimal 1354 hand and responder a strong hand with 6cS. If opener bids 3NT then responder bids 4S, while 3NT is probably the better contract.

Any suggestions?
(Edited after comment ahydra)

[ahydra]

Someone commented in another thread that swapping the 2NT/3NT replies over is probably better. That would solve the specific problem of the 1354 (I assume you mean - 4S on a 9-fit can't be so bad, right?) hand, and if responder has a slam try hand for 4SF, then should opener reply 3NT he knows slam is pretty much there and can feel happy about going past 3NT.

ahydra

[wank]

playing fast arrival in no-trumps is stupid. jumps = extras. minimum NT bid = minimum or big extras (will bid on past 3nt)

clasically minimum = 12-14
extras = 15-17
big extras = 18+

[lowerline]

kgr, on 2013-February-21, 10:23, said:

Bidding:
1D-1S
2C-2H
?
=> 2NT/3NT

We play that 2C is natural, but forcing (and 3C mini-splinter).
2H is 4th suit GF.

We agreed that 2NT shows extras and 3NT is minimum (12-13). Because we have not yet limited our hand it is important to do that somehow.

But 3NT is not a nice bid (as mentioned by someone in another post):
Opener can have a minimal 1354 hand and responder a strong hand with 6cS. If opener bids 3NT then responder bids 4S, while 3NT is probably the better contract.

Any suggestions?
(Edited after comment ahydra)

I don't understand why 2C must be forcing if it is natural... I suppose it is that agreement that lead to the other agreement to jump in NT with a minimum hand.

Steven

[kgr]

lowerline, on 2013-February-22, 04:52, said:

I don't understand why 2C must be forcing if it is natural... I suppose it is that agreement that lead to the other agreement to jump in NT with a minimum hand.

Steven

see OP. 3C is splinter.

[lowerline]

kgr, on 2013-February-22, 08:15, said:

see OP. 3C is splinter.

First of all opener should not jump over a GF 4SF. Over openers 2nt responder can tell what the 4SF is about. That way you are sure to find the right strain. If opener is limited to 16/17hcp (if you play a natural NF 2♣ rebid), he will never need to make a move over responders 3nt signoff. And for responder it is easier to judge whether he should make another move over 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2nt-3♠-3nt when he knows opener is limited to 16/17hcp. So the above agreement is part of the problem.

Steven

[kenberg]

To a large extent, I think OP has answered his own question. He comments that "But 3NT is not a nice bid". Indeed it is not. Responder, for his fourth suit forcing bid of 2♥, can have a wide variety of hands. He might have five spades hoping for three card support. He might have a strong six card suit and too strong a hand to bid a presumably passable 3♠ over 2♣. He might have a club fit. If 2♣ was forcing then responder, with four clubs and modest values, would presumably like to raise to 3♣ and not have that call be forcing or even particularly strong. Imagine responder with four spades, four clubs, seven points. Opener has bid 2♣ forcing. What can he do? Raise clubs I suppose. But then that call had better not also show values. So with a big hand and four clubs he first makes the fourth suit forcing bid and then shows his clubs, hopefully at the three level. If opener jumps to 3NT he has a problem. He has clubs, he has a good hand, he cannot show this without going past 3NT. Yuk.

If the conditions are that 2♣ must be forcing and opener will jump to 3NT over 2♥ on a wide variety of hands then, it seems to me, there is nothing to be done. My advice would be to rethink whether these conditions are worth the trouble that they cause. I have never played that way, perhaps these agreements carry their weight. But I would suggest a fresh look.

[fromageGB]

3♥, seems easy. But better to have 2NT weaker than 3, even if only after a 4SF if you want it that way normally.

BTW, I don't think it is necessary to limit your hand if you have the agreement that 2NT shows extras, because surely any other bid denies extras.

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2013-February-23, 09:51

[the_clown]

The advantage of 2NT is that responder has another level to describe his hand. In my system he can have anything from a spade one-suiter to 5-5 in ♥and♠ or a hand with very good fit in one of our suits and a slam try. So I dont see any advantage of preempting our side except when you have a minimum balanced hand (possibly with stiff spade) with a very good stopper in hearts.

[Cascade]

ahydra, on 2013-February-21, 10:32, said:

Someone commented in another thread that swapping the 2NT/3NT replies over is probably better. That would solve the specific problem of the 1354 (I assume you mean - 4S on a 9-fit can't be so bad, right?) hand, and if responder has a slam try hand for 4SF, then should opener reply 3NT he knows slam is pretty much there and can feel happy about going past 3NT.

ahydra

Can anyone help me find the other thread?

[kgr]

kenberg, on 2013-February-22, 15:10, said:

To a large extent, I think OP has answered his own question. He comments that "But 3NT is not a nice bid". Indeed it is not. Responder, for his fourth suit forcing bid of 2♥, can have a wide variety of hands. He might have five spades hoping for three card support. He might have a strong six card suit and too strong a hand to bid a presumably passable 3♠ over 2♣.

yes, 3♠ is good invite

kenberg, on 2013-February-22, 15:10, said:

He might have a club fit. If 2♣ was forcing then responder, with four clubs and modest values, would presumably like to raise to 3♣ and not have that call be forcing or even particularly strong. Imagine responder with four spades, four clubs, seven points. Opener has bid 2♣ forcing. What can he do? Raise clubs I suppose. But then that call had better not also show values.

We play 3♣ as invite, responder has to give false preference if weaker

kenberg, on 2013-February-22, 15:10, said:

So with a big hand and four clubs he first makes the fourth suit forcing bid and then shows his clubs, hopefully at the three level. If opener jumps to 3NT he has a problem. He has clubs, he has a good hand, he cannot show this without going past 3NT. Yuk.

If the conditions are that 2♣ must be forcing and opener will jump to 3NT over 2♥ on a wide variety of hands then, it seems to me, there is nothing to be done. My advice would be to rethink whether these conditions are worth the trouble that they cause. I have never played that way, perhaps these agreements carry their weight. But I would suggest a fresh look.

I'm ok with this forcing 2♣, but less with the jump to 3NT. Will discuss it with my partner.
Maybe we should keep 3NT for an unbalanced 15-17.
1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥
3NT = 1354 or 1255, 15-17

This only leaves a problem if we opened 1♥ with 15-17 and balanced/or not balanced:
1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦
3NT

=> 3NT=15-17, often unbalanced; 2NT=12-14 or 18-19

[gszes]

Never be in a hurry to use up bidding space for the mere purpose of showing
a minimum. There is little/no benefit to bidding 3n here merely because you
desire 2n to show extras. A rebid of 2n should be automatic with all balanced
hands as you can then use the next round to further descibe your strength and
you leave partner with another level of bidding which might change your mind about
3n being the right place to play.


If you must bid 3n save it for hands that have an unusual feature you have
not been able to show during the bidding. For ex on the given auction I would
use 3n to show a heart stop and 6 good diamonds AKQxxx for ex).Taking up
space to show minimums is a bad idea.

[lexlogan]

Save "fast arrival" for when partner has limited his shape and strength -- such as opening in notrump, or a non-forcing, descriptive rebid. I suggest reading Fred Gitelman's article on fast arrival, available here on BBO. Eric Crowhurst wrote (misquoting from memory) "few things are more annoying than being fixed by partner in a non-competitive auction." The mania for limit jumps in notrump is among the more revolting developments in modern American bidding -- do you enjoy it when partner leaps and you have to guess what to do with an unbalanced hand?