[Liversidge]

1♣-1♠; 2♠-3♣-P


I (responding) had 13 HCP, 5 good clubs and 4 good spades.
After partner's pass I realised that bidding a suit previously mentioned is non-forcing, and the maxim that 'when you have found a fit in a major, don't look for any other strain'. But here we had a 10 card fit in clubs vs a likely 8 card fit in spades and I wanted to give partner a choice of game contracts. I thought my club rebid rather than settling for a spade contract might suggest that I had 5 clubs and was offering a choice of game contracts. I suspect my thinking was muddled, but is there any situation where this sequence might be used?

[Cyberyeti]

Do you raise spades on 3 ? and if so how often ?

I can see several meanings for 3♣ dependent on the previous question.

If you don't raise on 3 much, the question is whether it's a game try or GF.

If you do a lot, it's not unreasonable for it to be to-play 4-4 in the blacks, or inv or GF.

[Liversidge]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-11, 23:40, said:

Do you raise spades on 3 ? and if so how often ?

I can see several meanings for 3♣ dependent on the previous question.

If you don't raise on 3 much, the question is whether it's a game try or GF.

If you do a lot, it's not unreasonable for it to be to-play 4-4 in the blacks, or inv or GF.

We only raise a major with 3 card support when responding to partner's opening bid, but not in this situation.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If you found a major suit fit, you play the major.
Dont make it more complicate than it is.

If you play game tries in the seq.

1S - 2S
3C - ...

than the 3C in the original seq. is also a game try.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[johnu]

 Liversidge, on 2019-July-11, 23:35, said:

1♣-1♠; 2♠-3♣-P


I (responding) had 13 HCP, 5 good clubs and 4 good spades.
After partner's pass I realised that bidding a suit previously mentioned is non-forcing, and the maxim that 'when you have found a fit in a major, don't look for any other strain'. But here we had a 10 card fit in clubs vs a likely 8 card fit in spades and I wanted to give partner a choice of game contracts. I thought my club rebid rather than settling for a spade contract might suggest that I had 5 clubs and was offering a choice of game contracts. I suspect my thinking was muddled, but is there any situation where this sequence might be used?

Assuming opener promised 4 spades by raising, why would you try for a 5♣ contract? You are contracting for 11 tricks instead of 10 tricks in spades in a 4-4 fit and that extra trick can be very important. Sure you can make up examples where 5♣ makes and 4♠ goes down. There is no way to find out if that's the case. So don't bother and just bid game in spades.

[Tramticket]

There are many similar (but subtly different) sequences that you should consider:

1♥-1♠-2♠-3♥
1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠
1♣-1♦-2♦-3♣
1♦-2♣-3♣-3♦
1m-1M-2M-3m
1M-2m-3m-3M

The optimum answers to each will depend upon your methods (and if you play 2 over 1 GF some will be solved).

But if you are in a newer partnership and have not yet considered these in detail, a simple rule is to treat all of these as a one-round force.

[FelicityR]

If this is Acol bidding, I would take 3♣ as unconditionally forcing. Opener clarifies his/her hand further.

[Cyberyeti]

 johnu, on 2019-July-12, 02:50, said:

Assuming opener promised 4 spades by raising, why would you try for a 5♣ contract? You are contracting for 11 tricks instead of 10 tricks in spades in a 4-4 fit and that extra trick can be very important. Sure you can make up examples where 5♣ makes and 4♠ goes down. There is no way to find out if that's the case. So don't bother and just bid game in spades.

Logic correct, conclusion incorrect, what if you want to invite but have something like ♣Qxx, isn't 3♣ more useful than 3♠.

Also to the OP, what do you do with a 3415 minimum opening bid after 1♣-1♠? the world bids 2♠.

The other thing that matters here is system, how many clubs are you showing with 2♠?

[pescetom]

 P_Marlowe, on 2019-July-12, 01:04, said:

If you found a major suit fit, you play the major.
Dont make it more complicate than it is.

If you play game tries in the seq.

1S - 2S
3C - ...

than the 3C in the original seq. is also a game try.

I suggest that 1♥ 1♠; 2♠ 3♥ should also then be a game try, although not all agree.

[Liversidge]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-12, 05:08, said:

Logic correct, conclusion incorrect, what if you want to invite but have something like ♣Qxx, isn't 3♣ more useful than 3♠.

Also to the OP, what do you do with a 3415 minimum opening bid after 1♣-1♠? the world bids 2♠.

The other thing that matters here is system, how many clubs are you showing with 2♠?

In our sustem, 2♠by opener promises four spades and 5 clubs.

[Liversidge]

 FelicityR, on 2019-July-12, 04:07, said:

If this is Acol bidding, I would take 3♣ as unconditionally forcing. Opener clarifies his/her hand further.

We play Acol

[Vampyr]

We play all ABBAs as forcing. It is simpler that way.

[Cyberyeti]

 Liversidge, on 2019-July-12, 10:26, said:

In our sustem, 2♠by opener promises four spades and 5 clubs.

In that case 3♣ should certainly be F1, game try showing something in clubs, although you can obviously use it with better hands too.


Also since you have a known 4-4 spade fit, have you discussed what 2N means ?

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2019-July-12, 10:29, said:

We play all ABBAs as forcing. It is simpler that way.

Simple and consistent, IMO.
For example, it does not make much sense to play 1m-1M-2M-3m as N/F, in a pairs context.
Even if you're worried about a possible 4-3 M fit, the 2M-contract usually scores more than the 3m contract -- and requires 1 fewer trick.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

For example, it does not make much sense to play 1m-1M-2M-3m as N/F, in a pairs context. Even if you're worried about a possible 4-3 M fit, the 2M-contract usually scores more than the 3m contract -- and requires 1 fewer trick.

I disagree, if 2M can be 3. Playing 5cd majors, we are trained to respond 1M on terrible suits. After all we kind of have to bid 1s on 5432 if partner isn't going to open 1S on AKJx. Then partner is trained to raise on something like Kxx x AKJx Jxxxx, because it simplifies auctions and also playing 2c with this suit opposite a small stiff isn't really attractive, and 2M often scores better even if 2c is playable.

But now suppose responder has a hand worth a game try, with 4xx5 or 4xx4 distribution, but opener is min and doesn't accept. Now it's no longer a choice between playing 3m and 2M. It's between 3m and 3M. Do you really want to play 3M with xxxx opposite Hxx, or would you rather play your 9 or 10 cd minor fit, even at MP? I personally would want to be able to play 3m.


I know it's not mainstream, but in my serious partnerships I use 3m as NF inv, and cheapest new suit as a simplified GF spiral-ish inquiry.

[Liversidge]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-12, 11:31, said:

In that case 3♣ should certainly be F1, game try showing something in clubs, although you can obviously use it with better hands too.


Also since you have a known 4-4 spade fit, have you discussed what 2N means ?

Yes. We play the Jacoby 2NT

[Tramticket]

 nige1, on 2019-July-12, 11:57, said:

For example, it does not make much sense to play 1m-1M-2M-3m as N/F, in a pairs context.

I agree with Stephen. A Moysian might be playable at the two-level, but less so at the three level. Even though I try to raise to 2M as little as possible on a three-card suit, I also play 3m in this auction as a non-forcing invitation.

I saw this recommended by Brian Senior in a book 20+ years ago.

But since this is the N/B forum it is simplest to treat all as forcing for one round.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2019-July-12, 10:29, said:

We play all ABBAs as forcing. It is simpler that way.

But in a 2/1 context I think these sequences are too important to simplify much.
We play:
1♥-1♠-2♠-3♥ = F1, game try with spades as trumps (no hearts fit promised)
1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ = FG, fixes spades as trumps, invites control-bids (hearts fit at least 5-3)
1♣-1♦-2♦-3♣ = NF, sign-off with clubs as trumps (diamonds fit 4-4)
1♦-2♣-3♣-3♦ = FG, fixes diamonds as trumps, invites control-bids (no clubs fit promised)

[Vampyr]

 pescetom, on 2019-July-12, 14:09, said:

But in a 2/1 context I think these sequences are too important to simplify much.

Obviously it is different if some of these are GF by tthe time responder has bid.

[Vampyr]

 Liversidge, on 2019-July-12, 13:07, said:

Yes. We play the Jacoby 2NT

I don’t think the question referred to responder’s first bid. It is about after 1♣-1♠-2♠.