[helene_t]

Phil, on Jul 26 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

2N. I assume this is forcing.

Interesting. I wouldn't take 2NT as forcing without discussion but I can see it makes sense.

[pooltuna]

You've already shown you have a minimum opener and partner has shown at least invitational values and probably more since he didn't bail after 2♦. So bid what you think you can make...3NT

[ONEferBRID]

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

2H! may not be a real suit.
After a rebid by opener of his minor, there is a need for Responder to have
a forcing vs non-forcing continuation..... just as in NMF over a 1NT rebid by Opener.

One way to do that is to make the "cheapest new suit " as forcing ( 1 Rnd, not GF )
by Responder. Responder has taken control ( as in NMF ).

Let's take a different auction:
-- - 1C
1S - 2C
??
2D! = forcing and could be artificial whereas,
2H = natural, non-forcing ( a weak 5/4 )

Over 2D!, Opener may be able to bid ( in order of priority )
............. 2S = 3 card support
......... or 2H = 4 card, natural 2nd suit
.........or 2NT = none of the above but stop(s) in other Major, Hts ( as in NMF )
.........or 3D = 4 card, natural 2nd suit
.........or 3C = I can't believe I opened this crap

[Cascade]

kgr, on Jul 26 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 26 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

2N. I assume this is forcing.

2N. I assume it is not forcing.

3N. I assume it is not forcing.

[bill1157]

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

I can see the rationale for the 4th suit being relatively natural, i.e. showing something in the suit as opposed to asking about the suit. Probably a better treatment for most partnerships.

Bill

[Cascade]

bill1157, on Jul 29 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

I can see the rationale for the 4th suit being relatively natural, i.e. showing something in the suit as opposed to asking about the suit. Probably a better treatment for most partnerships.

Bill

Against that why would we need two bids to show the fourth suit - 3♣ and 2/3NT?

Especially given that 3♣ may just wrong side a possible 3NT contract or help the opponents to not lead that suit.

[ONEferBRID]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

bill1157, on Jul 29 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

As you agree with the one poster who said he plays 3C as natural, perhaps you could explain the raitionale to me as to why when 3 suits are bid one should feel this compunction to show that one posesses the fourth?

I can see the rationale for the 4th suit being relatively natural, i.e. showing something in the suit as opposed to asking about the suit. Probably a better treatment for most partnerships.

Bill

Against that why would we need two bids to show the fourth suit - 3♣ and 2/3NT?

Especially given that 3♣ may just wrong side a possible 3NT contract or help the opponents to not lead that suit.

- - - 1D
1S - 2D
2H - ??

I agree.
If you use 2H as natural, then no need to bid the 4th suit 3C as "showing", but "asking" ( for a stop as a first priority ).