[helene_t]

---

I was not so keen on my partner's 3♥ bid with a semi-balanced hand, and not so keen on my own 6♥ bid either. I can imagine a sensible auction would be
1♠-2♦
2♥-3♣
3♦-3♥
3♠-3NT
4NT-6NT
but maybe this is too knotted and maybe 4NT is an underbid (and 6NT an overbid). And maybe South should go for a diamond slam when North shows belated support (3♦) and subsequently extra values (4NT).

What do you think?

[broze]

How about 1S - 2D - 2H - 3C - 4NT(nat 18-19) - 5C(slam accept, nat) - 5D - 5NT(pick a slam) - 6NT?

I expect this is how the bidding would go in my partnership, though I wouldn't risk the nat 4NT undiscussed with a new partner.

[Zelandakh]

The 3♥ bids 120% of the blame; and....oh, sorry, wrong thread type.

As you will know by now, I do not play 2/1 but I can think of plenty of auctions to get there:

1♠ - 2♦;
2♥ - 2NT;
4NT - 6♣;
6♦ - 6NT

1♠ - 2♦;
2♥ - 2NT;
3♦ - 3♥;
4NT - 6♣;
6NT

1♠ - 2♦;
2♥ - 2NT;
3♦ - 3♥;
3♠ - 3NT;
4NT - 6♣;
6NT

to name but 3 using the "European style" of 3♣ being a mark time bid rather than natural.

Your suggested auction also looks ok, although South should show the good clubs over 4NT with a 6♣ bid if the 3♣ bid did not do that already. Downgrading the North hand slightly for the apparent misfit seems better than blasting, although that depends to some extent on what a GF Responding hand looks like.

The less said about the 3♥ rebid in the original auction, the better. "Not so keen on" is the British understatement of the decade.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Another 2/1 auction could be:

1S - 2C
2H - 2NT
4NT - 6NT

[fromageGB]

helene_t, on 2013-September-17, 06:50, said:

And maybe South should go for a diamond slam when North shows belated support (3♦) and subsequently extra values (4NT).

Yes. And North knows responder is happy in 6♦ but also knows that he has the ♠AK, so converts to 6NT.

[fromageGB]

What is the general consensus of the difference between responder's possible rebids of 2NT and the 4th suit of 3♣? It seems to me to make sense that 3♣ shows a good 5 card suit, in case opener is 3-suited. 2NT would be shorter clubs, I think. But I would like to hear other opinions.

[helene_t]

2NT with a void doesn't seem very natural to me.

I am not sure if I would like 3♣ to be strictly natural here. If so, then you will sometimes be stuck with a 2353 without a club stopper. Unless you agree that a preference bid of 2♠ does not show 3-card support.

Anyway, it would be best with simple rules for when the fourth suit is natural and when it isn't.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2013-September-18, 08:47, said:

2NT with a void doesn't seem very natural to me.

I am not sure if I would like 3♣ to be strictly natural here. If so, then you will sometimes be stuck with a 2353 without a club stopper. Unless you agree that a preference bid of 2♠ does not show 3-card support.

Anyway, it would be best with simple rules for when the fourth suit is natural and when it isn't.

A Responder's rebid of 2NT Is not really natural in 2/1, any more than a 1NT response in SAYC or Acol. It is the bucket resoponse when nothing better fits.

From what I have gathered on these forums over the years, in North America it is normal for the fourth suit to be natural most of the time. In this style you have to bid 2NT with the hand without club stopper and nothing else to say. Presumably a subsequent 3♣ from partner would be chacking back on the stopper position, although I cannot remember any discussions getting that far into detail.

The other style, what I called the European style above although that is far from universal, is for the fourth suit to be artificial. In this method you have to bid 2NT with clubs and a subsequent 3♣ from partner is natural. I find this second style more natural, despite bidding 2NT on a void. It is just a matter of how you think about the auction. The differences are probably small enough that there is no major advantage for one method over the other.

[jallerton]

broze, on 2013-September-17, 07:17, said:

How about 1S - 2D - 2H - 3C - 4NT(nat 18-19) - 5C(slam accept, nat) - 5D - 5NT(pick a slam) - 6NT?

I expect this is how the bidding would go in my partnership, though I wouldn't risk the nat 4NT undiscussed with a new partner.

I wouldn't risk a natural 4NT without a stop in the unbid suit.

[mikeh]

One of the advantages of 2/1 is that one needn't jump over partner's 2/1 since the partnership is committed to game and can (in my view: should) use the resulting bidding space to prioritize strain, and then, if either side has significant extras, explore level. There are exceptions, but in my partnerships, for example, we'd use 3♥ as a splinter raise in diamonds (thus allowing 3N as a contract when responder has a lot of heart wastage).

What 3♣ means is a matter for partnership agreement, but as jeff implies, for many it is the catch-all default noise that simply denies the ability to support spades or hearts, or to bid notrump, or to rebid diamonds.

xx Axx AKQJx xxx looks like a 3♣ call to me, playing this style.

My own style leans more to faking a preference to 2♠. I can't construct a hand on which my 3♣ call would not show at least 4 cards in the suit. 2=3=5=3, I bid 2♠.

There are obvious reasons why many would disagree. However, my 'rule' is that when I am under pressure and have to have a 'mark-time' bid available, I like to use the cheapest logical alternative. By faking a 2♠ preference, I get 2N open to partner, not to mention his own 3♣ call, and my experience is that, so long as partner plays the same style, we have ample room to sort out the degree of spade support.

I'm not claiming this to be superior to what I take to be jeff's approach and I suspect his view is probably more widely-accepted than is mine.

So: for me, the natural 4N is 'obvious'...sure, partner may be xxxx in clubs, but he rates not to be, especially given my diamond holding.

If I didn't have that, I'd have to bid 3♦ over the punt, and then presumably hear either 3N (which seems wrong to me) or 3♥ (why not? This may play well in a moysian if partner commits to 4♥).

In either event, I bid 4N and there we are: back where I would have been a round earlier.

Is S worth a slam? I'm not at all convinced. We have no fit better than 7 cards and about 31-32 hcp. We have a void in partner's main suit and may have transportation issues. I'd probably miss the slam.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2013-September-17, 06:50, said:

I can imagine a sensible auction would be
1♠-2♦
2♥-3♣
3♦-3♥
3♠-3NT
4NT-6NT
but maybe this is too knotted and maybe 4NT is an underbid (and 6NT an overbid). And maybe South should go for a diamond slam when North shows belated support (3♦) and subsequently extra values (4NT).

What do you think?

Can N not bid 5N pick a slam over 3N ?

[suleiman22]

Cool example! However both the three heart bid and the six heart bid are not perfect. Bidding six hearts with at max eight between the partnership seems like a bad decision. No-Trump seems to yield a happy home for this contract. The heart bidding is the problem.

This post has been edited by suleiman22: 2013-September-23, 15:10

[mike777]

helene_t, on 2013-September-17, 06:50, said:

---

I was not so keen on my partner's 3♥ bid with a semi-balanced hand, and not so keen on my own 6♥ bid either. I can imagine a sensible auction would be
1♠-2♦
2♥-3♣
3♦-3♥
3♠-3NT
4NT-6NT
but maybe this is too knotted and maybe 4NT is an underbid (and 6NT an overbid). And maybe South should go for a diamond slam when North shows belated support (3♦) and subsequently extra values (4NT).

What do you think?

Maybe:
1s=2d
2h=3c(4sf)
3d=3nt
6nt

For me south could not really hold a worse hand ...

[suleiman22]

I agree mike- the South hand holds a perfect distribution to rule out any trump and makes both the bidding and the play harder for slam (in my humble opinion )
Suleiman