[flytoox]

Playing 2/1 with a reliable partner, sitting south you hold
S: A8765
H: Q
D: KQJ9
C: T76

Auction proceeds as follows(Opponents are silent):

N S
- 1S
2C 2D
2S 3C
3H ??

What do you bid now?

In particular, what is the difference between 3S and 4S? Does 3S encourage pd to make slam try and 4S shows a min. hand?

Furtheremore, what is the difference between 3S (If that is a waiting bid) and a cuebid of, say 4D, minor?

Any thoughts on these follow-ups are welcome.

[bucky]

My 2 cents: it is reasonable to use 4♠ here as showing a minimum hand lacking good controls, which is a fairly accurate description of this hand. A 3♠ bid doesn't deny a minimum hand, but you should have some redeeming feature, perhaps AJ765 / x / KQJ9 / Q76 at least. 4♦ bid ought to emphasize on diamonds as source of tricks (and implies good trump suit).

[Siegmund]

I can't help thinking partner already has made a slam try, with 3H - we agreed spades as trump, and apparently our plan was to pattern out and see if partner did anything interesting. (I wonder if partner this we've already made a slam try with 3C?)

Between partner's 3H-not-3D and our lack of anything to cuebid, I am fine with 4S now to pour cold water on things. I am sure some partnerships wouldn't allow me to do that, with partner still unlimited. (In fact in one of my partnerships, 3S would be a semi-automatic 'waiting bid' and the leap to 4S would promise possession of a control in every suit.)

[neilkaz]

I certainly hold little that is exciting here and have weakish trumps and only an 8 card fit (assuming we play J2N and splinters) and perhaps I should have just tried to end the auction by bidding 4♠ last round. Thus I will do my best to end it now by bidding 4♠.

.. neilkaz ..

[JLOGIC]

I play that 4S is the nut low and a warning to partner, it should rarely be used. 3S is fine with almost all minimums.

I would choose 4S here.

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on Sep 16 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

I play that 4S is the nut low and a warning to partner, it should rarely be used. 3S is fine with almost all minimums.

I would choose 4S here.

Agree with the above...4S is not just a random minimum. It says, "Stop torturing me; I will only cooperate with BW."

[the hog]

Siegmund, on Sep 17 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

I can't help thinking partner already has made a slam try, with 3H - we agreed spades as trump, and apparently our plan was to pattern out and see if partner did anything interesting. (I wonder if partner this we've already made a slam try with 3C?)

Between partner's 3H-not-3D and our lack of anything to cuebid, I am fine with 4S now to pour cold water on things. I am sure some partnerships wouldn't allow me to do that, with partner still unlimited. (In fact in one of my partnerships, 3S would be a semi-automatic 'waiting bid' and the leap to 4S would promise possession of a control in every suit.)

As 2S could be a doubleton, I hardly think that S is the agreed suit at this stage. Many play 2S as a waiting bid here. I would take partner's 3H bid as asking for a H stopper. As my spades are not of great quality, I would simply bid 3S here to await partner's continuation.

[aguahombre]

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder. What you say is applicable to SA.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder. What you say is applicable to SA.

Not just SA. Many 2/1 variants as well. There was a thread on this recently.

[flytoox]

In our partnership, 2S Does promise 3 cards support, so no worry about what trump is here.

3H should show nothing but control.

[Siegmund]

Quote

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder. What you say is applicable to SA.

...not SA either, the way I learned it: 1S-2C-2D-2S would be a 3-card limit raise.

I'm sure there is someone out there who plays it the way the Hog does, but not textbook saycers!

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2010, 11:11 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder.  What you say is applicable to SA.

Not just SA. Many 2/1 variants as well. There was a thread on this recently.

Hence, "the version of....". But, you should reread that thread ---in particular, AWM's post. There is no mention in that thread of 2-card support being possible in 2/1, although someone somewhere might do it.

[aguahombre]

Siegmund, on Sep 16 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

Quote

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder. What you say is applicable to SA.

...not SA either, the way I learned it: 1S-2C-2D-2S would be a 3-card limit raise.

I'm sure there is someone out there who plays it the way the Hog does, but not textbook saycers!

The published SAYC booklet, and the Std system notes accessible on-line are very specific about this sequence only showing 2 spades (somthing like QX XXX XXX AKQXX). That doesn't mean a lot of standard bidders haven't made up their own agreements, but it shows 3-cards in 2/1 and 2 in STD. 3-card limit raises in SAYC are direct jumps.

[peachy]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2010, 11:36 PM, said:

As 2S could be a doubleton,

It really can't. When in GF auction, supporting spades with a doubleton is very unwise. For me and anyone I play 2/1 with, antisystemic as well.

[hanp]

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder.  What you say is applicable to SA.

Not just SA. Many 2/1 variants as well. There was a thread on this recently.

Do you mean the thread where almost everybody said it shows 3-card support? You have a selective memory, remembering that there was a thread but not remembering that almost nobody agreed with you.

I don't mean to say it has to show 3-card support. I think it is playable to agree that 2S may be honor doubleton. But in my view this is a non-standard agreement.

[ONEferBRID]

2S showed 3 card support.
I'm tempted to just say 4S immediately over 2S.

[flytoox]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 17 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

2S showed 3 card support.
I'm tempted to just say 4S immediately over 2S.

I actually thought about this at the table. However, the club fit is too much to hide. We may belong to clubs after all.

[hanp]

I like the 3C bid very much. Not only may we belong in clubs, knowing about the 5143 distribution may be enough for partner to put us into a good slam.

[655321]

I can't find the other thread everyone is talking about, gwnn help me please?

[gwnn]

I don't remember any thread like that and I am very bad at looking up threads I don't remember.