[phil_20686]

bill1157, on 2012-January-23, 16:06, said:

Would NMF be necessary in this auction? The situation is totally different from the case where opener rebids 1NT since over the 2NT rebid, new suits would be forcing anyway and therefore don't need to be artificial.

Bill

Not only is it unnecessary, it is manifestly inferior. Suppose you held the following hand: AQxxx x xxx AQxx, partner opens a diamond, if you bid a spade and partner rebids 2N, you now have no way to introduce clubs as a possible strain below 3N. If partner has, say, Kx Axx AQJx KJxx that could be a very costly problem.

[gwnn]

I like transfers over 2NT but usually if I introduce clubs I show 4-5 (4 spades and 5 clubs), isn't that standard? How do you differentiate between 44 54 and 45 otherwise?

[phil_20686]

gwnn, on 2012-January-24, 03:53, said:

I like transfers over 2NT but usually if I introduce clubs I show 4-5 (4 spades and 5 clubs), isn't that standard? How do you differentiate between 44 54 and 45 otherwise?

I play transfers over a club usually to avoid this problem.

But playing standard, I generally would only interoduce a minor if relatively strong, i.e. 12+, in which case I would have started with a GF 2c rather than show the major, I show the major first only on invitational or weak hands.

TBH, it should be easy to differentiate anyway, since if you introduce a minor and partner gives preference back to the major, now when you bid 3N it must show 4M 5+minor. You would not introduce a second suit with 44 ever. If partner bids 4m or 3N your problems should be basically solved, you know already that he has only two cards i your major so if you can find enough controls you are bound to be able to ruff your major losers in the 4 card suit. As long as you have the usual agreement that introdducing a minor is a serious attempt to play there it shouldn't be a problem.

[gwnn]

Sure if you play that

3♣=clubs
3♦=diamonds
3♥=hearts
3♠=spades,

then introducing minors is easy but it is potentially difficult to introduce majors and there are some problems with introducing diamonds (since opener doesn't have a good way of accepting diamonds any more). That's why people like transfers and then 3♠ becomes the bid for clubs, which makes it important to know what are the relative lengths of the two suits.

[phil_20686]

gwnn, on 2012-January-24, 06:33, said:

then introducing minors is easy but it is potentially difficult to introduce majors and there are some problems with introducing diamonds (since opener doesn't have a good way of accepting diamonds any more). That's why people like transfers and then 3♠ becomes the bid for clubs, which makes it important to know what are the relative lengths of the two suits.

I dont understand why you think its difficult to introduce majors - you just bid the lowest one that you have with rebidding showing 5+ cards. so i fyou are 45 you bid 3h next, if you are 44 you bid 3s.


I mean there is some difficulty when you have 6 cards and a slam try, but bidding 3h then 4h over 3N should be a mild slam try, and partner is expected to cue values in 4m over a 3h rebid if he has a suitable hand for slam, as you will just bid 4h with a 6 card suit and no slam interest, so

1d-1h
2N-3h
3N-4h

shows mild slam interest, and

1d-1h
2n-3h
3N-4m

shows serious slam interest.

1d-1h
2N-3h
4h

shows an unsuitable hand with 3 card support

1d-1h
2n-3h
3s-3N
4m

shows a suitable hand with 4342 shape (in case you had a 4-4 spade fit

1d-1h
2N-3h
4m

shows a suitable hand without 4s.

I thought this was all standard stuff?

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-24, 06:56, said:

I thought this was all standard stuff?

I don't know about "standard", but the sequences you posted, and their meanings, are pretty much what we use.

[barmar]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-24, 03:45, said:

Not only is it unnecessary, it is manifestly inferior. Suppose you held the following hand: AQxxx x xxx AQxx, partner opens a diamond, if you bid a spade and partner rebids 2N, you now have no way to introduce clubs as a possible strain below 3N. If partner has, say, Kx Axx AQJx KJxx that could be a very costly problem.

That's a problem for other conventions, like Wolff Signoff, isn't it? Even if you play 3♣ as natural, how would partner know that you're so strong? Do you only introduce the suit if you have extra?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-January-24, 11:58, said:

Even if you play 3♣ as natural, how would partner know that you're so strong? Do you only introduce the suit if you have extra?

Acknowledged that you asked Phil the question, but mostly yes would be a reasonable answer. Offering a new suit in this situation is probably best used to suggest extra strength or extra distribution or both....some reason to recommend 3NT might not be the best final level and strain.

[Phil]

I nominate Jdeegan's post as the first entry for "post of the year" in 2012.

Classic!

[Codo]

gwnn, on 2012-January-23, 02:22, said:

I think you're talking about

1♣-1♠
2NT-3♦
3♥

when the opening post is about

1♣-1♠
2NT-3♥

but maybe I'm wrong about what the opening post is about.

Unluckily, this was not clear, I understood the auction like Adam.

[Fluffy]

In my country everybody plays 3♣ askng and the rest natural (with some poeple playing 3♠ for clubs). The answers to 3♣ are very easy to remember:

3♥= I have hearts (4 if new suit, 3 if parnter's suit)
3♠= I have spades (See above)
3NT= I have nothing
3♦= 4-3 in the majors

[phil_20686]

Codo, on 2012-January-25, 04:35, said:

Unluckily, this was not clear, I understood the auction like Adam.

I was talking about
1c-1s
2N-3d
3h

which is why I put that auction in the OP. I thought it was obvious i was asking about the sequence in the OP.

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-25, 06:44, said:

I was talking about
1c-1s
2N-3d
3h

which is why I put that auction in the OP. I thought it was obvious i was asking about the sequence in the OP.

Geez, Phil. Next thing, you'll be expecting people to understand that when you say "the sky is blue", you're talking about the color of the sky. What the heck's the matter with you?!

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-25, 18:30, said:

Geez, Phil. Next thing, you'll be expecting people to understand that when you say "the sky is blue", you're talking about the color of the sky. What the heck's the matter with you?!

The sky is actually red. Thats why it looks blue. Don't you know anything!

[gwnn]

oops. I don't know why the poll was confusing to me, anyway (but I suspect it was because I can't read). I'm afraid it was confusing to more people though since I'm inclined to agree with awm's assertion that 3♥ should be a semi-punt.

I have thought about these natural 3m bids (that I've never heard before, for some reason). They do look interesting. You lose some on hands with diamonds (because opener has a handy 3♦ transfer completion available) but you win some on hands with clubs (probably more than . You also lose sometimes when opener would like to know whether his/her partner has 5 or 6 cards and you give away some free info to opponents when responder just wanted to go to game all along. I'm sure I'm missing some cases, but surely you see that natural is not obviously better than transfers?

[phil_20686]

gwnn, on 2012-January-27, 11:29, said:

oops. I don't know why the poll was confusing to me, anyway (but I suspect it was because I can't read). I'm afraid it was confusing to more people though since I'm inclined to agree with awm's assertion that 3♥ should be a semi-punt.

I have thought about these natural 3m bids (that I've never heard before, for some reason). They do look interesting. You lose some on hands with diamonds (because opener has a handy 3♦ transfer completion available) but you win some on hands with clubs (probably more than . You also lose sometimes when opener would like to know whether his/her partner has 5 or 6 cards and you give away some free info to opponents when responder just wanted to go to game all along. I'm sure I'm missing some cases, but surely you see that natural is not obviously better than transfers?

My contention was that it was obviously better than NMF. I actually like transfers, although I like to be able to get clubs into the auction. My favourite solution is basically not to have a natural 2N rebid available. I use this rebid as a GF with 54 hands as well as 18-19 balanced. This works well in the context of transfer walsh as you can use 1c-1d/h-1N=18-19 balanced with out 44 card support. Thus you open your 18-19 balanced 1c even with 5 diamonds (though not with a 5cM) and this problem vanishes except over 1h-1s, but for 1h-1s partner should not be responding on junk so its fine to force to game with 18-19 balanced and you can have artificial continuations. I think the gain of playing jumps to 3 of a lower ranking suit as 5-5 GF is significant, particularly 1s-1n-3x.

Course, some people like to be able to play in a natural 2N after partner has responded to your 1m opening. Fortuneately I dont play bridge with any of those people.