[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2025-October-09, 18:15, said:

I took the low road in hearts. now 3♣, will partner repeat the spade cue with a void?

Unfortunately partner is probably bidding out shape with three small spades, they are on a different page, shape before control bids possibly, I don't play that

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-October-09, 19:26, said:

Unfortunately partner is probably bidding out shape with three small spades, they are on a different page, shape before control bids possibly, I don't play that

We are if a gf (2♣), we have shown a 3 card gf raise of hearts (2♥), anything after this is a cue bid, 3♥ last train type bid, 4♥ no interest in slam
If partner is not on the same page, bid what you think you can make. smile

[thepossum]

I keep simulating hands and trying to bid my system. I keep getting to 4H (opener) - then what. Blackwood? Controls?

[P_Marlowe]

steve2005, on 2025-October-09, 14:05, said:

You are laying 2/1 GF, fourth suit forcing doesn't apply you are already GF.
What so complicated someone raises a minor to 3m or 4m?

#1 The comment war geared toward someone, who does not play 2/1, in the original post you could assume your fav.
method, although it also mentioned 2/1, it is open, if the q is phrased in a 2/1 context or not.
#2 Even playing 2/1, bidding the 4th suit may or may not be natural, obv. you can call the bid FSF, or mark time bid,
or Alvin Roth named it ..., I call it FSF, FSF is not only used to genrated a GF seq., it is also sometimes used to
indicated, that one needs more information, because one does not have a clear bid to describe his own hand.

[P_Marlowe]

pescetom, on 2025-October-09, 15:05, said:

So did my partner, over which I bid 2♠.

For us 2♥ is 2+ cards, asking Opener to further define his hand, we probably have fit but have not yet decided the strain to play in.
Whereas 3♥ is 3+ good cards with a clear sense of direction, fixes trumps and requests a control-bid.
I can imagine that there are other such distinctions out there, perhaps defining length of fit at the expense of slam interest or honour strength. Interested to here how others distinguish these two bids.
There isn't much out there written about these internals of 2/1, which is why I found the hand interesting.

So in other words Hide and Seek.

We have a double fit, but failed to tell partner, that we have a fit for at least one specific suit.
Assuming 2C was natural, it cant have been the start gf raise for hearts (otherwise 2H would have shown the fit),
opener has now bid the 4th suit, which may or may not be natural ... I know the N/A player will tell me, that it
is natural, they seem to run in 5440 shaped opening hands more than I.
Anyway I will try to set the fit with either 3D or 3H.
My guess is, that 3D is not 4+, but could still be looking for something, so I guess this leaves me with 3H.

The main problem with the auction at this point is, that I may have information about shape (for the sake of world
wide peace, lets assume opener has indeed 5440), but I have no idea, if he opened crap or has a real opening hand,
and partner knowes nothing about my strength, I showed a GF hand, yes, but as far as I see it, I could still hold
anything from dead min to whatever.

With regards to the seq.

Having shown the diamond fit, I will bid 4D over 3NT, this is easy.
Would not be there, but see above.
Having shown the heart fit, the high road, I will use RKCB we control all the suits, again easy.

[WasWinM]

 HardVector, on 2025-October-08, 21:17, said:

I would pick 2d since that is where I live. I'm thinking if partner is short in diamonds, then I'll be leaning toward 6/7nt. I may get a 2d-3d raise, however, and now I will be leaning towards 6/7h.

That would be fine if a source of tricks and exploring for a possible slam; here, we have no way to show our hand so we need to find out more about partner’s hand. The best way to do that is 2C, which I normally hate with a 4-card suit, but this hand is the exception.

[pescetom]

This really deserves a multiquote reply here, but unfortunately I'm on a phone and fortunately Davidkok anticipated almost everything I would say, anyway.

So I'll just make a few one by one replies.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2025-October-09, 16:07, said:

This deserves a long classic diatribe of yours truly discussion, but I'm afraid I don't have the time. Keeping it brief:

• I have seen people play continuations on this start in multiple ways. Even more frequently, I've seen one person in a partnership invent a structure on the fly and demand that partner intuit it. There is no standard here. This is further reinforced by the large number of different starts to the auction.
  
• There are a few actually complete systems here regarding continuations. I'm thinking of Relay, Ken Rexford's Cuebidding, and arguably 'shape first'. I'm not confident that other systems really have comprehensive off-the-shelf continuations. At the very least it's murky.
  
• I like the low road in hearts and will resume shape first. 2♠ shows 3+ spades and denies 3=5=5=0 - so 4=5=4=0, 3=6=4=0 or 3=5=4=1 (with the last one being most common by far). Over this responder can bid either 2NT or 3♦ - I think here 3♦ is balanced by negative inference, but 2NT is much easier to grasp
  
• With this double red suit fit and no clubs wastage it really is starting to look like a grand - e.g. ♠Kxx, ♥KQJxx, ♦Qxxx, ♣x. But we've got space between there and here.

I agree with all of that, including the endorsement of shape first as a fairly complete approach after a 2/1 GF. One really comprehensive set of developments (which looked even too rigid and elaborate to me at the time) is in Franco di Stefano's 5 card majors book - but he was the high priest of the Milan school of bidding, which emphasizes bean counting rather than shape.

I see the developments much as you do, with just the subtle distinction that 2H might be 2 card for us, so someone still has to definitely fix trumps.

Your hand prediction is already very close.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-October-09, 20:27, said:

We are if a gf (2♣), we have shown a 3 card gf raise of hearts (2♥), anything after this is a cue bid, 3♥ last train type bid, 4♥ no interest in slam
If partner is not on the same page, bid what you think you can make. smile

If that is your system, play it.

In our case, 2H does not guarantee a full fit and asks Opener to continue to describe his hand. So nobody is in a position to control bid yet. When Responder hears 2S he is still in time to set the strain in NT, diamonds or hearts (and even if he bids 2NT he could still pull 3NT to diamonds without ambiguity).
In my case, over 2S Responder bid 3H, which finally sets trumps and invites control-bid (or 3NT non-serious).

It's probably no coincidence that in our system it is never possible to control bid in a major below 3M, I suspect that was a design aim. It certainly keeps things clean and simple.

[jillybean]

What a wonderful game.

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2025-October-09, 16:03, said:

1. 4H is clear, kickback in D NOT heart support!

I played this style for several years and while it was effective enough at club level, I gradually grew disenchanted with it - to the point that with most partners I no longer even have a RKCB over minors. Over 3D it depends upon Opener's strength: the 3NT you deprecate is useful to suggest a minimum opening with a stopper in 4th suit, with more (or no stopper) then 3 level bids are ostensibly stopper showing but may turn out to be controls. Over 4D I prefer to keep the 4H control bid and take things from there.

But in this case, you will learn that partner has no keycards (no surprise) but has the Q and HK (also SK, if your methods arrive at that). So pretty much what we could have deduced after 2H. Your call now?

[mike777]

The good news is either showing shape style or controls over 2H should get an established partnership to the grand.

One small but I think very important point in slam bidding is the shifting captaincy principle. I have not noticed this discussion in our forum.


After ace asking commences captaincy can shift back and forth. This commonly occurs
When investigating grands and specific kings are being shown.

This deal is an excellent example.

For me responder would end up being captain. However after responder promises all key cards are there and bids 6D showing the king (H trumps) opener realizes his hand is golden and bids the grand.

[mw64ahw]

pescetom, on 2025-October-10, 10:27, said:

If that is your system, play it.

In our case, 2H does not guarantee a full fit and asks Opener to continue to describe his hand. So nobody is in a position to control bid yet. When Responder hears 2S he is still in time to set the strain in NT, diamonds or hearts (and even if he bids 2NT he could still pull 3NT to diamonds without ambiguity).
In my case, over 2S Responder bid 3H, which finally sets trumps and invites control-bid (or 3NT non-serious).

It's probably no coincidence that in our system it is never possible to control bid in a major below 3M, I suspect that was a design aim. It certainly keeps things clean and simple.

Where 2♣ was invitational only I used to use 2♥ over either Major to ask opener to describe their hand further after a 2♦ (min) rebid. I switched to 2♠ over 1♥ which allows a 2♥ contract to be played where neither party has sufficient values to game force. Where 2♣ is game forcing I maintain 2♥

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2025-October-10, 11:12, said:

Where 2♣ was invitational only I used to use 2♥ over either Major to ask opener to describe their hand further after a 2♦ (min) rebid. I switched to 2♠ over 1♥ which allows a 2♥ contract to be played where neither party has sufficient values to game force. Where 2♣ is game forcing I maintain 2♥

Just to be sure of my memory I checked what the 4 card majors system I first learned (in 2010, but it was written in 1980) had to say about this sequence after 2♣ natural and strongly invitational. 3♥ was forcing with good hearts and slam interest, 2♥ was unsuited to 3♥ and did not set trumps definitively, asked Opener to continue describing his hand.

“Everything must change for everything to remain the same” (Tancredi)