[FrancesHinden]

Impact, on Jul 16 2008, 06:27 AM, said:

ulven, on Jul 15 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

Over here the standard meaning of a 3-level "raise" of 4th suit F is extras without a suitable/positional stopper. x/Axx/AKxxx/KQxx or x/xxx/AKQxx/AQJx etc.

Yes, me too. The "fudge" bid to say that I cannot give more distributional information and lack a H stop since we are already in GF , but 3NT may be the right spot - while warning partner that if he wants to play S he should be prepared to play opposite x.

Sure, you COULD retain 3H to show a H suit but more likely that can be untangled over 2NT (promising a H stop) if required...

Not by any means certain that a majority of Antipodean experts would play it that way but certainly a very significant proportion.

I think the difference stems from use of 4SF initially as a stopper ASK (as well as forcing) down South whereas my understanding of US bidding (from BW over 3 decades mainly) is that the 4th suit is more likely to SHOW values there but still be forcing...

Perhaps, mistaken, & Frances can confirm, but old-fashioned UK/Acol style was also
"Antipodean" or Swedish in this style?
regards,

"Old fashioned" (still commonly played) UK style is that 4SF is not game forcing. On that basis you need the raise of fourth suit to show extra values with no good bid, typically 2254 or 1354 15-18 or so (much stronger would have bid 3C last round).

Personally I still play it that way in one partnership.

In the other (where fourth suit is FG) I play, to quote my partner, "Usually Axx or Kxx trying to rightside 3nt"

I almost never play 4SF as natural, including in 2/1 auctions, but I know a lot of these strange foreigners do, and I assumed that in SA or 2/1 that 3H over 2H would be natural, as so many posters here said it was.

[mikeh]

As Frances has suggested, part of the conflict and confusion in this thread may arise from different assumptions as to the meaning of 4SF.

BWS certainly used to, and I think still does, define some 4SF sequences as forcing 1 round, rather than GF, and it is apparent that many other players have similar strong but not necessarily gf meanings.'

However, the OP specified GF. So the answers to the original question have to use that meaning, and discussions of what 3♥ would mean should, in order to be intelligible, specify a different systemic meaning for 4SF if the discussion is based on the idea that 2♥ was not, itself, GF.

Thus anyone using it to show extra values and a try for 3N is (I think) discussing a method in which 2♥ was strong, F1, but could be less than gf.. otherwise, why require 'extra values'.

FWIW, if 2♥ is not always GF, then the use of 3♥ as extra values trying for 3N makes considerable sense to me, because that is a hand that is otherwise very difficult to show. Of course, it comes at a cost.. the loss of the ability to find the 4=4 heart fit, and I don't think that there is any easy answer to that. Using 2N by opener on a 0=4=5=4 minimum opposite a non gf 2♥ makes me cringe, but even if we get by that, we have problems thereafter.

Does 3♥ by responder, over 2N, promise only 4? Then, with 5, we have to jump to 3♥ over 2♣...playable, certainly, but at the cost of committing 3♥ to that use.

Not that using 3♥ over 2♥, as I think most do who play the posted method, is a panacea.. responder has problems setting hearts as trump while maintaining a force, and has no room below 3N to both set a minor as trump and keep 3N open.

But that is why methods other than 2/1 or SAYC have adherents... relay methods, for example, solve many of these problems, albeit at the cost of inventing others.

I have used, for example, a relay response structure to 4SF, and it is very effective.. but I have been trying, in my posts on this thread, to address the issues in the context of the OP (2♥ artificial GF) and variants of 2/1 that incorporate that method.

I would be interested in hearing from Ulven and Harald whether their meaning for 3♥ is based on the assumption that 2♥ was not completely GF.. and, if so, whether they would change their usage if forced to play 2♥ as GF. If not, how do they sort out 4=4 and 5=3 heart fits, especially when responder is invitational 5=5 and gf 5=5. These are tough areas for standard bidders.

I should also add that there is a huge difference between the posted auction and the apparently related but very different: 1♦ 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ 3♠ sequence.. in which opener has denied 4 spades.

[awm]

It doesn't seem that bad to me to play:

1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT as any of:

(1) 2254 with a a heart honor
(2) 1354 with decent hearts
(3) 1444/0454

Now responder's rebid of 3♥ shows 4+♥ and:

(1) 2254 takes a preference to 3♠.
(2) 1354 bids 3NT, which shows specifically this shape.
(3) 1444/0454 raises 3♥, or cuebids at the four-level.

Then 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥ is a "right-siding" action with 1354 and weak or anti-positional hearts.

My preferred general agreement is that when we have bid three suits, bidding the fourth suit is a probe for a stopper and/or strain, whereas once we have bid three suits and notrump, the fourth suit becomes natural.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Jul 16 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

FWIW, if 2♥ is not always GF, then the use of 3♥ as extra values trying for 3N makes considerable sense to me, because that is a hand that is otherwise very difficult to show.

If 2♥ were game-forcing, wouldn't it make equally good sense to you to play 3♥ as trying for 3NT but not promising extra values?

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Jul 16 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 16 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

FWIW, if 2♥ is not always GF, then the use of 3♥ as extra values trying for 3N makes considerable sense to me, because that is a hand that is otherwise very difficult to show.

If 2♥ were game-forcing, wouldn't it make equally good sense to you to play 3♥ as trying for 3NT but not promising extra values?

No

No approach is perfect, but the main drawback to 3♥ as a try for 3N with either no stopper or a positional holding that would prefer partner to declare with Qx or Qxx is the difficulty posed for a responder with a game force minor suit raise, of either minor, but insufficient values, or the wrong values, to commit beyond 3N.

There is also the interesting issue of how on earth responder is to guess when Qx is an adequate holding for 3N... obviously, if opener has Axx it is, but it may be second-best if opener has xxx Now Qx opposite xxx suggests that 5 minor or 4♠ on a 6-1 may not be wonderful either, and of course the hearts might not run for 5 tricks. But there will be hands on which we have 11 aces in 5minor or 10 winners in 4♠ but 5 heart losers in 3N.

And we can all construct hands on which the key, for 3N, is the possession of ANY stopper, positional or otherwise... when and how does responder know that xx is enough for 3N, since partner holds Axx and either we run 8 side winners or hearts are 4-4?

But the main drawback, for me, is the difficulty handling minor suit fit hands with choice of games/level issues.

I suspect that my concerns are based in large part on my preference for imps, where exploring minor suit contracts plays a far more important role than in mps.

I admit that my alternative, when playing a natural approach, with 4SF gf, is hardly perfect either: I would rebid 2N with 1=3=5=4 with or without a stopper, and rely on bidding at the 3-level to afford me an opportunity to clarify stoppers, and this obviously runs the risk that we wrongside 3N. And I admit that using the raise to 3♥ to show 4 can cause problems on near-slam hands with a heart fit.

But I think that it is more likely that we have a fit in one of the two suits already shown by opener than that we have a fit in the only suit not yet bid... and that accordingly it is more important, on a frequency basis, to cater to that possibility if we can do so at relatively modest cost. The modest cost is the occasional wrong siding of 3N and some problems with slam zone 4=4 heart fits.

While I understand Adam's suggestions, I don't like the idea of rebidding 2N with 0=4=5=4 and then trying to untangle the hands should we discover a heart fit... or, for that matter, a minor suit fit. I can see problems (admittedly low frequency) in slam auctions when responder likes a minor and has to try to find out if opener is, for example, 0=4=5=4 or 2=2=5=4 or 1=3=5=4 and also try to find out where his controls/high card are, and whether he has extras, etc. That's putting a lot of stress on the sequences after 2N. Again, I am not saying that my preferred approach avoids all of these issues, but I think it reduces their impact.

Whether one adopts your ideas, or Adam's or mine probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference.. as in almost all areas of bidding, the pair that has detailed agreements will usually outbid the other pairs, even if the detailed agreements are not theoretically optimal.

[cherdano]

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Jul 16 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

Take a look at the posts by Ulven/Impact/Skaeran... the first two expressly include both Axx and xxx as acceptable heart holdings for 3♥ and Harald appears to endorse this idea.

[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Jul 16 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jul 16 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

Take a look at the posts by Ulven/Impact/Skaeran... the first two expressly include both Axx and xxx as acceptable heart holdings for 3♥ and Harald appears to endorse this idea.

I'm used to going even further - in many partnerships I play 3♥ here as xx/xxx.

[awm]

It seems fairly clear to me that:

(1) The approach where you bid 3♥ on 1354 without a heart stopper is superior when you have that hand. The hand is otherwise hard to bid; bidding 2NT with no stopper can wrong-side the contract or just lead to the wrong contract whereas any other call potentially shows more length in a suit then we have. It's true that the 3♥ call cramps the auction, but the information conveyed (exact distribution, weak hearts, presumably values in the minors) is quite precise and will help responder a lot in the slam zone (i.e. he knows which spade honors might be wasted, he knows he needs a heart control for slam).

(2) The approach of bidding 2NT with 1444/0454 allows responder to set a minor suit at the three level, leaving ample space to explore slam prospects. While bidding 3♥ to show this distribution is more descriptive in terms of shape, it also removes an entire level from your slam exploration and makes it harder to locate the values. Playing this style recently, I had a responder hand with 5143 shape and needed to get to 6♦ if partner's hearts were fairly weak (or ace-empty) and stop in 3NT if partner's values were wasted in hearts, and I had absolutely no clue how to do that. I think when responder is trying to look for slam in one of opener's minors, bidding 2NT with 1444/0454 is a big winner.

(3) The main time that bidding 3♥ with 1444/0454 is a big winner is when you in fact have an eight or nine card heart fit and this sequence allows you to find it without any awkwardness or ambiguity. However, notice that:

mikeh said:

I think that it is more likely that we have a fit in one of the two suits already shown by opener than that we have a fit in the only suit not yet bid...

It is also hard to try for slam in hearts in this auction, as after 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥ there is a noticeable lack of forcing heart bids. Slam bidding is actually easier in this sequence when we rebid 2NT and see the auction 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT-3♥-cuebid. Of course, in exchange there is some loss when we have an eight-card heart fit with five in responder's hand and three in opener's.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure if I am reading this right, but it seems there may be some return to love implicitly shown by Mikeh.

Just a re-note. If 2♥ is GF, then having...

2NT with 1354 but trash hearts
3♥ with 1354, 1444, or 0454 and good hearts (xxxx = good), minimum
3♠ with 1444/0454 maximum
3NT with 1354 maximum...

...seems to meet some of the discussion points rather well, especially with the assumptions of 1♠...3♥ as 5-5 GF and 1♠...3♠ GF.

Putting the 2NT 1354 trash hearts into 3♥ and taking some other the others to 2NT seems plausible but strained. The shuffling might be workable, though.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Jul 16 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 16 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jul 16 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

Mike, I don't think anyone suggested to play 3♥ as promising no or one heart stopper.

Take a look at the posts by Ulven/Impact/Skaeran... the first two expressly include both Axx and xxx as acceptable heart holdings for 3♥ and Harald appears to endorse this idea.

I'm used to going even further - in many partnerships I play 3♥ here as xx/xxx.

That is better, I think, than having it as either a positional stopper or no stopper...it eliminates one of the major (no pun intended) problems with the either/or approach, making responder guess whether we have a stopper. So it is actually an entirely different approach than that described by Ulven and Impact.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jul 16 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Just a re-note. If 2♥ is GF, then having...

2NT with 1354 but trash hearts

if you have trash hearts, don't you want partner declaring 3NT when he's got AQx or the like? I sure do.

3♥ showing trash hearts and 2NT showing real hearts (length or stopper) seems far superior to me.

[ulven]

2H is GF for me but I still think it's useful to be able to show extra values by raising 4th suit.

As for finding the 4th suit as trumps, yes that may be a problem but based on frequency I believe we have a winner...

That said, I don't end up in this situation in my regular partnership as we employ relays for GF hands.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Jul 16 2008, 03:30 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 16 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Just a re-note.  If 2♥ is GF, then having...

2NT with 1354 but trash hearts

if you have trash hearts, don't you want partner declaring 3NT when he's got AQx or the like? I sure do.

3♥ showing trash hearts and 2NT showing real hearts (length or stopper) seems far superior to me.

I agree, and that makes a lot of sense, even if not intuitive from one point of view.

The concern I would have is in structuring this layout. If 3♥ shows this hand, then some of the 4-card heart holdings need to get lumped in with 2NT, as others have suggested.

If 3♠ is a shortness bid promising a four-card suit, and if 3NT shows a strong 1354, as I proposed in one variant, then the only glumped 2NT holding is the 3-card with good hearts and the minimal 4-card heart hands. The unwind might be a bit more complicated, it seems.

It seems to be that 3♥ as the "no stop" option has some merits, if discussed obviously, especially in two ways -- right-siding 3NT contracts and as a slam predicate when that is Responder's thought (may immediately rule that out, for example). The cost of an extra agreement is rarely a concern of mine, so no objection there. I am curious about the unwind over 2NT.

For those who do this, what is the unwind over 2NT like?

[Fluffy]

For the problem hand, I think the best move is to set up diamonds as trumps. Partner will next show a heart void, or a spade king if he's got it.

After that we can bid 5♣ as slam invitation in diamonds, partner will not know if lack of keycard blackwood is because an aswer leaves us too high (5♥), or because we have a void, but when we finally rectify his decision to spades he might realice we have a void, hopefully not too late.

[benlessard]

I think 2S should be used as a catch-all bid. and that 2Nt show a positionnal stopper or half a stopper or 1.5 stoppers. Bidding 2Nt without a stopper or with Axx is plain bad IMO. Rightsiding 3Nt is very important when the weakest suit is exposed.