[masse24]

1♦ - 1♥
2NT - 3♠

2NT = 18-19 balanced
What is the standard meaning of 3♠?

Assuming NMF is available, it must deny 5 ♥'s, so does 4-4 majors sound right, and GF?

It has been suggested that another use for it is a "stopper ask".

What do you play?

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think there is one std. Most advanced players will play at least one or both minors as a checkback mechanism. It is perfectly playable to say that 4-4 goes through the checkback while 4-5 bids 3s directly; that's what I do in my partnerships since it is fairly popular and published in Hardy's 2/1 methods. Checkback doesn't have to guarantee 5 hearts, since if partner bids 3H you can just bid 3nt, in which case he'll know you were looking for spades. But of course the way you suggest, with the direct 3s showing 4-4, going through checkback with 4-5, is perfectly reasonable.

It also depends on whether 2nt denies 4cd spades, which is uncommon, but not necessarily unworkable treatment (one can rebid an intended-as-1rf 1♠ instead of 2nt).

[FrancesHinden]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the following scheme of responder's rebids:

3C = natural and forcing
3D = natural and forcing
3H = natural, 5+ cards, forcing
3S = natural & forcing, 4-4 majors

What's more, in the partnership where 2NT is natural, it's what I play.

If you have agreed to play NMF, then of course you also agreed what responder's other bids meant.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 masse24, on 2012-April-13, 23:47, said:

1♦ - 1♥
2NT - 3♠

2NT = 18-19 balanced
What is the standard meaning of 3♠?

Assuming NMF is available, it must deny 5 ♥'s, so does 4-4 majors sound right, and GF?

It has been suggested that another use for it is a "stopper ask".

What do you play?

1m - 1H
2NT - 3S = GF 4/4

1m - 1H
2NT - 3om! = GF checkback, showing 5 cards ♥, may have 4 cards ♠

1m - 1S
2NT - 3H = GF 5/5

1m - 1S
2NT - 3om! = GF checkback, showing 5 cards ♠, may have 4 cards ♥

1m - 1M
2NT - 3M = GF, showing 6+ cards M

[phil_20686]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-14, 03:05, said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the following scheme of responder's rebids:

3C = natural and forcing
3D = natural and forcing
3H = natural, 5+ cards, forcing
3S = natural & forcing, 4-4 majors

What's more, in the partnership where 2NT is natural, it's what I play.

If you have agreed to play NMF, then of course you also agreed what responder's other bids meant.

This is std. Checkback over a natural 2N rebid makes minor suit slam bidding virtually impossible. Playing a round of transfers is also good.

[Phil]

Two4's method is standard over here, although many partnerships have thrown it out, since a weak responder is playing the 4-4 spade fit.

If you play transfers over a 2N rebid, this question is immaterial.

If you play Wolff, it works fine for 3S to show a 5-6 and hands with less shape goes through a 3♦ checkback.

[straube]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-14, 03:05, said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the following scheme of responder's rebids:

3C = natural and forcing
3D = natural and forcing
3H = natural, 5+ cards, forcing
3S = natural & forcing, 4-4 majors

What's more, in the partnership where 2NT is natural, it's what I play.

If you have agreed to play NMF, then of course you also agreed what responder's other bids meant.

This gives too much attention to minors. For example...

1C P 1H P
2N P 3C P
?

3D=cue or stopper?
3H=cue or 3-fit?
3S=cue or natural?

Also

1C P 1H P
2N P 3S

As others have pointed out wrong-sides spades.

Transfers wor well. Responder describes his shape.

3C
.....3D
..........P to play
..........3H slamming with six hearts
..........3S diamonds
..........3N demands preference to 4H when partner has 3
3D
.....3H
..........P to play
..........3S Four spades and five hearts
..........3N choice of games
3H four spades and four hearts
3S clubs

Another nice thing about transfers is that a weak responder can sign off in a suit (other than clubs of course)

[Quantumcat]

If you don't play transfers over a 2NT rebid (which I think is a great idea) or anything else artificial, then:
3♥ shows five hearts and possibly four spades (opener should bid a four-card spade suit if he has one, even if he has three hearts - if responder doesn't bid 4♠ he can correct 3NT to 4♥),
3♠ shows 4-4 in the majors,
and 3♣ and 3♦ are natural, 5+, but you have a hand not strong enough to bid them ahead of your four-card heart suit.

[phil_20686]

 straube, on 2012-April-14, 09:04, said:

This gives too much attention to minors. For example...

I dont really understand this. If you have a slam on that is based on a good fit, it is always because partner responded 1M on a hand with longer clubs or diamonds. x Axxx KQxxxx xx is a routine 1H response for many/most. Once partner shows 18-19 slam is in the picture. How will you differentiate the following 46 55 and 64 if you cannot bid a natural diamonds at once?

[gnasher]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-14, 03:05, said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the following scheme of responder's rebids:

3C = natural and forcing
3D = natural and forcing
3H = natural, 5+ cards, forcing
3S = natural & forcing, 4-4 majors

"Absolutely nothing wrong" seems an overstatement. I can see two things wrong with it: we can't play in 3♦, and we can't play in 3♥.

[straube]

 phil_20686, on 2012-April-15, 06:49, said:

I dont really understand this. If you have a slam on that is based on a good fit, it is always because partner responded 1M on a hand with longer clubs or diamonds. x Axxx KQxxxx xx is a routine 1H response for many/most. Once partner shows 18-19 slam is in the picture. How will you differentiate the following 46 55 and 64 if you cannot bid a natural diamonds at once?

Transfers leave room (3S) to show either minor, but you're right that they leave a great deal less room. For example, if partner opens 1D and then rebids 2N and I have 1552, I'll have to transfer to hearts and then bid 4D. If 3D were natural, I could bid that and partner could show whether he had a heart 3-fit, etc.

It's a choice. I'm ok bidding past 3N sometimes when I'm slammish in order to have other things. The transfer structure I mentioned (there are others obviously) can...

1) let me sign off in 3D or 3H
2) let opener declare a 4/4 spade fit
3) let me establish hearts as trump at the 3-level. Natural goes 1D-1H, 2N-3H, 3N-?

But yes, sometimes I'll wish we were playing natural.

[straube]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-15, 07:04, said:

"Absolutely nothing wrong" seems an overstatement. I can see two things wrong with it: we can't play in 3♦, and we can't play in 3♥.

But the post got two plusses...

[lalldonn]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-15, 07:04, said:

"Absolutely nothing wrong" seems an overstatement. I can see two things wrong with it: we can't play in 3♦, and we can't play in 3♥.

There is more wrong with it than that when compared to even something as simple as transfers. You can't find a fit and then still offer 3NT. You can't agree a suit on the 3 level easily. Also you wrongside opposite 4-4 in the majors. I'd say not being able to sign off at least in responder's suit though is the biggest loss, that is huge IMO.

[jallerton]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-15, 07:04, said:

"Absolutely nothing wrong" seems an overstatement. I can see two things wrong with it: we can't play in 3♦, and we can't play in 3♥.

I suspect that Frances was expressing her opinion that the overall method is no worse than any of the alternative structures. That's not the same as claiming that there are no hands on which an alternative method might lead to a better contract (very few conventions can legitimately claim this).

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 10:06, said:

There is more wrong with it than that when compared to even something as simple as transfers. You can't find a fit and then still offer 3NT. You can't agree a suit on the 3 level easily. Also you wrongside opposite 4-4 in the majors. I'd say not being able to sign off at least in responder's suit though is the biggest loss, that is huge IMO.

Playing straight transfers over the 2NT rebid, how are you able to sign off in 3M (implying that Opener is expected to complete the transfer) whilst retaining the ability to find a fit and then still offer 3NT (implying that Opener is expected to complete the transfer or not depending on whether 3-card support is held)? It seems to me you'd need to use 3♣ as a Woolf sign-off and 3♦/♥ as FG transfers.

No doubt there must be some hands where Responder wants to sign off in 3 of Responder's suit but I'm struggling to remember any occuring in practice, probably because most such hands would have started with a weak jump shift response in the methods which I (and Frances also) play with most partners. In partnerships where I don't play weak jump shifts, I do have a way of signing off in 3M, but it is sufficiently infrequent opposite 18-19 that I'm surprised to read lalldonn describe it as "huge".

For anybody who considers the ability to sign off in 3 of Opener's suit to be important, I have a question. Do you play 1♣-1suit-2NT-3♣ as non-forcing?

[gnasher]

 jallerton, on 2012-April-18, 13:18, said:

No doubt there must be some hands where Responder wants to sign off in 3 of Responder's suit but I'm struggling to remember any occuring in practice, probably because most such hands would have started with a weak jump shift response in the methods which I (and Frances also) play with most partners. In partnerships where I don't play weak jump shifts, I do have a way of signing off in 3M, but it is sufficiently infrequent opposite 18-19 that I'm surprised to read lalldonn describe it as "huge".

In my world there is a category of hand which is too weak for an English-style weak jump shift. Do you make a WJS on Jxxxxx and nothing else?

There are also some hands with a five-card major where I'd want to sign off in three of the suit. For example, Q109xx xx xx 10xxx after 1♦-1♠;2NT.

Quote

For anybody who considers the ability to sign off in 3 of Opener's suit to be important, I have a question. Do you play 1♣-1suit-2NT-3♣ as non-forcing?

No, because I consider it important, but not sufficiently important to justify using 3♣ as solely a weak hand.

[jallerton]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-18, 15:05, said:

In my world there is a category of hand which is too weak for an English-style weak jump shift. Do you make a WJS on Jxxxxx and nothing else?

There is a special call to show this category of hand. If you search your bidding box carefully you'll find it.

 gnasher, on 2012-April-18, 15:05, said:

There are also some hands with a five-card major where I'd want to sign off in three of the suit. For example, Q109xx xx xx 10xxx after 1♦-1♠;2NT.

There are also some hands with a five-card major where I'd want to stop at the 1-level. For example, Q109xx xx xx 10xxx can make use of the special call I mentioned. OK, you might choose to respond 1♠ if you are NV and partner was the dealer, but even then it's not at all clear that spades will make two more tricks than NT.