[helene_t]

---

2♣ is GF, not MAFIA style.

3NT is the right contract I believe (6♥ happens to make as hearts are 3-3), but the auction is not really satisfactory because North never showed the club support (unless 3♠ specifically shows that, should it?).

Of course, North might chose to rebid 2NT. Assuming she doesn't, is it better to raise clubs immediately? One problem with this is that we could still have a heart fit. But after we have found a minor suit fit, we show stoppers rather than length.

[gordontd]

If North rebids 2NT and South rebids 3C, there is no major suit fit to be found and North can cue-bid to support clubs.

[1eyedjack]

2n shows 2+ clubs so goes some way to showing support. That would be my choice

[Mbodell]

2C is 4+, right? I would hate to raise with only 3, plus buries the heart suit.

I think
1♦-2♣
2♥-2nt
3♣

gets us much more information and shows the late club support. Of course, some might want that to be a patterning out of 1=4=4=4 or 0=4=5=4 shape.

Of course
1♦-2♣
2♥-2nt
3nt

appeals as well (but I always prefer 3nt).

[WesleyC]

I don't understand South's 3C bid on a weak 6 card suit.

What's wrong with 2S* artificial, forcing (and economical), leaving North enough space to describe their hand?

To me a 3C bid here should show a hand that is actually serious about clubs, and I would happily move beyond 3NT with the North hand.

[rmnka447]

Is the agreement here that 2 ♥ doesn't necessarily show any thing extra? If so, 2 ♥ seems right. If you raise ♣ and partner bids 3 ♥, then you can't be absolutely sure whether 4 ♥ is right. Partner might just be showing a stopper trying for 3 NT.

The other alternative is 2 NT which gives away the least information. Partner still has the opportunity to try for a major which probably leads to a good contract (3NT, 4 ♥). But if partner decides to bid 3 NT, it doesn't highlight which major to attack.

[jallerton]

helene_t, on 2016-March-22, 03:44, said:

3NT is the right contract I believe (6♥ happens to make as hearts are 3-3), but the auction is not really satisfactory because North never showed the club support (unless 3♠ specifically shows that, should it?).

Of course, North might chose to rebid 2NT. Assuming she doesn't, is it better to raise clubs immediately? One problem with this is that we could still have a heart fit. But after we have found a minor suit fit, we show stoppers rather than length.

This is really a matter of agreement. If partner will expect 5+ diamonds and/or reversing values for 2♥ then it's unwise to make that call on a weak NT hand. If partner will expect 4-card support for 3♣, that is unwise too. I appreciate that bidding 2NT will sometimes wrongside NT, but it certainly simplifies the auction.

[Jinksy]

gordontd, on 2016-March-22, 04:26, said:

If North rebids 2NT and South rebids 3C, there is no major suit fit to be found and North can cue-bid to support clubs.

Apparently this is a popular view, but is it really a guarantee? What is south to do with eg 1426 or 1417 or similar, especially with slam interest? He could bid 3♥ and pass 3N, or bid 3♥ and pull to 4♣? I've come around to the view that it's rarely right to cue below 3N, and that patterning out or just bidding values is worth more. It sometimes helps you find 3N, it helps P later distinguish a cuebid on Kxx from one on x, and generally helps him know how well the hands are working together.

If 2N shows at least a hand with no shortage, then it doesn't seem like it can hurt much to play 3♥ over 3♣ as natural, allowing P to then start cueing for hearts (or showing values with 3♠!), or rebid 4♣ to set the suit. That gives you a chance to find your 4-4 fit, while potentially stopping a level lower, maybe playing in 3N when it's better than 5♣ (or 4N) or vice versa.

[aguahombre]

Even if the 2c response might only be 4+ over a Major, we have not found the need to bid 2c/1D with less than five.

This leads to easy old fashioned 3-card raises with hands like the opener held. We won't miss a 4-4 Heart fit if it exists. The 2nt rebid by opener is reserved for the (Hardy style) specific 4=4=3=2 hand either 12-14 or 18-19. Other hands without 3+ support get described conveniently.

[Zelandakh]

There are different rebid styles after 1♦ - 2♣. One popular method is for (almost) all hands with 5+ diamonds to rebid 2♦ and other calls to deny this. In that style, 2♥ shows 4 hearts and 3-4 diamonds. Then continuing 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♥ seems easy, leaving both partners well placed.

[mike777]

Agree that 2nt rebid by north simplifies the auction, yes it may wrong side nt. It seems lucky that you stayed out of 6c on the actual OP.

[Vampyr]

In my partnerships the given auction promises an unbalanced hand. I don't play 2/1 GF though; I guess that accounts for the difference.

[gordontd]

Jinksy, on 2016-March-28, 08:07, said:

What is south to do with eg 1426 or 1417 or similar, especially with slam interest? He could bid 3♥ and pass 3N, or bid 3♥ and pull to 4♣? I've come around to the view that it's rarely right to cue below 3N, and that patterning out or just bidding values is worth more.

Perhaps, but you still need to know whether the suits you are bidding are four-cards suits in which you might play or simply locations of values for NT purposes.

[rhm]

helene_t, on 2016-March-22, 03:44, said:

---

2♣ is GF, not MAFIA style.

3NT is the right contract I believe (6♥ happens to make as hearts are 3-3), but the auction is not really satisfactory because North never showed the club support (unless 3♠ specifically shows that, should it?).

Change the opening hand to

---

and 6♣ looks right.
None of the suggestions so far come even close of addressing the issue here.

Of course there are many styles how to respond to 1♦-2♣.
I will not offer a solution, but some observations and a suggestion.
When 2/1 is game forcing, priority should be given to making optimal use of the remaining bidding space from there to 3NT, which almost always acts as a watershed.
This does not mean you have to play a relay system, but playing what you did before 2/1 was game forcing gives away many of the advantages 2/1 game forcing can provide.

To conserve bidding space I have developed the following simple convention:
Switch the meaning of 2NT and the lowest rebid opener could make, in this particular case 2♦.
Simply put 2NT now shows diamonds and 2♦ a balanced (or semi-balanced) hand
Since the lowest rebid by opener conserves bidding space it can take more load. Over 2♦ responder can now easily introduce a 4 card major.
Any other rebid by opener promises an unbalanced hand (singleton or void)
Since over 1♦-2♣ 2NT bypasses both majors it would deny a 4 card major and promise at least six diamonds and an unbalanced hand. With 6♦322 rebid 2♦ (semi-balanced) followed by 3♦

Assuming no further conventional bids, the bidding would start:

1♦ -- 2♣
2♦ -- 2NT (waiting bid, denying a 4 card major)
3♣... (opener shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand with club support)

This is not a complete solution to the above problem, but it might get you thinking in the right direction.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2016-March-29, 03:22, said:

To conserve bidding space I have developed the following simple convention:
Switch the meaning of 2NT and the lowest rebid opener could make, in this particular case 2♦.

This is essentially the reverse of the method I mentioned above and is equally sensible, if less natural. It gets you to a similar spot for similar reasons, although South loses the knowledge of North holding 4 hearts so it seems to be a little more difficult. It is not as if South can easily show the singleton diamond in either method, something that is often an issue in natural bidding.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-29, 05:14, said:

This is essentially the reverse of the method I mentioned above and is equally sensible, if less natural.

No it is not.
My method puts top priority not on diamonds but on the issue whether opener is balanced or not.
Your rebid structure for opener does not give you this information, whether he responds with 2♦ or higher.

Quote

It is not as if South can easily show the singleton diamond in either method, something that is often an issue in natural bidding.

I said I offer no solution, but I give you a hint:
Once opener shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand with his cheapest rebid, what stops you using the same method for responders rebid ?

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2016-March-29, 06:31, said:

My method puts top priority not on diamonds but on the issue whether opener is balanced or not.
Your rebid structure for opener does not give you this information, whether he responds with 2♦ or higher.

Are you sure? Take the auction in question - what unbalanced shapes would bid 1♦->2♥->3♣? Well 1444 is the only one I can think of. One possibility would be to define a 3♠ rebid for that hand and now North is specifically defined as balanced.

Your artificial solution for RR is also one that I am unsure of on this hand. Now Opener knows that Responder has a shortage somewhere but not which of the 3 suits in which it falls. I do like this sort of approach in general and use some similar ideas myself in certain cases. I just do not think it provides the answer for this hand.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-29, 06:51, said:

Are you sure? Take the auction in question - what unbalanced shapes would bid 1♦->2♥->3♣? Well 1444 is the only one I can think of. One possibility would be to define a 3♠ rebid for that hand and now North is specifically defined as balanced.

Do you mean my methods or yours?
I assume by 1♦->2♥->3♣ you mean opener choosing this sequence of bids after a 2♣ reply?

Could be 1♠=4♥=4♦=4♣. 1♠=4♥=5♦=3♣ or 0♠=4♥=5♦=4♣ or possibly 0♠=4♥=6♦=3♣.

Quote

Your artificial solution for RR is also one that I am unsure of on this hand. Now Opener knows that Responder has a shortage somewhere but not which of the 3 suits in which it falls. I do like this sort of approach in general and use some similar ideas myself in certain cases. I just do not think it provides the answer for this hand.

It's not that artificial. You simply switch the meaning of 2NT and the next highest bid. Everything else is natural but must be unbalanced.
Of course when someone has not shown 3 suits you may need a relay to ask for suit where the shortage is held.

Say the bidding starts with the above hands

1♦-2♣
2♦-3♣

Opener has shown a (semi)balanced hand. Responder has shown an unbalanced hand with no 4 card major and at least 6 clubs.
Now 3♦ asks for shortage:

With the actual hand you stop in 3NT.
With my modification of openers hand you continue to 6♣.

Of course the method does not resolve all issues but is a clear improvement over standard and it is fairly simple.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2016-March-29, 08:02, said:

Do you mean my methods or yours?

It is not my method, just one of the more popular ones around. You wrote that it did not differentiate between balanced and unbalanced and I was trying to demonstrate that that is not necessarily the case. In this method, Opener will not hold 5+ diamonds so the balanced nature of the hand is easy for Responder to discover.

rhm, on 2016-March-29, 08:02, said:

It's not that artificial. You simply switch the meaning of 2NT and the next highest bid. Everything else is natural but must be unbalanced.
Of course when someone has not shown 3 suits you may need a relay to ask for suit where the shortage is held.

So you have a system with both partners using artificial methods and relays for the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the auction and do not consider that artificial? You are right that it is one bid less artificial than my pure relay structure but I would not call it natural by any stretch!

rhm, on 2016-March-29, 08:02, said:

Say the bidding starts with the above hands

1♦-2♣
2♦-3♣

Opener has shown a (semi)balanced hand. Responder has shown an unbalanced hand with no 4 card major and at least 6 clubs.
Now 3♦ asks for shortage:

Here is a case in point. Opener can still have a 6322 hand here, perhaps even 7222 shape but apparently we are locked into clubs. Of course we could get around that by using one or both 3M calls to re-open the question of strain but that is adding a further layer of artificiality. If we are going to go this far we may as well go completely into relays and have a system we can use for every auction.

And that is the issue - the simple switch is a good idea, one that we have discussed before in, for example, an inverted minor context; but you have to be aware of what such changes mean for follow-ups when using them in the general case. And here you could potentially invert things so that 2♦ is unbalanced giving a more natural basis without too much difficulty. Having the auction GF at 2♣ tends to allow for plenty of options!

[all loomis]

i solve this problem by opening 1c with all balanced hands outside nt range.

1c 3c 6c suit, no major, gf.