[1eyedjack]

Definition of responder's rebid in a natural system, uncontested auction:
1♦1♥
2♠3♣
NB: 2♠ was GF

It is really a BIL question but I wanted to limit the poll responses to those who speak with authority.

[the hog]

With all due respect, how can 2S be non forcing? 2S here shows about a 18+ hand - together with responder's hand this cannot be non forcing!!

[MickyB]

This belongs in the other thread really, but never mind.

Ron, I think that a large proportion of players will routinely respond on 4 counts, describe 2♠ as GF, then pass it because they "don't have their bid". This is nonsense IMO - they do have their bid but they are treating 2♠ as NF. I prefer to honour the force, so require a better hand for a 2♠ bid - usually a 20 count if only 4-5 shape.

[Halo]

I can bid NT or support partner naturally. I need 3C to be artificial, so I can get more information at an economical level. Say I am 3622 and weak, I don't want to rebid 3H.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on Dec 20 2006, 10:14 AM, said:

With all due respect, how can 2S be non forcing? 2S here shows about a 18+ hand - together with responder's hand this cannot be non forcing!!

I think you misread it. No-one, least of all I, suggest that 2♠ should be non-forcing. In the other thread I posed the question of whether it should be GF as opposed to F1, but NF was never in the picture.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I play 3C as 4th suit forcing, mark time bid,
... what ever name you give the bid.

<snip>
Overlooked the fact, that it was a jump shift.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

As we already have a GF going, there is no need to rush and a need to describe your hand.
What reason should there be to use "4th suit forcing" now. I can start a slam try any time later.
3♣ should show a biddable suit 3+ cards with suit quality.
I would consider that natural.

[SoTired]

3C is natural. Since we are already GF, there is no need for an art. 4sf.
I think we are running out of cards if 3C isn't natural.
Let me see: If 4s, can raise spades. If 3d, can raise diam. So <3d and <4s so can't raise one of opener's suits. If 6h, can rebid 3H. If 3clubs include an honor, can bid 2N. So the only time a 3C bid is only 3 cards is when clubs are xxx and hand is 3=5=2=3.

That sounds pretty close to natural to me.

[1eyedjack]

SoTired, on Dec 20 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

3C is natural. Since we are already GF, there is no need for an art. 4sf.
I think we are running out of cards if 3C isn't natural.
Let me see: If 4s, can raise spades. If 3d, can raise diam. So <3d and <4s so can't raise one of opener's suits. If 6h, can rebid 3H. If 3clubs include an honor, can bid 2N. So the only time a 3C bid is only 3 cards is when clubs are xxx and hand is 3=5=2=3.

That sounds pretty close to natural to me.

What about 3-5-1-4 shape with 4 low Clubs?
You suggest 3♣ as "natural"?
Partner will certainly expect a Club guard, and most likely will bid 3N on that basis.
Certainly he no longer has room to enquire about a Club guard, and a Club lead is expected. Odds are that you will have a Club guard, so his expectation is not unreasonable. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a Club guard if it is expected?

I also think that it is overly simplistic to suggest that as you have a 3♦ preference available to cater for all hands with ♦ support (or nothing else to say) then it is "problem solved" for those hands. I respectfully suggest that a pair which has more than one way of showing ♦ support, and has developed the mechanism to take advantage of that distinction, will gain in the long term (on such hands) compared with the pair that has to bid 3♦ without disclosing the distinction.

In a similar vein, I think it might be useful to distinguish as responder between ♥Qxxxx and ♥KQxxxx. If 3♥ is the recommended bid on both hands, lacking an artificial 3♣ available, how is this distinction to be achieved?

To weigh in the balance, I would ask: how often is it of value to opener to know the distinction between a natural Club suit (3♣) and a hand with a Club guard (2N)? The distinction may be important if opener has sufficient ♣ support in order to make it worthwhile playing ♣ as trumps, but how often will that arise?

Not suggesting that I have the answers, but just playing devil's advocate and picking holes where I perceive them.

[awm]

I have a general approach of using "4th suit forcing" even in game force auctions, which would apply on this hand. The principle is that with an actual holding in the fourth suit, we can normally bid notrump. By refusing to bid notrump (and not raising an already-named suit) we're suggesting a lack of stopper. Note that even if responder is 5-5 or 6-5 in the round suits it's relatively easy to find a club fit via 1♦-1♥-2♠-2NT-3♣ (opener patterning out). However there is no natural call available here with 3523 or 3514 shape and small clubs only, and I prefer to let 3♣ describe such a hand rather than being forced to pretend I have either a club stopper or a real fit for opener.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure that "standard" is for the fourth suit to be natural in auctions where a game force has already been established.

[inquiry]

3♣ here is natural for me and forcing. I use 2NT as lebehnshol (or inbergman) and so I can not bid that with clubs. The good news is by bidding 3♣ rather than 2NT we frequently make the strong hand declarer in NT.

Pass of 3♣ is NOT an option for a 2♠ bidder.

[1eyedjack]

SoTired, on Dec 20 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

3C is natural. Since we are already GF, there is no need for an art. 4sf.

It would never have occurred to me until now that the standard interpretation of 3♦ in the following sequence is natural (I assume no-one will suggest that 3♣ is anything less than GF):
1♠;2♥
3♣;3♦

[mikeh]

Let me start by saying that I don't recall ever having this auction in 33 years of playing: not that it never happened, but that if it did, it was a long time ago and infrequent. So I wouldn't get worked up about it.

Absent some detailed agreement (and if you have one on this specific auction, you are in a small minority), 3♣ is one of those bids that should be 'ostensibly natural', but which might be made on the basis that responder is stalling. It is analogous to the sequence 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ where opener has only 3♣s and is bidding because, as Al Roth used to say: "If I get by this round, the auction will be easy". The analogy is imperfect, since the 2♣ rebid is non-forcing in that sequence, but 3♣ here is forcing... we cannot stop short of game no matter what.

I frankly doubt that the natural meaning has much going for it, since the ♣ fit can be found (if opener is a powerhouse 4=0=5=4 or even some 4=1=5=3s) by 2N, and I think responder's first obligation is to show 4+♠ support, then 3+♦ support, then notrump interest, then long ♥s and only then long ♣s or a stall. No wonder the sequence never arises

[pclayton]

Agree with Mike.

I think its similar to the 2/1 auction: 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♦. We are in a GF, so 3♦ should always be natural right? Well, no. 3♦ might be a anti-positional stopper, or a hand with 3 clubs, or natural. It should be treated as natural, but don't be surprised if its something a little different.

[neilkaz]

3♣ should be sort of natural but also could be a stall asking for more info and/or hoping to have the strong hand declare 3NT.

[keylime]

Ditto Mike and Phil.

Many p'ships use 4th suit forcing or 2NT, whichever is cheaper, as the bust hand opposite a reverse.

[Codo]

I am with the 4sf camp and believe that it is much better to have this bid avaiable as artificial asking then as natural. As Adam wrote, you can still find a fit in Clubs and as jack wrote, you have similar auctions, where the 4. suit is artificial, so I see no sense to change it here, just because you are "know" that pd must have at least 3 Clubs for this bid.
The benefits to be able to show a weak or strong diamond raise, a full or a half Club stopper and other hands are much higher then the downsides.

[awm]

Just a few comments:

(1) 2♠ is not a reverse. It is a jump shift. Most people play it as game force. I know of many partnerships who use lebensohl or ingberman over reverses and virtually none of them use these methods over the jump-shift 2♠.

(2) Using the 3♣ bid as "a suit or a punt" seems far-fetched to me. This is not similar to opener rebidding 2♣ on three after 1♦-1M-2♣, since that call promises strength in clubs if not length (whereas this 3♣ seems to promises either length or weakness) and the 2♣ call is in a non-forcing auction.

(3) As far as natural bids go, suppose opener has 4153 shape (the best likely club fit). Is he expected to raise? Now suppose opener has 4261 shape with a small club singleton, is he expected to try 3NT or avoid it? If the answers are "don't raise" and "avoid 3NT" then I think any claim that 3♣ is a "natural bid" is very far-fetched. But if the answers permit raising or bidding 3NT, then using 3♣ as a punt is not particularly feasible. I just can't see using one bid for both meanings.

[mikeh]

awm, on Dec 21 2006, 10:39 AM, said:

Just a few comments:



(2) Using the 3♣ bid as "a suit or a punt" seems far-fetched to me. This is not similar to opener rebidding 2♣ on three after 1♦-1M-2♣, since that call promises strength in clubs if not length (whereas this 3♣ seems to promises either length or weakness) and the 2♣ call is in a non-forcing auction.

(3) As far as natural bids go, suppose opener has 4153 shape (the best likely club fit). Is he expected to raise? Now suppose opener has 4261 shape with a small club singleton, is he expected to try 3NT or avoid it? If the answers are "don't raise" and "avoid 3NT" then I think any claim that 3♣ is a "natural bid" is very far-fetched. But if the answers permit raising or bidding 3NT, then using 3♣ as a punt is not particularly feasible. I just can't see using one bid for both meanings.

In my view, 3♣ is the bid responder makes with either a very good hand with ♣s... a hand that has slam ambitions... or a hand with no clear direction and no desire/willingness to make a committal statement via, say, 2N.

I see no reason why both hand-types cannot be encompassed within this one bid. On the stall hand, responder will probably place the contract, or at least set the denomination, with his next call (including a pass of 3N), after hearing opener's third bid. On the very good hand, with his own 2-suiter, strong enough to move towards slam despite a misfit, he will keep the bidding moving via his next call, including a move over 3N.

Standard expert bridge has a number of instances of ambiguity, where a bid is ostensibly natural but may turn out to be a mark-time move. In my view, this rare sequence is well-suited to that treatment.