[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ (P) ?

---

Not good enough for J2nt with xxx, how do you bid these hands?

I end up bidding 2 of a minor to create a forcing bid but it can back fire.

[awm]

I'm pretty sure that with "no special agreements" the normal bid on such a hand is 2♣, to be followed by a spade raise. Obviously this carries some issues as partner may think the clubs are a source of tricks in a spade slam.

Some people play 2NT natural and game forcing here, in which case this is an easy hand (bid 2NT and rebid 3♠). Another possibility is that 3NT might show this type of hand (very flat 3-card GF raise without a lot extra).

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Feb 22 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠ (P) ?

---

Not good enough for J2nt with xxx, how do you bid these hands?

I end up bidding 2 of a minor to create a forcing bid but it can back fire.

It's IMPs, so why not 2♥? I can raise 2NT, 3♥, and 2♠ to game....

OK, maybe playing 2♥ here as only showing 4 isn't standard, if so sorry, but requiring it to be 5 doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

[inquiry]

There are variety of options, Jacoby 2NT should not be one of them. One convention I like is 1M-3NT shows a balanced 13-15 hcp and three card support. This is not all that popular, but this hand woudl fit. I play 1S-3N-4H as pick a major, second is always a four card (or five card) suit.

Lacking such an agreement, just bid 2C and the next bid will depend upon your partners bid and rather or not you were playing 2/1 GF or SAYC.

[jillybean]

Ok, I need new partners - some hate my 2♣ bid here

Is it alertable?

[goobers]

2♣ is not alertable; you're just lying. Partner will probably play you for 4+. (Though I guess if you have prior agreement about this specific sequence with a regular partner, then it is? I dunno.)

Natural 2NT bid is nice here Without that, I would just bid 3NT

2♣ is fine if you feel bent on showing your spade support, I think.

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Feb 22 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

Ok, I need new partners - some hate my 2♣ bid here

Is it alertable?

Any bid of a minor that promises 3 or more cards in that minor and does not promise more cards in a different suit is considered natural in ACBL-land. It would still be alertable if, say, the bid was non-forcing.


I have yet to get into trouble bidding this hand with an auction like:
1♠-2♥-3♥-3NT...seems pretty intuitive to me.

[hotShot]

Bidding a 3+ card minor is natural and not alertable.
The suggested method to bid 2m and raise to game later could be taken as "delayed game rise" which is a slam invitation around here.

So your options are:
4♠ (You will be expected a little weaker.)
2NT (Lying about the 4th ♠
2m (Don't blame partner, if his slam try fails.)
2♥ Lying about the 5th♥
Partner has no right to complain no matter which of these you chose.
Because each of these bids is a lie.

[SoTired]

2C or 2D. I vote for 2C because that leaves more room for partner's rebid.

You CANNOT bid 2H with only 4. If you do and partner raises, then you can't go back to spades because partner will not believe you.

Good rule: If you have to lie about strength or distribution, lie about distribution. If you have to lie about distribution, lie about a minor before a major.

And, of course, it is not alertable. Have you been alerting every 2C response you make? NO... Only this one? Then you are alerting your hand, not your agreements. Common misconception playing online with self-alerting. If you had an agreement with partner that 2C could be short, then you need to alert all your 2C responses, not just this one.

[mike777]

Hard to think 3nt cannot be ok even without special agreements. Whatever it means, I think my WC pickup partner will think this is at least close if not perfect.

[jillybean]

Oh same question a while ago about 2♣ being alertable.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...18&hl=alertable

And I am still confused, this seems to be an exception to the rules - this is atleast an implicit understanding that 2♣ is natural or an artificial raise in the major. So why isn’t it alerted?

Sorry to be going round in circles again

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Feb 22 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

And I am still confused, this seems to be an exception to the rules - this is atleast an implicit understanding that 2♣ is natural or an artificial raise in the major. So why isn’t it alerted?

Because it absolutely promises 3+ clubs, does not promise three (or more) cards in the major, and is forcing.

That's the 'Standard' definition, so no alert.

In contrast, you can bid Drury with a void, and it does promise 3 cards in the major.

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Feb 22 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

  Because it absolutely promises 3+ clubs, does not promise three (or more) cards in the major, and is forcing.

If it is being used as a delayed raise it does promise 3 card support for the major.

[mikeh]

jillybean2, on Feb 22 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 22 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

  Because it absolutely promises 3+ clubs, does not promise three (or more) cards in the major, and is forcing.

If it is being used as a delayed raise it does promise 3 card support for the major.

But the point is that partner does not know, when you bid 2♣, that you are intending to show a gf raise with 3 card support. It is partner's knowledge of the systemic meaning of the bid at the time that it was made that dictates the alert/no alert decision.

And, there is no need for partner to alert later, either. Say you bid 2♣ and over partner's 2N you bid 3♠ (actually, I'd bid 3N but let's say you choose 3♠). Partner now knows that you have a gf raise with 3♠s... but partner still does not know that you only have 3♣s. You'd bid the same way with 3=2=2=6 for example!

The point is, as has been said by others, that in ACBLand, 2♣ is not alertable provided it promises 3+ cards in the suit. The reason drury is alertable is not that it shows a raise (altho of course that is how you explain it) but that it DOES NOT promise ANY length in ♣s... you can even have a void, altho that would be rare. It is the lack of a natural meaning to the bid that makes drury alertable and the ACBL has defined bidding a 3 card minor here as 'natural'.

Consider that maybe you decide to play that 2♣ is a transfer to ♦s. This is alertable, not because it is a raise (it isn't) but because it says nothing about ♣s...when asked, you explain that it is a transfer to ♦s, silent about ♣s.

While the acbl definition of natural may be debatable in theory (can one bid a suit KNOWN to be potentially as short as 3 cards as a genuine suggestion as a trump suit?) it is the rule so don't worry if it strikes you as moderately illogical: it is far from the most illogical rule in bridge, especially in the ACBL.

As for the hand: don't let anyone tell you that 2♣ is a bad bid... anyone who says that betrays their own lack of expertise.

3N is not a bad alternative, if the bid is available to you. I actually play that in one partnership, but in all others, we use 3N for a more esoteric meaning. And in the old-fashioned standard method I learned so many years ago, 3N meant 16-18 balanced. There is also a real concern about using it with a 4 card ♥ suit: it is bad enough to risk missing a 4-4 minor suit slam but those are rare. And at mps, 3N is usually preferable to 5minor. Even at imps, if slam is not biddable, 3N will often gain an imp or two. But missing a 4-4 ♥ fit can be really costly, especially at mps.

When 3N is not available, having a strong natural 2N is wonderful: but only if you have another way of raising the major with strong 4 card support: in other words, an alternative to Jacoby. A number of strong partnerships do that, but the majority of the (north american) bridge population use J2N, as do many elsewhere.

If neither 2 nor 3N are available, the only choices are 2♣ or 1N (if forcing). There is little wrong with 1N. You intend to jump to game at your next turn.. you will find the ♥ fit if it exists, you can comfortably raise 2N to 3N without worrying about missing a slam etc.. after all, xxx is not an ideal ♠ holding and 4333 shape hands usually play less than their hcp might suggest. But this hand is a touch too good for that approach, for me. So. I'd bid 2♣.

I would run like heck from anyone who suggests that 2♥ is appropriate. With all respect to the poster who suggested that, there are powerful reasons why the expert community would (as a whole) shun the idea. I am already long-winded on this post, so will not elaborate... besides, I think the topic has been canvassed before, probably several times.

2♦ is also 'wrong' in my view, for some of the same reasons. In addition, there is a VERY useful rule to bear in mind when distorting your hand. There are often times when one has to make a bid that is misleading about some aspect of your hand. In those cases, it almost always pays to make the smallest distortion, but, when the choice is close, make the cheapest distortion: preserve as much bidding space as possible. Here, if you are considering 2♣ or 2♦, this rule will lead you to 2♣, since it is the cheaper distortion.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

you have several options, one would
be 3NT, which may or may not show
a fit.

If you play it as bal. with 13-15, you describe
you hand fairly well, ... the only thing missing
from the descriüption is the 3rd spade.

With kind regards
Marlowe