[catatonic]

playing any natural system I like to play the sequence [with no intervention ]

1H 1S
4H

as showing specifically game values with a 3 card spade fit ; my thinking is that if I have game in my own hand I will open with 2C [ or equivalent ] so I don't have that ; so when pt shows a few random points my hand must have been greatly improved by the 1S bid ; no problem now to reach 4S when he/she has short hearts and length in spades

if I don't have the fit I can , of course , bid 3C/D as I will invariably have 3 of one of those ....pt then has several bids available to him/her without going past 3NT

is there ANYONE there that agrees with me ?

[Codo]

To show a solid Heart suit and spade fit is what I would suspect my pd to have for this auction.
Howewer, this is a slam try for spades, so he has exactly 4 Spades, not just 3.

So I don´t agree.

[helene_t]

I think the 4♥ rebid is needed in its natural meaning, namely a GF hand with 7 hearts. Maybe if you play Namyats you don't need that.

Also with a 3631 you might belong in 3N, and occasionally in 5/6♦.

[brianshark]

There is a difference between having game values opposite partner with a 0 count (2♣ opening) and a game force hand opposite partner having a 1-level response.

I would expect a long crappy heart suit with just enough to chance game opposite a scattered 6/7 count from partner. Something like Kx KJxxxxxx Ax x. But I haven't given much thought to this so I'm not sure.

[goodwintr]

That's what it meant in old-fashioned Acol: a hand improved by partner's response, and therefore some sort of fit for spades. But that was because with just hearts and a hand good enough to bid 1H-1S; 4H opener would have started with 2H, an Acol two-bid, not 1H.

[brianshark]

How about... x KJTxxxxx AQ Kx

A hand disproved by partner's 1♠ response, but because partner has shown ~6pts, game is now worth a shot. That's not an acol 2♥ opening.

[whereagles]

You can also play it as good spades, side hearts, concentration in main suits, e.g.

AKxx
AKQxx
Kx
xx

[helene_t]

No, that would be a 4♠ bid. Unless 4♠ is something else, such as exclusion for hearts, or maybe choice of game with 35(05)

I think it's silly to sacrifice the natural 4♥ bid to avoid making a fake bid with some other hand type, and then inventing another fake rebid for the hands that would have made a natural 4♥ bid.

If I must avoid the fake jumps in the minors, I think I would play a 2♣ as an artificial force, either 5-5 with clubs or any awkward strong hand, and then with 1534 either make an offshape 1NT rebid or bid 2♦, depending on strength. Or something like that.

[Codo]

In my first reply I forgot that most play a system without openings which can differ between game forcing and semi forcing hands.
So, if you play a normal sayc or 2/1 you better use 4 Heart as a bid to show just hearts.
In SEF you can use it for other meanings of course, because you had not opened a one suiter with nearly gf strength with 1 HEart.

[benlessard]

It make sense to show 4H as having 3S like 37?? with 17?? you should preempt or namyats and rarely open 1H IMHO.

[jdonn]

These suggestions are bizzaro world...

[skjaeran]

I know people playing 1♥-1♠-3NT as 3-6(7).
The 4♥ rebid is purely natural to me.

[Cascade]

skaeran, on Feb 27 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

I know people playing 1♥-1♠-3NT as 3-6(7).
The 4♥ rebid is purely natural to me.

I play 3NT this way.

I don't like it but it is how our system fits together:

1♥ 1♠

2NT six hearts fewer than three spades around 16+ 100% FORCING

3♥ six hearts three spades around 16-18

3NT six hearts three spades GF

3NT too often wrong sides 3NT when partner has to pass with say 4=1 in the majors.

Maybe given we have 2NT as an unlimited bid we do not need the natural 4♥ so we could use 4♥ as the GF hand but it would only work for hearts and spades - we play the same structure after any 1x 1y start.

[ASkolnick]

As well as Cascade, I play 3N shows that type of hand. I am willing to sell out on when partner is 4-1 on that hand and I am one of the firm believers that the right-siding the hand is one of the most overrated concept.


Axxx,Axxx,Axx,Ax

Qxx, Qxx, Qxxx, Qxx

Which hand do you want declaring? Also, how do you know which hand really can find the better lead. Look at a hand record with deep finesse and tell me how often the number of tricks are maximized by the strong hand playing the hand. I doubt more than 1 out of every 24 hands. And balance that against the hands where the weaker hand plays the same contract. My guess is you are almost about even.

We play 2N however as natural, but implies no 3 card spade fit.