[gnasher]

It's a raise to 4NT (or more) with ♥Hx, and it's forcing.

[mikeh]

I have never had this auction, and I think there is a sadistic element at play here

2n is often used as a waiting bid, but not (in my experience) with pure heart support.

I think, but with considerable uncertainty, that partner has a hand that is worth 4N over 3N... about an 18 count.. and has 2=2=4=5 shape with a high heart.

I see that gnasher posted while I was typing.... the difference I see is that I don't think this call is forcing... merely highly encouraging.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree it's a slam try with Hx or similar in hearts.
I think it's passable (and 4NT over it is also passable).

[jdonn]

Is Hx of hearts really good enough? In practice we will all bid 4NT on that hand, 4♥ is a very unusual bid. I think it shows a worry about diamonds and lots of honors in the other suits, with the expected strength. Agree it is passable.

[foo]

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF:

1H 2C;2S 2N;3N 4H

2S did not show extras. What type of hand does 4H usually show, and is it passable?

I assume you were not playing either the Serious or NonSerious 3N conventions?

Absent any other agreements, Responder has a moose for the auction.

Responder has a minimum of an exceptional 16 (control rich and shapely. etc). Could easily have 18. With 3 card ♥ support.

I agree with josh that a Responder with only 2 ♥'s would bid differently
(for instance 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4N )

Responder has promised likely 5 level safety and made a slam try begging you to cue bid.

[cherdano]

It depends on your agreements
In my preferred agreements I bid 2C and 2N on any 3334 or 3343 hand with appropriate strength (so that a 3♥ rebid implies a club suit). Then 4♥ is of course just a sign-off with that shape.

Without this agreement I think it is just a suggestion to play, s.th. like QTx KJ xxx AKJxx. I guess that means I agree with Josh
( )

[hrothgar]

foo, on Mar 14 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF:

1H 2C;2S 2N;3N 4H

2S did not show extras. What type of hand does 4H usually show, and is it passable?

I assume you were not playing either the Serious or NonSerious 3N conventions?

What, pray tell, does serious 3NT have to do with this auction?

I know that this is an impressive term that you get to throw around (much like "High Reverse"). However, it doesn't seem reasonable to introduce 3NT to the discussion when the partnership hasn't agreed on a trump suit...

[foo]

hrothgar, on Mar 14 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

foo, on Mar 14 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF:

1H 2C;2S 2N;3N 4H

2S did not show extras. What type of hand does 4H usually show, and is it passable?

I assume you were not playing either the Serious or NonSerious 3N conventions?

What, pray tell, does serious 3NT have to do with this auction?

The hand type I'm assuming Responder most likely has here is the one that if playing Serious 3N would raise and then use Serious 3N.

I'm assuming Serious 3N was not available so Responder found another way to describe such a hand.

[han]

Agree with the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx construction.

[foo]

han, on Mar 14 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Agree with the ♠QTx ♥KJ ♦xxx ♣AKJxx construction.

Hmmm.

Opener has to have a 5- loser hand plus cards in the right places opposite that for slam to be odds on.

This looks like a prosaic 1H-2C;2S-3N or 3N probe (does 3D here Ask or Show a stopper?) to me if as justin says 1H-2C;2S does not promise extras.

[mikeh]

han, on Mar 14 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Agree with the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx construction.

I don't

Why would I bid 2N with that hand, with 4 honours in partner's suits, no stopper in diamonds and no significant extras?

Surely this has to be bizarre... bid 2N in order to ensure that we can't play 3N?????

I don't believe that over 2N opener has to bid 3♦ to show diamonds stopped, in a minimum hand... and, unless we have that agreement, bidding 2N in order to pull to a 5-2 fit on 14 opposite a minimum opener strikes me as sub-optimal.

What if partner is 4=5=3=1... maybe 3N is the last making contract. Maybe 3N from the side that holds the diamond stopper is the best contract?

If I held Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx, it strikes me that 3♦ is a reasonable punt, while a preference to 3♥ is not insane... so long as we don't then use 3N as some form of slam try... if we do, and I agree that it is a useful treatment, 3♦ seems to be the call.

[ASkolnick]

I agree with Mike H, but I would have guessed 1-2-4-6 good hand, not forcing 2-2-4-5 since 3N is playable with that hand. I also don't know if 1M-2m-2x-3m is 100% GF.

[kfay]

mikeh, on Mar 14 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

han, on Mar 14 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Agree with the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx construction.

I don't

Why would I bid 2N with that hand, with 4 honours in partner's suits, no stopper in diamonds and no significant extras?

Surely this has to be bizarre... bid 2N in order to ensure that we can't play 3N?????

I don't believe that over 2N opener has to bid 3♦ to show diamonds stopped, in a minimum hand... and, unless we have that agreement, bidding 2N in order to pull to a 5-2 fit on 14 opposite a minimum opener strikes me as sub-optimal.

What if partner is 4=5=3=1... maybe 3N is the last making contract. Maybe 3N from the side that holds the diamond stopper is the best contract?

If I held Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx, it strikes me that 3♦ is a reasonable punt, while a preference to 3♥ is not insane... so long as we don't then use 3N as some form of slam try... if we do, and I agree that it is a useful treatment, 3♦ seems to be the call.

These are my thoughts exactly. I actually started writing a response to this thread confessing my initial impression of the auction as being a hand worried about diamonds wanting to play in a 7-card fit major-suit game and was going to propose KJx Kx xxx AKJxx as a possible hand type but then I wondered why I bid 2NT in the first place. As Mike says, 3NT could be the last making spot, from partner's side.

After that dawned on me, though, I couldn't think of anything that really made much more sense and I'm still hard pressed to do so.

[mikeh]

How do we reach 6♥?

---

[kenrexford]

This is a strange sequence, obviously. Some discussion with partner would be ideal, but this is whipped out obviously without discussion, forcing a G.P. conclusion. That G.P. might be different for may people.

My thoughts on an "ideal" meaning may be of interest, or at least as a curiosity.

If 2♣...3♣ would be passable, then 2NT appears to be a call meant to be "getting under" 3♣, to see if partner can bid 3♣. Of course, with a club-oriented slam try, you could bid 4♣ after 3NT, but then maybe 4♣ is the g-word. If so, then 4♥ seems to be a cue without diamond slam control and looking for 6♣. But, that's a tad obscure.

Barring this contorted analysis, 4♥ seems to be a natural slam invite with two good hearts.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Mar 14 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

Responder has a minimum of an exceptional 16 (control rich and shapely. etc). Could easily have 18. With 3 card ♥ support.

So if responder has a good 16+ with 3-card heart support, why did he not bid 3H over 2S?

All of our doubleton heart constructions are premised on the idea that with a known 8-card major suit fit responder would have announced it the previous round.

If 4H shows something like
Qx
Kx
KJx
AKJxxx

then when responder raises 3NT to 4NT opener knows that responder doesn't have that sort of hand...

[ynh]

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF:

1H 2C
2S 2N
3N 4H

2S did not show extras. What type of hand does 4H usually show, and is it passable?

Put the question "is it passable" first maybe easier, since this is not a common bid.

Assume you had no agreement on this sequence before. This 4H is passable because:
1. You have clear 4C/D as forcing slam try bid, with no confusion
2. Two possible sceneries you can pass
a) 4H for a safer place, with more high cards on majors, w/o good D stopper
Mild slam try, 3-2-3-5, w/o D control

I think 4H for a) is more useful, likely 13-15pts, 3-2-3-5 or 2-2-4-5.

[gnasher]

It seems to me that this depends on whether you play Fourth Suit Forcing after a game-force.

If 3♦ would have been natural and 3♥ would have promised three, then Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx presents a problem which responder might try to solve by bidding 2NT followed by 4♥. (I'm not sure what he'd do with KQx xx xxx AKJxx - perhaps just tear up his cards and leave the playing area?)

If 3♦ would have been Fourth Suit Forcing, that would cover all 3=2=3=5 shapes with diamond weakness, so 4♥ doesn't mean that. If possession of three hearts is ruled out by the 2NT bid, the only rational natural meaning for 4♥ is a slam try with a comparatively strong doubleton in hearts.

[gnasher]

ynh, on Mar 14 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

Put the question "is it passable" first maybe easier, since this is not a common bid.

That seems a strange approach. How can you decide whether it's forcing until you have determined what it shows?