[Stephen Tu]

2/1 GF.
1♠-2♥;
2nt-3nt;
4♥?

What should this mean & should you try this w/o discussion?

[P_Marlowe]

2NT was 12-14 or 18-19?

If yes, 4H showes the upper range, and 3 card support,
4 card support is possible, but would assume that opener
did bid 2NT with 5-4-2-2, possible ...

Not sure I would try this one out, but on the other hand
I fail to see an alternative, ... so there has to be one.
More serious: I would try this out, if I can trust partner
to be able to think.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

Weird without discussion.

If I were assessing what "should be" from a theory prespective, I would think along practicality lines. Hiding heart support makes revealing heart support later difficult. Hence, that course should either be reserved for very specific hands or very weak hands. As the hiding bid is 2NT, I would expect the latter to make more sense. Hence, 2NT...4♥ seems logically to make the most sense (if ever) to show a piece-o-crap 5332 11-count with three hearts, and very poor controls.

That type of approach has a slight advantage of making 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ not a dead minimum call. However, 1♠-P-2♥-P-4♥ also fills that void. Perhaps the two are slightly different in some way.

I would normally expect an immediate leap to 4♥ to deny holding as much stuff as would create a "two with the Queen" answer, or better, to RKCB. 2NT...4♥ should also clearly meet that definition, at a minimum.

But, maybe the 2NT...4♥ sequence could work as a call that implies really weak trumps? Maybe 4♥ immediately could then show at least one heart honor (or 4-card support if no honor)?

[inquiry]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 29 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

2/1 GF.
1♠-2♥;
2nt-3nt;
4♥?

What should this mean & should you try this w/o discussion?

Balanced slam invite.

I expect the 4♥ bidder to be 5-3-3-2 or 5-3-2-3 with 18-19 hcp, weak three card support, at least a king in both minors (could be aces in both, or king in one, ace in the other).

As for the question does 2NT show 12-14 or 18-19, the answer is both.. With 12-14, pass 3NT, with 18 make one more bid at least.

[jdonn]

Despite the other answers, I am 100% sure this 'should' be a balanced minimum with xxx in hearts. I strongly believe it's wrong to raise the 2♥ bid directly with xxx even if you always plan to play in hearts, since it's too encouraging and may cause partner to try for slam with a big problem in trumps.

I wouldn't have thought anything of trying it undiscussed until now seeing what some other players think. That does make me a bit wary.

If you really want to rebid 2NT on a hand with 18-19 and heart support, you should make a point to agree 4 of a minor here would be a cuebid for hearts. There is no need at all to have that as a natural bid.

[RichMor]

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Despite the other answers, I am 100% sure this 'should' be a balanced minimum with xxx in hearts. I strongly believe it's wrong to raise the 2♥ bid directly with xxx even if you always plan to play in hearts, since it's too encouraging and may cause partner to try for slam with a big problem in trumps.

I wouldn't have thought anything of trying it undiscussed until now seeing what some other players think. That does make me a bit wary.

If you really want to rebid 2NT on a hand with 18-19 and heart support, you should make a point to agree 4 of a minor here would be a cuebid for hearts. There is no need at all to have that as a natural bid.

Hmmmm.

If the auction went
1♠ -- 2♥
4♣/♦

wouldn't that sound like a splinter raise of Hearts with shortness in a minor ?

[Phil]

RichMor, on Jun 29 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Despite the other answers, I am 100% sure this 'should' be a balanced minimum with xxx in hearts. I strongly believe it's wrong to raise the 2♥ bid directly with xxx even if you always plan to play in hearts, since it's too encouraging and may cause partner to try for slam with a big problem in trumps.

I wouldn't have thought anything of trying it undiscussed until now seeing what some other players think. That does make me a bit wary.

If you really want to rebid 2NT on a hand with 18-19 and heart support, you should make a point to agree 4 of a minor here would be a cuebid for hearts. There is no need at all to have that as a natural bid.

Hmmmm.

If the auction went
1♠ -- 2♥
4♣/♦

wouldn't that sound like a splinter raise of Hearts with shortness in a minor ?

Yes, and your point is?

Agree 100% with Josh. It makes no sense to play the OP's auction as 18-19.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Jun 29 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

RichMor, on Jun 29 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Despite the other answers, I am 100% sure this 'should' be a balanced minimum with xxx in hearts. I strongly believe it's wrong to raise the 2♥ bid directly with xxx even if you always plan to play in hearts, since it's too encouraging and may cause partner to try for slam with a big problem in trumps.

I wouldn't have thought anything of trying it undiscussed until now seeing what some other players think. That does make me a bit wary.

If you really want to rebid 2NT on a hand with 18-19 and heart support, you should make a point to agree 4 of a minor here would be a cuebid for hearts. There is no need at all to have that as a natural bid.

Hmmmm.

If the auction went
1♠ -- 2♥
4♣/♦

wouldn't that sound like a splinter raise of Hearts with shortness in a minor ?

Yes, and your point is?

Agree 100% with Josh. It makes no sense to play the OP's auction as 18-19.

He misread what I said. I was referring to
1♠ 2♥
2NT 3NT
4♣/♦

[the hog]

inquiry, on Jun 30 2009, 12:41 AM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jun 29 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

2/1 GF.
1♠-2♥;
2nt-3nt;
4♥?

What should this mean & should you try this w/o discussion?

Balanced slam invite.

I expect the 4♥ bidder to be 5-3-3-2 or 5-3-2-3 with 18-19 hcp, weak three card support, at least a king in both minors (could be aces in both, or king in one, ace in the other).

As for the question does 2NT show 12-14 or 18-19, the answer is both.. With 12-14, pass 3NT, with 18 make one more bid at least.

I am inclined to agree with Ben here. Opener has 18-19 balanced and ordinary 3 card support.

Boy these questions make a strong or variable club look good by comparison.

[awm]

Agree with Josh here. This auction makes it rather difficult to cuebid or look for slam when compared to a direct heart raise. So I'd assume this is showing a bad hand for slam and essentially signing off in 4♥ opposite a partner who couldn't push past 3NT rather than showing a good hand that just felt like destroying all partner's space to investigate slam scientifically.

This interpretation also fits the general theme that game bids are normally suggesting playing there rather than some sort of aggressively forward-going action.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

If you really want to rebid 2NT on a hand with 18-19 and heart support, you should make a point to agree 4 of a minor here would be a cuebid for hearts. There is no need at all to have that as a natural bid.

I agree there is no need to have the 4m bids be natural. But couldn't they be cues towards a nt slam? If you are 5233 with 19 say.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Despite the other answers...

I think that's a slight:

"Despite the fact that most people think this should show a balanced slam invite, and despite the fact that kenrexford thinks it should show a balanced minimum with poor trumps, I think it should show a balanced minimum with poor trumps."

LOL

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Despite the other answers...

I think that's a slight:

"Despite the fact that most people think this should show a balanced slam invite, and despite the fact that kenrexford thinks it should show a balanced minimum with poor trumps, I think it should show a balanced minimum with poor trumps."

LOL

LOL didn't mean to shun you. I don't quite agree that it has to be a bad 11 with bad controls though.

I guess "in theory" (I would never actually agree this even though I wouldn't put it past you!) 4♣ could be 18-19 balanced with xxx of hearts, 4♦ could be a good balanced minimum, 4♥ could be a bad balanced minimum.

[cherdanno]

awm, on Jun 29 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

Agree with Josh here. This auction makes it rather difficult to cuebid or look for slam when compared to a direct heart raise.

I double this. When both hands are balanced, showing your hand-type and defining your range is more important than cuebidding.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 29 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Despite the other answers...

I think that's a slight:

"Despite the fact that most people think this should show a balanced slam invite, and despite the fact that kenrexford thinks it should show a balanced minimum with poor trumps, I think it should show a balanced minimum with poor trumps."

LOL

LOL didn't mean to shun you. I don't quite agree that it has to be a bad 11 with bad controls though.

I guess "in theory" (I would never actually agree this even though I wouldn't put it past you!) 4♣ could be 18-19 balanced with xxx of hearts, 4♦ could be a good balanced minimum, 4♥ could be a bad balanced minimum.

Actually, I also thought about this. The two-way 2NT...4♥ idea is sick. But, the one-way (2NT...support) makes sense IF the sole call is 4♥, IMO. You need 4♣ or 4♦, IMO, for the 18-19 counts. However, if you do want to just bid 2NT...4NT with those hands, then I think 4♣ and 4♦ should be cues.

Thus, 2NT...4♣ would be minimum balanced, poor trumps, poor controls (not two with the Queen as a RKCB answer), but a club control, 4♦ the same thing with a diamond control but no club control, and 4♥ the same thing with no minor controls. That might be disclosing too much, though.

Another scheme, however, would be for 4♣ in this sequence (2NT...4♣) to be a general 4♥ call, such that Responder could bid 4♥ or 4♦(LTTC). Then, 4♥ would be the 18-count with Hx in hearts.

But, I think 4♥ still should be the catch-all. Maybe 4♣ and 4♦ should be the 18-counts and defining heart contribution (not three, but xx or worse for one and Qx or better for the other).

[Jlall]

4 of a minor with 52(42) and 18-19 seems normal to me.

[mike777]

Stephen Tu, on Jun 29 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

2/1 GF.
1♠-2♥;
2nt-3nt;
4♥?

What should this mean & should you try this w/o discussion?

no discussion

I pass easy, next hand...



for sake of discussion assume I play with justin or jdonn......or mikeh.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jul 1 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

4 of a minor with 52(42) and 18-19 seems normal to me.

I do not agree. Opener had a chance to show a minor, responder had a chance to show a minor, and they still have one more chance to find a minor (4NT 6m, 4NT 5NT 6m). If all those get ignorred and you still belong in a 4-4 minor suit fit, then someone made a judgment error in not showing it when he could have. What you say is in fitting with your general principles but there is no need on this auction.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 1 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 1 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

4 of a minor with 52(42) and 18-19 seems normal to me.

I do not agree. Opener had a chance to show a minor, responder had a chance to show a minor, and they still have one more chance to find a minor (4NT 6m, 4NT 5NT 6m). If all those get ignorred and you still belong in a 4-4 minor suit fit, then someone made a judgment error in not showing it when he could have. What you say is in fitting with your general principles but there is no need on this auction.

The problem with showing the minor at the six-level is that you kind of lose the ability to explore anything intelligently. If 4♣ and 4♦ show the 5422 hands, then Responder can presumably bid something systemic as RKCB for the minor as an agreement of the minor, with the benefit of all things that arise from RKCB auctions.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 1 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

The problem with showing the minor at the six-level is that you kind of lose the ability to explore anything intelligently. If 4♣ and 4♦ show the 5422 hands, then Responder can presumably bid something systemic as RKCB for the minor as an agreement of the minor, with the benefit of all things that arise from RKCB auctions.

Lol, about 45 seconds ago I mocked you in another thread for seeming to be unable to bid without an exact agreement on what everything shows, rather than using logic and judgment to figure it out. And then I read this!