[rd6789]

3NT - partner can't have a big red 2-suiter as he would have X'd so chances are he has something in clubs. I think 9 tricks may be the limit

I do agree that usually 3S here would/should show a stopper with 2 suits bid by opps.

Also partner will pass 3NT with 6H so it's a bit of a gamble, but hey opps are there to make life difficult

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

Or do you just forget about NT unless you have spades stopped? Hey, that works.

Yes I think so. Partner would need a non-positional spade stopper. Or alternatively, if we use 3♠ as asking for a spade stopper (or just for stopper in one suit, hoping that it isn't the same suit we stop as Tomi2 plays it, I would need a non-positional club stopper). The 3♣ bid often serves a lead-directing purpose so if I have a stopper it is more likely to be the king than the ace.

[gnasher]

ochinko, on Aug 19 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 19 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

Intuitively, 3♠ should ask for a club stopper.

Isn't this more than a mere intuition but actually standard with no known fit, and searching for NT? When opps have bid one suit, que-bidding ask for a stopper, but with two suits, you bid the one that you stop asking for a stopper in the other.

Suppose that the auction had gone
  2♣ [weak] pass 2♠ 3♥
Now 3♠ should ask for a spade stop, but in your rule-based approach it would still ask for a spade stop.

[barmar]

ochinko, on Aug 19 2009, 05:25 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 19 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

Intuitively, 3♠ should ask for a club stopper.

Isn't this more than a mere intuition but actually standard with no known fit, and searching for NT? When opps have bid one suit, que-bidding ask for a stopper, but with two suits, you bid the one that you stop asking for a stopper in the other.

That logic only works when you have room to make either cue bid below 3NT. In the actual auction, only one cue bid is available.

[Tcyk]

gwnn, on Aug 18 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

2♠-p-3♣-3♥
p-?

KJTx
Tx
AKxx
T9x

3♣ was natural non forcing denying a spade fit. It's all red at imps. You can't bid 3♠ since that would ask for a spade stop (hence the title).

This is off the subject but just how often would someone play 3♣ in response to a weak-two bid as non-forcing? I know that in many ways I am old fashioned but I was taught RONF; raise only non-forcing. I had this very problem occur in an indy recently. I had a solid side suit, support for partner's major, and good controls. I wanted to investigate slam and elected to go slow. Partner passed my 3-level bid. I made three overtricks. Honestly, I thought that virtually everyone played RONF.

[ArtK78]

I play a light opening system nonvul in 1st and 2nd seats. The weak 2 bids are VERY weak, and simple new suit responses are nonforcing.

I understand that the conditions of the problem are all red at IMPs, but there are some who play nonforcing simple responses at all conditions.

[gwnn]

Tcyk, on Aug 24 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 18 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

2♠-p-3♣-3♥
p-?

KJTx
Tx
AKxx
T9x

3♣ was natural non forcing denying a spade fit. It's all red at imps. You can't bid 3♠ since that would ask for a spade stop (hence the title).

This is off the subject but just how often would someone play 3♣ in response to a weak-two bid as non-forcing? I know that in many ways I am old fashioned but I was taught RONF; raise only non-forcing. I had this very problem occur in an indy recently. I had a solid side suit, support for partner's major, and good controls. I wanted to investigate slam and elected to go slow. Partner passed my 3-level bid. I made three overtricks. Honestly, I thought that virtually everyone played RONF.

i think RONF is more modern than 2NT only forcing

[barmar]

In ACBL territory, it should generally be safe to assume RONF, and 2NT asks for a feature, if you haven't had any discussion to the contrary. If you're going to play very light openings and non-forcing new suit responses, that's something you should agree explicitly with your partner.

[Quantumcat]

It's great to have new suits be non forcing if you pre-empt on very bad hands, but you miss out on being able to get to games, you have to just bid the game you think may make, and you can't make splinters so you have less tools to find slam in your partner's suit. (By the way how do people who play new suits non-forcing treat 2♠ - 4♣/♦? a splinter, or slam try in clubs/diamonds, or maybe choice of 4♠ or 5♣/♦ {maybe responder has 2 small spades}?)

Perhaps it is a good idea to play RONF in imps (to make it easier to find games/slams), and non forcing new suits in MPs?

Of course you can have both if you play transfers!

[Cascade]

I would have thought that RONF is standard. However it is far from universal.

Marty Bergen in Better Bidding with Bergen (not sure which volume) I am pretty sure recommends new suits non-forcing after a weak two.

Partly this depends on your style for weak twos. If you are solid citizens then it will be rarely necessary for your partner to want to rescue you from your weak twos. Personally I prefer a more aggressive style to my pre-empts and partner is wise to often rescue therefore we play new suits are non-forcing. If I recall correctly Bergen actually suggests that he would prefer new suits as non-forcing even if he played a sounder weak two style.

To answer Quantumcat's question we play 2Maj 4min as natural and forcing. Splinters might have been useful but we had to try and cater for all hand types somehow.

We also play 2♥ 3♠ as forcing and 2♠ 4♥ natural to play.

2Maj 2NT (only low level force)
any 4minor is a cue (as is 3♠ if hearts have been bid). If all forces had gone through 2NT then we would not have good ways to investigate slam in opener's major. Hence the compromise with the direct 4minor responses.

2♠ 2NT
any 4♥ is stronger than an immediate 4♥ - forcing if opener has shown a maximum and very highly encouraging otherwise.

[Quantumcat]

oh ok so you can use 4 of a minor as both a slam try in the minor and a choice of 5 minor or 4S - if you correct 4S to 5 minor you had a slam try which opener has rejected. And you use 2NT if you are not sure exactly which suit to play in? Do you play this at imps as well?

Can I explain how the transfers work after 2♠? (I love them ) 2NT is transfer to 3♣, 3♦ to 3♥, 3♠ and 3NT to play.

To make a game invite and show your own side-suit, transfer to the suit and bid 3♠. Without your own side suit, bid 3♥ and opener bids 3♠ or 4♠/cues. With a slam invite with a side suit that could use a little help transfer to it and bid 4♠. If you have slam interest no side suit and can still make slam with a crap hand for opener, bid 3♥ and cue over 3♠ or keycard. To play in your own suit, transfer and pass or bid game. With two of your own suits, transfer to the longer and bid the other. You can splinter. If you have a hand that wants to know about a side king or singleton to bid slam: bid 3♥, after 3♠ (rejecting gametry) bid 3NT (if you wanted to play there you'd have bid 3NT immediately). If they had accepted you'd have just bid 6♠.

[the hog]

Quantumcat, on Aug 26 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

oh ok so you can use 4 of a minor as both a slam try in the minor and a choice of 5 minor or 4S - if you correct 4S to 5 minor you had a slam try which opener has rejected. And you use 2NT if you are not sure exactly which suit to play in? Do you play this at imps as well?

Can I explain how the transfers work after 2♠? (I love them ) 2NT is transfer to 3♣, 3♦ to 3♥, 3♠ and 3NT to play.

To make a game invite and show your own side-suit, transfer to the suit and bid 3♠. Without your own side suit, bid 3♥ and opener bids 3♠ or 4♠/cues. With a slam invite with a side suit that could use a little help transfer to it and bid 4♠. If you have slam interest no side suit and can still make slam with a crap hand for opener, bid 3♥ and cue over 3♠ or keycard. To play in your own suit, transfer and pass or bid game. With two of your own suits, transfer to the longer and bid the other. You can splinter. If you have a hand that wants to know about a side king or singleton to bid slam: bid 3♥, after 3♠ (rejecting gametry) bid 3NT (if you wanted to play there you'd have bid 3NT immediately). If they had accepted you'd have just bid 6♠.

Cat, the system you propose is inherently faulty. It is not good policy to make Rubens advances, (you call them transfers), into the weak hand. This generally means that the weak hand becomes declarer and the strong hand exposed - a prime example of poor system design.

It is far better to allow a hand that has limited features, such as a weak opening two, to describe its features. You will generally be able to learn more useful information than the other way around.

By the way, it is certainly possible to play a combination of weak and stronger 2 openings. Use 2D as a bad weak 2 in either M, can even be 5/5 and 2M as a good weak 2. I suggest you run this past Kieran Dyke the next time you see him.