[kenberg]

I give you a run of the mill bidding situation:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ 1♥
2NT

---

You are South with the hand shown.


Which bids are forcing? 3♥? 3♣?
Which bids are natural? 3♣? 3♦?

I raise this question in the B/I forum but I have seen confusion ensue at higher levels.


In the case at hand, I bid 3♣, intended as natural, partner bid 3N, I decided to pass. The 3N contract made in Sgt Pepper fashion (I get by with a little help from my friends) but 5C is a cakewalk.

I assume that 3♣ is natural in pick-up standard, but of course some might play Wolff sign-offs, some might play 3♣ as a checkback bid.

There is of course no reason to bid 3♦ here but change a club to a diamond. Is it clear whether 3♦ is natural of New Minor Forcing?

Suppose partner, over my 3♣, bids 4♣. I can bid 4♥ now? A cue bid, not a suggestion to play 4♥?

These questions may seem trivial but I have seen many cases where one person thought one thing, his partner thought another.

I will give you the four hands. Perhaps of you will disagree with partner's bidding, perhaps with mine, but you can suggest how the bidding might have gone. Note: 5♣ is easy, 6♣ can be beaten (I think) on a diamond lead but will make on the likely spade lead.

---

The bidding might have begun 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♣. Will you end in 5♣ or 6♣? Where should you be, looking at NS only?

[Phil]

I have played either NMF, Wolff or Transfers over 2N rebids for so long that I have forgotten what standard is. Someone else can elaborate.

I think your partner should have reversed.

[FrancesHinden]

Without discussion, always assume bids are natural.
Very old-fashioned English approach was to play a bid of partner's suit, or a rebid of your own suit, as non-forcing, but I doubt anyone plays like that any more.

Obviously there are all sorts of conventions you can play, but there's little wrong with

3C = natural and forcing
3D = natural and forcing
3H = natural and forcing
3S = natural and forcing

p.s. I would have reversed on opener's hand
p.p.s although 6C goes off on a diamond lead, you definitely want to be in it. For example, just swap the EW hands and it makes easily.

[kenberg]

(Frances posted the above while i was typing this)

I was thinking this is a particularly good topic for B/I using natural methods, I am interested in how you would handle the cards using Wolff and using nmf. Suppose you bid 3D, nmf. Change one of opener's diamonds to a heart so he has 3=2=3=5 shape. i assume he would rebid 3NT. Perhaps you can infer five clubs in his hand/ He has at most three spades and at most two hearts for hos 3N response to 3D. If, and that is definitely an if, he opens 1D when the minors are 4-4, I guess he has five clubs. And now?

Mostly I think that developing the auction after 1m-1M-2N is sadly neglected in the literature. It is not an ever day problem, but it isn't rare either.

[gwnn]

Without discussion I usually assume 3♣ checkback and 3♦ natural. Not sure why. But I think transfers are best.

[kenberg]

For the given hand, natural is easy: Over 3♣, opener can try 3♥ if he holds three hearts. Clubs have not been set as trumps by the 3♣ bid (opener might hold three, foru or five, and I suppose maybe six, clubs so 3♣ shows clubs but doesn't set clubs, therefore 3♥ is still natural.

Playing transfers, you do what? Bid 3♦, transferring to hearts, and then what? Or bid 3♠ (this shows clubs?) but then how do you see about hearts?


Of course one hand proves nothing, although there seems to be some accumulating evidence that different players have very different ideas about how to develop the auction, and even what bids mean, after 1m-1M-2N.

I like Frances' approach w/o discussion. I would like to see somewhere (website, book, or skywriting) where a thought out system is presented.

[jdonn]

Even given the 2NT call, and even given no particular agreement about 3♣, once your partner has decided to bid over it I can't imagine why choose 3NT instead of 3♦. After that I'm sure you would have never passed 3NT and at least made sure you got to clubs.

So to me this is a judgment issue, not so much a system issue. I think your partner's 2NT showed a lack of understanding of basic bidding principles, and 3NT was simply rushed when more investigation was available and needed.

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Oct 2 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

Even given the 2NT call, and even given no particular agreement about 3♣, once your partner has decided to bid over it I can't imagine why choose 3NT instead of 3♦. After that I'm sure you would have never passed 3NT and at least made sure you got to clubs.

So to me this is a judgment issue, not so much a system issue. I think your partner's 2NT showed a lack of understanding of basic bidding principles, and 3NT was simply rushed when more investigation was available and needed.

I agree with all of this.

Although I presented this hand, and although I do not agree with partner's bidding, I intend the hand to be simply a starting point for a discussion of what the options are generally after 1m-1M-2N.

Like the 2N opening, the 2N rebid takes up a lot of space. It announces a more or less balanced hand and some point range, presumably 18-19. But that leaves a lot of unexplored territory. Responder is pretty much unlimited, and at times might have length in M and not a great deal else. Opener might have four cards in the other major, he might have three card support for M, he might, as here, have a strong five card m, it's a lot to sort out when the next bid is at the three level.

Add to this a lack, as far as I know, of extensive writing about this and you end up with a certain amount of chaos.

My thoughts:

A. Forget Wollf sign off. If the 1M was on KJxxx just pass, if it was KJxxxx (and system didn't allow 1m-2M), then just bid 4M and hope for the best. Myself, if partner opens 1♣ and all I have is Qxxxx in some major, I pass. Besides general principles, I pass because I haven't a clue what to do over an expected 2N rebid.

B. With A agreed to, 3M is forcing. Opener should raise, or maybe cue bid, with three card support.

C. 3 of the other major shows four. If responder has 5-5 in the major he can start with spades, of course, and then bid hearts twice, just as he intended when he bid 1♠. If opener is 2-2 that's too bad. Anyway 4 in one major or the other may still be right.

D. Minors are natural, but opener, after 3m, should then show three card support for M if he has it.


By no means do I claim that this is optimal. It's pretty straightforward and so should not be too much of a strain on the memory, but I would love to see someone who has a well thought out system present it in all of its glory.

[jdonn]

Simple transfers work extremely well regardless of which minor was opened. But I won't go into details about that, and what you state is a perfectly adequate approach for someone who wants something simple, it will get you through most hands fine.

[woefuwabit]

I prefer to play 3♣ as Baron in this sequence. 1m - 1M - 2NT has a decent chance of slam in a minor fit, and Baron is good at finding these fits. Opener and responder will bid up the line. Rebidding a previously bid suit shows 5 card, bidding a previously denied suit shows 3 cards. Opener with 4 cards in responder's major will jump to 4♣ or 4♦ to cuebid. Responder can often work out opener's exact shape. E.g.

1♣ - 1♥
2NT - 3♣
3NT - Opener must be 3235, since 3NT denies 4 ♠s, 3 ♥s and 4 ♦s

1♣ - 1♥
2NT - 3♣
3♦ - 3♥
3NT - Opener must be 3244

[ONEferBRID]

Phil, on Oct 2 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

I have played either NMF, Wolff or Transfers over 2N rebids for so long that I have forgotten what standard is. Someone else can elaborate.

I think your partner should have reversed.

I agree with Phil.

I've been in OP's shoes before, and if a system hasn't been discussed, you wind up hoping you don't hear a 2NT rebid.... but there it is.

You have just enough for game. A 3H rebid is natural and forcing, and "standard" would mean it is 6+ cards, but this is the best you can do under the circumstances.