[kgr]

1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥ (2H=4th suit GF)
3♠

Currently we have in our system 3♠ defined as 3c♠ with extras.
But I wonder if it is not better to never bid 3♠ or have it better defined?

Rem: In a bidding practice with my partner I forgot to bid 3♠ with a 3154 hand with extras and I did bid 2♠ instead. This allowed my partner to bid 3♣ and to find 6♣ contract.
And with the jump this would give:
1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥ (2H=4th suit GF)
3♠-4♣
=> Is 4♣ a ♣-fit or control for ♠?...another unclear sequence

[kgr]

Adding a reply in a desperate try to get an answer
Any special use for the jump in partners suit after a 4SF (GF); or is it better to never jump here?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

playing FSF as inv.+ the jump showes add. strength.

I would say, it makes sense to have a similar agreement, even when FSF is played
as GF, since at one point in time you need to start limiting the strength.
You may say, that the jump showes a min. opening bid, since you play FSF as gf.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[EricK]

Do you play that a non-jump actually shows support? What would you bid with say ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AJxxx ♣KQxx? I think it is clearly best to be able to bid 2♠ here. I also think it is clearly best to be able to raise immediately with 3 card support and a minimum hand. Which leaves the jump support as showing the other sort of hand - 3 card support with extras!

[ggwhiz]

Nothing super scientific in our partnership approach other than 3♠ shows a 3-1-5-4 (until further notice) in a strong notrump point range.

Nearly mandatory cue-bidding comes next with 4 of a minor being a cue for spades OR a natural slam try to be revealed after the next cue and jump to 5 of a minor with no interest and a hand unsuitable for 3nt.

[kgr]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-June-25, 01:45, said:

You may say, that the jump showes a min. opening bid, since you play FSF as gf.

Thanks for the answer. Not sure, but I think it is better - contrary to fast arrival - to have extra strength for the jump in this case. (it also no arrival )

[kgr]

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 12:10, said:

Do you play that a non-jump actually shows support?

Yes

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 12:10, said:

What would you bid with say ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AJxxx ♣KQxx?

2D, Repeating the 1st suit is nothing to say.

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 12:10, said:

I think it is clearly best to be able to bid 2♠ here. I also think it is clearly best to be able to raise immediately with 3 card support and a minimum hand. Which leaves the jump support as showing the other sort of hand - 3 card support with extras!

Yes, I'll show actual hand and the bidding in a later post. I forgot about the 3S jump with extras and that made the bidding easier.

[kgr]

The question was triggered by this hand from Larry Cohens bidding practice:

---

I forgot to jump to 3S, and that made the bidding easier. Maybe my partner also forgot that I had denied extras.

If I would have bid 3S iso 2S than 4C is control for Spades.
Then partner could not show the C-fit, except by bidding 6C.

[Cascade]

I play that fourth suit is game force.

It makes sense that jumps should show extra strength and extra distribution. When the jump is in a third suit it is quite common that a game force hand opposite can picture your entire hand down to a card or so. I have seen hands where you can picture the entire hand - because you have enough missing honour cards to know every significant card in partner's hand and have been able to jump immediately to a grand slam.

Clearly we should use the jump for something.

If jumps showed a minimum that would get in partner's way too often when the fourth suit bidder was using intending to make a slam try. So it is clearly best to bid at a minimum level with a minimum hand in these auctions. Of course you can also get in partner's way with the stronger jump response, however there is a trade off and at least partner knows you have extra values which is much more valuable information than you have a random minimum.

Nevertheless, it is not completely clear what the parameters should be for the jump. Currently I play all jumps show 15-17 and the appropriate distribution.

In response, since three suits are in play and the fourth suit bidder may have been making a slam try in any of these suits, often the only cue-bid is a repeat of the four suit. For example, in your example auction:

1♥ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
3♠ ...

4♣, 4♥ would be slam tries in those denominations

4♠ not necesarily a slam try as you might have just been looking for the five-three fit

so 4♦ is the only available cue-bid - usually i play this as a general slam try and not a specific control.

It may be possible to do something clever with 3NT but I don't currently.

[EricK]

kgr, on 2013-June-25, 14:53, said:

2D, Repeating the 1st suit is nothing to say.

An insufficient bid is the answer to many difficult bidding problems (as long as the opps don't notice). Unfortunately, in the sequence given in the OP, you would have had to bid 3♦, not 2. The specific sequence in the actual hand is different though, as 2♥ as well as being a repeat of opener's first suit, is also the cheapest bid. A useful principle of bidding system design is to try to have higher bids be more specific than lower bids. However, even here, I would prefer to play 2♥ as nothing to say (so probably x or xx in ♠), and 2♠ as something like Hx in ♠ and no ♦ stop - because if partner has no ♦ stop either, then the most likely game is in a 5-2 major fit.

But the problem on the actual hand, was that West bid FSF when he wasn't interested in the answer. Instead of FSF followed by an ambiguous 4♣, he can just bid 4♣. I may be doing you and your partner a disservice here, but I'm not at all sure that the bids between 3♣ and 4♣ in the sequence you quoted added anything useful to the auction.

He also might have been better served bidding 2♣ rather than 1♠, as this gets the strength over straight away and helps opener evaluate any singleton he might have - on this hand, you are probably never playing in ♠ unless opener can bid them, so it is not so vital to show your weak 4 card major here.

[kgr]

Cascade, on 2013-June-25, 17:14, said:

I play that fourth suit is game force.

It makes sense that jumps should show extra strength and extra distribution. When the jump is in a third suit it is quite common that a game force hand opposite can picture your entire hand down to a card or so. I have seen hands where you can picture the entire hand - because you have enough missing honour cards to know every significant card in partner's hand and have been able to jump immediately to a grand slam.

Clearly we should use the jump for something.

If jumps showed a minimum that would get in partner's way too often when the fourth suit bidder was using intending to make a slam try. So it is clearly best to bid at a minimum level with a minimum hand in these auctions. Of course you can also get in partner's way with the stronger jump response, however there is a trade off and at least partner knows you have extra values which is much more valuable information than you have a random minimum.

Nevertheless, it is not completely clear what the parameters should be for the jump. Currently I play all jumps show 15-17 and the appropriate distribution.

In response, since three suits are in play and the fourth suit bidder may have been making a slam try in any of these suits, often the only cue-bid is a repeat of the four suit. For example, in your example auction:

1♥ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
3♠ ...

4♣, 4♥ would be slam tries in those denominations

4♠ not necesarily a slam try as you might have just been looking for the five-three fit

so 4♦ is the only available cue-bid - usually i play this as a general slam try and not a specific control.

It may be possible to do something clever with 3NT but I don't currently.

Thanks for the answer.
- We play that 2♣ is forcing. So I need to think if we should play 3♠ 15-17 or rather 18-19. (Maybe 15-17 is ok and opener has to make another move if he has 18-19)
- "so 4♦ is the only available cue-bid": I agree that this is probably best, but it fits better with rest of our system that 4♣ is also cue for ♠.

[kgr]

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 23:52, said:

An insufficient bid is the answer to many difficult bidding problems (as long as the opps don't notice). Unfortunately, in the sequence given in the OP, you would have had to bid 3♦, not 2.

there is some truth in this.

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 23:52, said:

The specific sequence in the actual hand is different though, as 2♥ as well as being a repeat of opener's first suit, is also the cheapest bid. A useful principle of bidding system design is to try to have higher bids be more specific than lower bids. However, even here, I would prefer to play 2♥ as nothing to say (so probably x or xx in ♠), and 2♠ as something like Hx in ♠ and no ♦ stop - because if partner has no ♦ stop either, then the most likely game is in a 5-2 major fit.

Yes, in the sequence for the actual hand it would be 2♥. 2♠ shows a 3c♠ for us, with Hx we will (hopefully) support later.

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 23:52, said:

But the problem on the actual hand, was that West bid FSF when he wasn't interested in the answer. Instead of FSF followed by an ambiguous 4♣, he can just bid 4♣. I may be doing you and your partner a disservice here, but I'm not at all sure that the bids between 3♣ and 4♣ in the sequence you quoted added anything useful to the auction.

Going via 4SF only gives a problem if opener jumps & responders hand is not a clear-cut 4♣ bid, is it?

EricK, on 2013-June-25, 23:52, said:

He also might have been better served bidding 2♣ rather than 1♠, as this gets the strength over straight away and helps opener evaluate any singleton he might have - on this hand, you are probably never playing in ♠ unless opener can bid them, so it is not so vital to show your weak 4 card major here.

2♣ is artificial for us (3c♥ support OR real ♣, always 10+). With less than 15 pnts opener will bid 2♥ (6c♥) or 2♦ (5c♥). (not on the actual hand).
Responder can then bid 2♠: GF 4c♠ & 5c♣.
This shows the strength immediately, but shows the distribution less correct.

[Zelandakh]

kgr, on 2013-June-26, 10:34, said:

Yes, in the sequence for the actual hand it would be 2♥. 2♠ shows a 3c♠ for us, with Hx we will (hopefully) support later.

Replacing one IB with another is not the answer! Eric was writing about the OP where the auction is 1♦ - 1♠; 2♣ - 2♥. Hence his comment that returning to Opener's first bid suit would be 3♦. You might consider switching these 2 bids so that 2♠ is "nothing to say" and 3♦ is 3 spades; but you cannot play 2♠ as 3 spades and 2♥ as "nothing to say"!

[helene_t]

kgr, on 2013-June-25, 15:06, said:

The question was triggered by this hand from Larry Cohens bidding practice:

---

I forgot to jump to 3S, and that made the bidding easier. Maybe my partner also forgot that I had denied extras.

If I would have bid 3S iso 2S than 4C is control for Spades.
Then partner could not show the C-fit, except by bidding 6C.

You need ways to set clubs, hearts or spades as trump and the only idle bid you have is 4♦ so I don't think you can afford control bidding here.

If you play two-under transfers:
4♣->hearts
4♦->spades
4♥->clubs
then at least opener has one step left below game, to be used for last train or some such.

But I agree that opener's hand should be quite well-defined here since there is no room for control bidding. Maybe it should show 3514 with good spades.