[Hanoi5]

Teams, both:

♠98x
♥xxx
♦Axxx
♣xxx

2♣-2♦
2♠-???

3♠ or 4♠?

[aguahombre]

This is in what forum?

[Free]

Depends on:
- does 2♦ show/deny something?
- is 2♠ forcing?
- will 3♠ be forcing if we bid it?

Basically we want to be in 4♠, but if we have the luxury of bidding a forcing 3♠, that's what I'd do.

[JLOGIC]

.............

[PetteriLem]

If 2♦ was negative response, I have to bid 3♠. I am maxium and have an ace. Jump to 4♠ could be totally empty hand and I have much more than that.

[mgoetze]

What argument are we supposed to settle - the argument about what system you had agreed to?

[broze]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-23, 15:22, said:

What argument are we supposed to settle - the argument about what system you had agreed to?

Clearly there was no agreement, otherwise there wouldn't have been an argument. I suppose OP's question is: "what is standard?"

[Fluffy]

The standard among expert players is to have an agreement towards basic sequences.

[broze]

Fluffy, on 2012-April-23, 16:50, said:

The standard among expert players is to have an agreement towards basic sequences.

I have heard Justin and others start sentences: "with a random expert pick-up partner I would assume..." I still don't think it is unreasonable to ask what one might assume here if auction undiscussed.

[dake50]

4S is fit but no A nor K nor single nor void. NO SLAM.
I guess 3S then. "Slow down, partner!" coming.

[Hanoi5]

So this is just♥ another matter of agreement.

I've always played the jump to 4 as the ugliest hand. But I've also heard people who play second negative, so after 2♠ they'd bid either 2NT or 3♣ to show a REALLY bad hand.

However the problem is a theorist said he'd bid 4♠ with that hand and also if the diamonds were Qxxx. He said that the opener should move over 4♠ with 2 losers (instead of 3 for example). Is this playable?

Opener had:

♠AKQJT
♥AK
♦K
♣AKxxx

It's hard not to move even over 4♠, but on a bad day that's all that can be made when partner tables a yarborough.

[MrAce]

PetteriLem, on 2012-April-22, 14:11, said:

If 2♦ was negative response, I have to bid 3♠. I am maxium and have an ace. Jump to 4♠ could be totally empty hand and I have much more than that.

I don't like this but i know most people play the way you just said.

Jumping to 4♠ should show some ♠ values or imo 4 card ♠. (as you can tell i hate the fast arrival methods) There are other ways to show trash hands such as bidding 2nd negative (3♣ here) and then bidding 4♠. Etc etc..Also responder can bid 3NT over 2♠ to show 3 card fit balanced hands and not too broke as the one that would start with 2nd neg but not too hopeful about slam either...Just my thoughts.

[gnasher]

Assuming 2♦ was just waiting, I think it's normal to play that:
- Very bad hands bid the second negative
- 4♠ shows four good trumps and no side-suit control, eg QJxx xx xxxx xxx, or the same hand with an extra queen.
- 3♠ promises semi-positive values, such as this.

That gives 3♠ quite a wide range, so you should play serious/non-serious 3NT.

[rogerclee]

gnasher, on 2012-April-24, 01:14, said:

That gives 3♠ quite a wide range, so you should play serious/non-serious 3NT.

I have always felt that 3N = single suited slam try and 4suit = natural slam try is a good method for this auction.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-April-24, 01:14, said:

Assuming 2♦ was just waiting, I think it's normal to play that:
- Very bad hands bid the second negative
- 4♠ shows four good trumps and no side-suit control, eg QJxx xx xxxx xxx, or the same hand with an extra queen.
- 3♠ promises semi-positive values, such as this.

Agreed
I also consider the hand unsuitable for 4♠.
4♠ should certainly deny a first round control, though 3♠ does not promise one.

Quote

That gives 3♠ quite a wide range, so you should play serious/non-serious 3NT.

I beg to differ.
Starting the bidding at the two level with no indication whatsoever about your distribution and then make 3NT an artificial bid seems to me the height of folly.
If I were forced to play such methods I would refuse to raise immediately with 3=3=4=3.
I would pass a 3NT rebid by opener. I see no good reason why opener can not have something like ♠AKJxxxx, ♥AQ, ♦Qx ♣Kx.
This is also the main reason I would reject 4♠. It is difficult to reach 3NT when you bid 4♠ with 3=3=4=3

Rainer Herrmann

[mgoetze]

broze, on 2012-April-23, 17:38, said:

I have heard Justin and others start sentences: "with a random expert pick-up partner I would assume..." I still don't think it is unreasonable to ask what one might assume here if auction undiscussed.

That requires at least the additional information that we are talking about North American experts.

Playing with a North American pickup partner with no agreements, I assume 2♠ is forcing.
Playing with a German pickup partner with no agreements, I assume 2♠ is nonforcing.
Surely this is quite a fundamental difference.
Playing with anyone for more than 4 boards, I would have ascertained at least whether 2♣ is the strongest possible opening bid in our system. Playing with anyone for more than 12 boards or so, I would have defined at least vaguely what a 2♦ response means and whether it is possible to get out below game on a non-2NT rebid.

All this is not in the least a discussion of "Expert-Class Bridge".

[rhm]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-24, 02:53, said:

Playing with a German pickup partner with no agreements, I assume 2♠ is nonforcing.

If 2♣ would have been "semi-forcing" (or Precision for that matter) it would have been explained.
Besides, few people outside of Germany still play such a nonsense.
To put it kindly Germany is not the leading edge in bidding theory.

Rainer Herrmann

[mgoetze]

rhm, on 2012-April-24, 03:40, said:

Besides, few people outside of Germany still play such a nonsense.

I hear it is still reasonably popular in England and France as well.

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-24, 04:24, said:

I hear it is still reasonably popular in England and France as well.

In England it's quite popular to play 2♣ or 2♦ as the equivalent of "semi-forcing", but with opener's 2M rebid being a one-round force. That's "popular" in the same way as Acol is popular - almost none of the top players play it, but lots of lower-level players do.

[han]

Bidding second negative with 4-card support feels really wrong. With 3 small support and nothing else that's useful I can see bidding second negative.