[shnk]

This is Jacoby: 4+ hearts and game forcing
1♥ - (P) - 2NT

This is Jordan/Truscott: 4+ hearts and invitational or better
1♥ - (X) - 2NT!

This shows invitational or better values with 3 hearts? 3+ hearts? 4+ hearts?
1♥ - (1♠) - 2♠

How am I doing so far?

How do you like to play this 2NT bid? If conventional, does it have a name and how to show a balanced 11ish points with spades stopped and no heart support?
1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT

[Cyberyeti]

We play 2♠ as a 3 card raise and 2N as a 4+ card raise, both inv+ don't know how standard this is.

[RMB1]

shnk, on 2013-August-02, 02:09, said:

How do you like to play this 2NT bid? If conventional, does it have a name and how to show a balanced 11ish points with spades stopped and no heart support?
1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT

> how to show a balanced 11ish points with spades stopped and no heart support?
Double and then rebid 2NT?

[phoenix214]

I dont know if this is the best, but i play that 1M-2NT is INV or ST in precison, in nat INV+, If opps bid something in between then 2NT becomes natural, and a direct cue bid is INV+ with 3+support

[mcphee]

Standard when interference 1NT is in the 8-11 range and 2NT 12-14. Everyone seems to have adjusted these ranges.

[fromageGB]

While it is historic and normal for the 2NT to be invitational+ 4 card support, and the cue bid to be inv+ 3 card support, this seems the wrong way round to me. With my regular partners I play 2NT = 3 card 11+hcp, and cue = 4 card 9+ hcp.

My reasoning is that when you have 4 card support, they are more likely to have a fit, so bidding the cue means that they have to bid their suit at the risky 4 level. If you bid only 2NT they can easily and safely bid their suit at the 3 level. Whereas when you have only 3 card support for the 2NT, with the 11+, when they bid at the 3 level partner is able to judge to make a penalty double when appropriate. He cannot do that if 2NT showed the 4 card support.

[PhilKing]

fromageGB, on 2013-August-05, 04:31, said:

While it is historic and normal for the 2NT to be invitational+ 4 card support, and the cue bid to be inv+ 3 card support, this seems the wrong way round to me. With my regular partners I play 2NT = 3 card 11+hcp, and cue = 4 card 9+ hcp.

My reasoning is that when you have 4 card support, they are more likely to have a fit, so bidding the cue means that they have to bid their suit at the risky 4 level. If you bid only 2NT they can easily and safely bid their suit at the 3 level. Whereas when you have only 3 card support for the 2NT, with the 11+, when they bid at the 3 level partner is able to judge to make a penalty double when appropriate. He cannot do that if 2NT showed the 4 card support.

I might be being a bit thick, but how does bidding 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ force them to the four level?

The (main) reason that using 2♠ to show three trumps is better is that it allows you to reach 3NT the right way up with a 5-3 fit. With four-card support, that is rarely an issue.

[Zelandakh]

The logical conclusion from fromage's logic is to play the lower of cue/2NT as a good 3 card raise and the higher as a good 4 card raise. So 1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT = 4 card raise and 1♥ - (2♦) - 2NT = 3 card raise. That said, PK's point about right-siding 3NT is also relevant.

[PhilKing]

But even where the cue is at the three level, the oppo can just double to show a raise.

[fromageGB]

Sorry, not the 4-level in this instance, but it is the 4-level when their suit is lower than ours. When their suit is higher than ours, a jump to 2NT and a cue both allow them to bid at the 3 level, so there is no difference. However, I like things simple, so play the same whichever way, hence 2NT for a 3 card support.

I don't buy the argument about right siding a NT contract. While I can't claim to remember every hand I have played, I have never chosen a NT contract [edit - when opponents are bidding] when there is a 5-3 major fit. Maybe I sometimes should! But surely this would be so rare as to be ignorable, if you believe in the logic I stated earlier.

Quote

But even where the cue is at the three level, the oppo can just double to show a raise.

Yes, the raise has been suggested, but it has not been made. Opener has free choice as to bid 3M or 4M, and if he prefers 3M he can still double if second seat goes on to 4m.

[oberiko]

Might be a bit simple, but we (in an Acol context) play the following:

• 1♥ - (P) - 2NT: Jacoby (4+ hearts, 16+ HCP or 13+ HCP with singleton/void)
  
• 1♥ - (X) - 2NT: Truscott (4+ hearts, 10+ HCP)
  
• 1♥ - (1♠) - 2♠: Unassuming cue-bid (4+ hearts, 10+ HCP)
  
• 1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT: Natural (10-12 HCP, 3- hearts, stoppers in all unbid suits and good ones in spades)

[Zelandakh]

oberiko, on 2013-August-07, 19:57, said:

1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT: Natural (10-12 HCP, 3- hearts, stoppers in all unbid suits and good ones in spades)

I think you can do better than this. For example, you might play X = 3 hearts. Then the 2NT response is as described but also denies a third heart. If you prefer to play X as some sort of negative then your natural 2NT hands can start with a X or 2m bid, freeing up 2NT for something else such as a strong 3 card raise.

[oberiko]

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-12, 06:19, said:

I think you can do better than this. For example, you might play X = 3 hearts. Then the 2NT response is as described but also denies a third heart. If you prefer to play X as some sort of negative then your natural 2NT hands can start with a X or 2m bid, freeing up 2NT for something else such as a strong 3 card raise.

We had considered the idea of making 2NT an artificial bid of some sort (including your suggestion of showing 10+ HCP and 3 card support), but decided against it for a few reasons.

1. Adds complexity. We already have UCB to show a sound raise and a general agreement that NT in competition is (almost) always a limit bid showing range, stoppers and denying majors.

2. Natural / limit NT is pretty useful. Especially in sequences such as {1m - (1M)} where a response of 2N gives partner a good range of options (play 2N, sign-off in 3m or 3N, let opponents take the contract if they bid up further etc.) and also makes it more difficult for the advancer to get in the auction.

3. Less common. Standard English Acol uses the bid as natural / limit. Our philosophy is to try not to divert to much, as it is more likely to cause confusion when playing with different partners.

No doubt we will miss the occasional 5-3 fit, and it does little to hinder the opposition in auctions like {1M - (2m)}, but we figure the benefits of customizing don't outweigh costs.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2013-August-05, 04:31, said:

While it is historic and normal for the 2NT to be invitational+ 4 card support, and the cue bid to be inv+ 3 card support,

Hum... well yes, I guess "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" is starting to get old. But I think "historic" might be a bit of an overbid yet.

I know some (stronger than me, which isn't saying much) players who think it's not so useful to distinguish between 3- and 4-card support. They might generalise more to offensive (shapely / points in our suit) vs. defensive (less shapely / points in other suits) raises, or play one of these as a general force without a fit (being fans of NFBs), or even play one as exactly invitational and the other as game-forcing.

But me, I still like cue = 3-card support; 2NT = 4-card support.

Oh and one more thing with regard to the original post: I would like to point out that playing uncontested 1♥-(p)-2NT as invitational or better also has a lot of merit.

[Zelandakh]

oberiko, on 2013-August-18, 11:09, said:

We had considered the idea of making 2NT an artificial bid of some sort (including your suggestion of showing 10+ HCP and 3 card support), but decided against it for a few reasons.

So do it the other way, X = 3 hearts and 2NT = nat with <3 hearts. Within Acol, you can actually play that when they bid 1♠ over our 1♥, X always shows a 7 card heart fit. That is not optimal but it is clear and simple and you lose almost nothing other than the ability to use X for something else (usually a more complicated something else).

[fromageGB]

Doing it this way you can then X as a two-way bid, showing 3 card support in a weaker or stronger hand. If you want the direct major raise to be "preemptive" (you haven't said how you use it), then you can use X to show a "full strength" raise to 2M. If you bid again, it shows an invitational+ hand. 2NT then retains its natural no-support meaning. I'm sure it helps in competition to know that partner has 3 card support (or not) rather than your "3-".

Does this use of the double get caught by your "adds complexity" argument? Double to show support is no more complex than X to show spades, or an unspecified 4 card suit.

If you were playing 5 card majors it is probably more important to show 3 card support after 1♥ (2m) than it is to look for a fit in a second suit, not showing immediately your fit for the first. If it goes 1♥ (2♣) X=4 spades (3♣) p (p) you look a bit silly going off in 3♥ when 3♣ goes off. But if partner had 6 hearts (he can't bid again over 3♣, when there is no support) you equally look a bit silly not bidding 3♥. Without the complexity of transfers, X can be used instead for 3 card support.