[micsfyuen]

I am an intermediate player, looking for advice on developing slam bidding agreement with partner when we have 2 suit fit.

assuming 2/1 and 5 card Major

e.g.
1S - 2C -
3C -
when responder has S fit/tolerance and slam interest, suppose he could bid 3S here, does 3S require 3+card in S support? could it be a cue bid with some Ax of Spades? what would be the agreed trump in 4NT RKCB later? Would the treatment be different if 1S - 2H - 3H instead of clubs response?

1N - 2H(txf) -
2S - 3C -
what does opener do when he has different fit, S fit only/C fit only/both suit fit?

Any scheme or agreement or convention that would help us understand how to handle 2 suit fit in slam bidding would be very helpful.

[DavidKok]

In no particular order:

• Generally the last bid suit is the trump suit for RKC. Some people play 6RKC/double barrel (where both suit kings are keycards, and good luck sorting out the queens), but it's sufficiently rare I would recommend not playing this.
  
• The suit agreement differs on the three auctions. Over 1♠-2♣; 3♣-3♠ I expect responder to have 3(+) spades, and that is the trump suit for now. This means that if you have just clubs and a control in spades you have to bid 4♣, or introduce artificiality. Thankfully it's rare to hold a hand that has slam interest but lacks controls in two suits. The second auction is a sore spot for any bidding system, 1♠-2♥; 3♥-3♠ can have multiple meanings. I'd just pick one and stick with it - my personal choice is that 3♠ is a control bid for hearts, since we have already established a major suit fit, but you could write books about this auction and how to avoid it. No matter which choice you make it won't be perfect. The third auction, 1NT-2♥*; 2♠-3♣ (GF) - ? has fairly standard continuations: 3♠ shows 3(+) spades, any other bid confirms clubs as trumps and shows a control (or, if you play 'no slam tries below 3NT', shows values and implies weakness in the fourth suit). And a direct 3NT bid is a drop-dead, no fit (or hand with fit but extremely unsuitable for slam).
  
• All of the above is also dependent on the style of 2/1 you play - for example, on the first auction in my system it is possible that responder has only a singleton clubs, but this is not standard. One advanced and overarching theme on these auctions is that of captaincy. On these ambiguous auctions you can often get away with only one of the two partners knowing which suit is trumps, as long as the other hand is described in sufficient detail. It's a lot easier to have some simple rules though!

If you want a simple agreement, first priority should always be to establish what the trump suit is. You could play that on all these actions delayed support for the first suit establishes that as trumps, and any other bid fails to establish this (and therefore confirms the second suit, with the exception of 3NT).

[LBengtsson]

I admit I am no expert in all the bids in 2/1, but I do trust this is right.

First, if you have 4 card major support as responder you should use Jacoby 2NT in the auction. Period.

1♠ - 2m(GF) - 3m (raise fit) - 3♠ shows 3 card ♠ support and fixes ♠ as trump for RKCB. Now what I will say here is that the contract might be played better in a 4-4m fit than the ♠ suit. How you then return to the minor suit fit I do not know.

However, if 1♠ - 2♥(5+) - 3♥ fit (3+) is an exception (as far as I know) and fixes ♥ as the trump suit, so now 3♠ would be a cue.

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

On the transfer example 1NT - 2♥ (transfer) - 2♠ - 3♣

opener will have to determine where the best contract will be. The bid of a new suit (3♣/3♦/3♥) after the transfer is forcing to game,and shows an unbalanced hand by responder.

So opener with a fit for ♠ 3+ will bid 3♠ here. Even with 4m fit support for partner. (Again a 4-4m fit may be the best contract at slam level but minor suit slams are harder to bid.)

And opener with only 2♠ but 4m fit support will raise responder's second suit. (Though that will push the contract beyond 3NT which may be the best place at MPs, so some partnerships will use new suit bids below 3NT here as showing (indirect) 4m support also,and showing a stopper in the suit bid.)

Edit: As usual DavidKok got there first lol! (whilst I was slow-typing. I will read what he says to see where I went wrong

[mw64ahw]

In the first example assuming 2♣ is 3+ I tend to pick the suit where I can count the most keycards plus Queen. If equal I pick the Major. In a GF context I would treat 3♠ as a slam invite. With ♣ favouured I use 4♦+ (Kickbo control showing) rather than RKC as this initiates both a keycard and control check. This may be delayed if 3♦/3♥ is an intermediate bid.

In the 2nd example responder has to make the SI move given 1NT has defined strength. Again I use the same principles as above.

[mikeh]

As usual I am not in complete agreement with David, but do think much of what he wrote is good. Here’s my take:

1. 1S 2C 3C 3S. I think the (very) great majority of 2/1 players use this to show 3+ support for spades. Note that the length shown by 2C depends on partnership agreement, largely based on what 2D/H show. It’s standard for 1S 2H to show 5+ hearts. It’s increasingly common, in expert circles at least, for 1S 2D to also promise 5+, but it’s nowhere near standard. If you need 4 card spade support to use a forcing raise, such as Jacoby 2N, and 2H/D show 5 card suits, then you’re pretty much forced to play that 1S 2C could be 2+….you have no other bid with a good game force and 3=4=4=2 shape.


2. 1S 2H 3H 3S: as David says or implies, this is a controversial topic. Historically the expert consensus, at least in NA, was that this showed a double fit. Six card keycard, which I play in one partnership, helps here. More recently, as I read in a fairly recent Bridge World, many experts think 3S is more conveniently played as a cue bid, with hearts the agreed trump. I’m agnostic as to which is better…I play it differently in my two main partnerships. It’s far more important to have (and remember) an agreement than it is to have the ‘right’ agreement, when the practical effect of one’s choice will gain or cost infrequently

1N 2H 2S 3C. I disagree with David here. It’s standard that 3C promises 5 spades, 4+ clubs and some doubt about strain. Often it’s trying to avoid 3N when one is wide open in a red suit (or has only one stopper and needs to knock out an enemy stopper). It also, but less frequently (especially at mps) may be a probe for slam…anywhere from mild interest to a slam force.

So far, I think we’re in agreement. But I’d play 3D/H by opener as ambiguous. For example, say opener has Qx AKJx Jxx Axxx, and responder KJxxx x KQx Kxxx. Responder is worried, for the purposes of 3N, about hearts. Give opener Ax xxx AJxx AQxx and we need to play in a black suit game or even in 6C….definitely not 3N. So to me, 3R by openers shows strong stoppers and concern about the other red suit or a hand that is so good for clubs that he’ll pull 3N, turning the 3R into a cuebid.

Btw, and recognizing that this is a bit advanced for an intermediate level question (but to show that there are better mousetraps out there) in my partnerships we use what is quite a common expert agreement. We use responder’s second bid as a transfer.

With spades and clubs, and gf values, we bid 1N 2H 2S 2N….now opener can ‘raise’ clubs by bidding 3C, preserving the entire 3 level for exploratory bidding. This does mean that with 5+ spades and invitational values one has to go through stayman first.

Getting back to the OP: as you can see from the posts so far, there is a far amount of consensus on some of this, but sufficient variability that it’s worth discussing with partner. There’s an old but true saying that two good players playing a bad method but knowing it well will usually beat two equally skilled players playing a better method, but with lots of forgets. So, for example, whether 1S 2H 3H 3S sets spades or is a cuebid isn’t that important SO LONG AS you both agree and remember

Oh, and wrt to the statement, by Bengtsson, that would one has to bid 1S 2N anytime one has gf values and 4 spades…..I disagree very, very strongly.

Whether I use a forcing raise or make a 2/1 response then raise spades depends on my hand. With a good side suit, say AKxxx, I am never hiding that from partner. Often, what determines the number of tricks we can take depends upon his holding in my suit. When I have 9+ black cards, it’s unlikely that partner is taking pitches on any red suit winners I have. So xxx in clubs would be very bad for slam (even worse for grand) while Qx or Qxx would be wonderful. Partner will upgrade his hand with fitting honours, be neutral with shortness, and be conservative with xxx.

But there will be times when I raise despite holding a side five card suit. Almost always the suit will be quite weak, such that Hx will still likely mean we have a loser. Why? Because with a good or even mediocre forcing raise structure I may be able to discover shortness in that suit, in opener’s hand….that’s not the only reason, but it’s an important one.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2022-October-05, 12:51, said:

1N 2H 2S 3C. I disagree with David here. It’s standard that 3C promises 5 spades, 4+ clubs and some doubt about strain. Often it’s trying to avoid 3N when one is wide open in a red suit (or has only one stopper and needs to knock out an enemy stopper). It also, but less frequently (especially at mps) may be a probe for slam…anywhere from mild interest to a slam force.

So far, I think we’re in agreement. But I’d play 3D/H by opener as ambiguous. For example, say opener has Qx AKJx Jxx Axxx, and responder KJxxx x KQx Kxxx. Responder is worried, for the purposes of 3N, about hearts. Give opener Ax xxx AJxx AQxx and we need to play in a black suit game or even in 6C….definitely not 3N. So to me, 3R by openers shows strong stoppers and concern about the other red suit or a hand that is so good for clubs that he’ll pull 3N, turning the 3R into a cuebid.

I think this is the 'no slam tries below 3NT' treatment I mentioned, so no disagreement here (although I do not play it this way). There are subtle nuances - to what extent is 3♣ a choice of games versus a slam investigation, and what is the value of scientific exploration of 3NT versus blasting it. I think the practical difference between the treatments is small (and I would much rather do away with all of responder's rebid structure, but that's a different discussion entirely), but the control bid variant has the virtue of simplicity. Plus, controls by a NT opener are always values, so they often coincide with showing fragments.

[LBengtsson]

mikeh, on 2022-October-05, 12:51, said:

Oh, and wrt to the statement, by Bengtsson, that would one has to bid 1S 2N anytime one has gf values and 4 spades…..I disagree very, very strongly.

I agree totally, Mike. Perhaps I should not have used the word 'Period'. I actually think the Jacoby 2NT should only be used with a specific shape and point range as a response. Responder can be the boss in auctions where he has very good (4M+) support for partner's opening major suit bid and a game forcing hand and might make a 'dummy' bid with 2m to set up the game force.

The point I was trying to make is responder distinguishing between 3M and 4M support for opener. This is vital information where opener has extra values and becomes the boss in the auction.

Actually, that is a whole topic in itself, who becomes 'boss' in 2/1 auctions. Sometimes it is obvious, but on others, I feel, players are unsure who takes the role.

[micsfyuen]

Thank you for the detailed replies!

There are some more questions that I would like to ask:
1. Is both minors bidding as controvertial as both mjors?
1D - 2C -
3C - 3D
A cue or a fit? What is the RKCB suit?

2. Do we establish 2nd suit fit at 4 levels?
1C - 1S -
3S - 4C
A cue or a fit? What is the RKCB suit?

3. It feels like some 5-6level bidding might be confusing too with 2 suit fit:
1S - 2D -
3D - 3S -
4N - 5C -
Seems it is commonly agreed that 4N is RKCB for S unless agreed otherwise. Do we use 5D to ask trump SQ? Or 5H?
(At the table, I probably would choose to not ask trump Q at all to avoid confusion)

[DavidKok]

• In my partnership this auction establishes diamonds as trumps and shows a double fit. I'm not sure whether this is controversial - on the auction opener shows a minor two-suiter, so if responder is weak in both majors (implied by showing both clubs and diamonds) 3NT is out of the picture and we're in slam probe territory.
  
• This auction shows a control in clubs, not length. Also in my partnership 3♠ denies a balanced hand and therefore shows real clubs (5+ unless 4=1=4=4 or 4=4=1=4), so we don't show shortage in clubs as a control and the bid shows the ace or king. Spades are trumps for any future keycard asking bids.
  
• I would not jump to Blackwood on the auction, why waste all that bidding space between 3♠ and 4NT? But if you do, spades are trumps, 5♦ asks for the queen and there is no way to sign off in 5♦, although some partnerships do have ways to suggest 6♦.

[mikeh]

LBengtsson, on 2022-October-05, 23:45, said:

I agree totally, Mike. Perhaps I should not have used the word 'Period'. I actually think the Jacoby 2NT should only be used with a specific shape and point range as a response. Responder can be the boss in auctions where he has very good (4M+) support for partner's opening major suit bid and a game forcing hand and might make a 'dummy' bid with 2m to set up the game force.

The point I was trying to make is responder distinguishing between 3M and 4M support for opener. This is vital information where opener has extra values and becomes the boss in the auction.

Actually, that is a whole topic in itself, who becomes 'boss' in 2/1 auctions. Sometimes it is obvious, but on others, I feel, players are unsure who takes the role.

There are a few situations, imo, where one player can take charge. Jacoby 2N forcing raises often lead to responder taking charge, at least initially. However, I think the concept of captaincy is overblown. In most game forcing auctions I think the better analogy is that the players are having a dialogue…a conversation rather than an interrogation.

Each player describes his hand in a collaborative fashion. Eventually they reach agreement on the final contract.

Indeed, imo the concept of captaincy underlies why so many non-experts haul out keycard as a slam try: they lack the skill needed to bid conversationally…or think their partner does….so ‘take charge’ inappropriately.

I see no reason for always using an immediate forcing raise whenever responder has four or more cards in opener’s major and a gf hand

Much of the time, the forcing raise is best but sometimes showing a strong side suit before showing support is more effective. It’s not done as a ‘dummy’ bid, whatever that means. It’s done to help partner evaluate…especially his holding in responder’s main suit.

Opener doesn’t need to know about the exact degree of trump support: opener needs to be able to listen to the auction. Holding 4 card support, responder will tend to like his hand better than if he held 3 card support. Slam bidding, in particular, is primarily about exchanging information about whether one likes one’s hand within the context of the auction.

[LBengtsson]

mikeh, on 2022-October-06, 08:19, said:

Much of the time, the forcing raise is best but sometimes showing a strong side suit before showing support is more effective. It’s not done as a ‘dummy’ bid, whatever that means. It’s done to help partner evaluate…especially his holding in responder’s main suit.

I agree entirely. Maybe I should explain myself better. When responder has 4M support and, let say, 4432 or 4333 and a reasonably strong hand, bidding a three-card minor at the 2 level may be necessary as a GF - a 'dummy bid', a short suit bid, that is what I was thinking. I am not a fan of bidding 2NT Jacoby with this balanced shape.

I am going off the forum poster's topic now, but actually I can not remember reading anything about when it is best to use Jacoby 2NT and when it is not. As you say, if you have a strong side suit that should sometimes be bid first in these auctions. The trouble is many club level (intermediate) players are conditioned to use Jacoby 2NT with any hand with 4M support and opening values, when other options may be available.

[mikeh]

LBengtsson, on 2022-October-06, 19:29, said:

I agree entirely. Maybe I should explain myself better. When responder has 4M support and, let say, 4432 or 4333 and a reasonably strong hand, bidding a three-card minor at the 2 level may be necessary as a GF - a 'dummy bid', a short suit bid, that is what I was thinking. I am not a fan of bidding 2NT Jacoby with this balanced shape.

I am going off the forum poster's topic now, but actually I can not remember reading anything about when it is best to use Jacoby 2NT and when it is not. As you say, if you have a strong side suit that should sometimes be bid first in these auctions. The trouble is many club level (intermediate) players are conditioned to use Jacoby 2NT with any hand with 4M support and opening values, when other options may be available.

I think we actually disagree quite a lot. While I will sometimes use a forcing raise (2N for spades, 2S for hearts) with an unbalanced hand, the 4432/4333 hands are, I think, far more common and I think work well in our raise structures…I play different methods in my two current partnerships. I don’t believe in misleading partner in constructive auctions…if I respond in a new suit, 2/1, and then show good spades, I want him to know to look at his clubs….any A/K/Q or xx would be good…xxx would usually be bad. I would respond 2C with say 4225 and 2/3 top honours, but would tend to forcing raise with a weaker or stronger suit. When the 2C bid might be AJx or such, it doesn’t represent a source of tricks so I’d expect to use the forcing raise instead.