[straube]

I've noticed that after interference over NT or strong club of 2C, 2D, or 2H that transfers into their suit can handle both stopper ask information as well as leave room for finding 4/4 major suit fits and that the bid od 3S which denies a major and asks a stopper is wasted. It could be used, for example, to show 5/5 in the two lowest or be a takeout with shortness in the opponent's suit etc. Otoh, interference of 2S poses a problem because 3H needs to be a stopper ask with 4 hearts while 3S needs to ask a stopper and deny for hearts. Agree so far? Anyone else used 3S in different senses like this? Is it better to be 5/5 lowest?

[Zelandakh]

How are you planning to deal with 1NT - (2♥) - 3♦ - (4♥) if the 3♦ bid does not promise 4 spades? Even 1NT - (2♥) - 3♦ - (3♥); P - (4♥) looks problematic, assuming the pass shows no heart stop and says nothing about spade length. That's quite aside from the obvious wrong-siding issues.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-15, 01:53, said:

How are you planning to deal with 1NT - (2♥) - 3♦ - (4♥) if the 3♦ bid does not promise 4 spades? Even 1NT - (2♥) - 3♦ - (3♥); P - (4♥) looks problematic, assuming the pass shows no heart stop and says nothing about spade length. That's quite aside from the obvious wrong-siding issues.

Good point. Thx

[PhilKing]

Why do you need a stopper ask with four of the other major? Do you not play double for take out?

For technical reasons, I think it is better to play that 3♠ is always the cue bid, whether they have overcalled 2♥ or 2♠, but it shows a hand that cannot stand us passing a take-out double (ie a void in their suit), Now, if they bid four of their major, opener is very well placed.

3♥ is always invitational with the relevant six card major, so 1NT-2♥-3♥ is exactly invitational with six spades.

This allows us more definition for 3♦, showing the other major. If we have spades, it is game forcing. This is way better than having to bid 3♥ showing inv or better!

When our suit is hearts, it is competitive or game forcing, so we get three ranges of hand. Opener generally bids 3♥, but can break with a moose.

[Zelandakh]

So you have 1NT - (2♥)

3♦ = GF with 5+ spades
3♥ = INV with 6+ spades
3♠ = 4 spades
3NT = nat

You seem to be missing a bid for a raise to 3NT without a heart stopper. The more usual scheme

3♦ = 4 spades
3♥ = INV+ with 5+ spades
3♠ = 3NT raise without heart stop
3NT = nat

retains this option, admittedly at the cost of less definition in spade-based hands. I assume you do something somewhere else in the structure to compensate for this, or was your second question a suggestion that you bid that hand via a double?

[PhilKing]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-16, 05:58, said:

So you have 1NT - (2♥)

3♦ = GF with 5+ spades
3♥ = INV with 6+ spades
3♠ = 4 spades
3NT = nat

You seem to be missing a bid for a raise to 3NT without a heart stopper. The more usual scheme

3♦ = 4 spades
3♥ = INV+ with 5+ spades
3♠ = 3NT raise without heart stop
3NT = nat

retains this option, admittedly at the cost of less definition in spade-based hands. I assume you do something somewhere else in the structure to compensate for this, or was your second question a suggestion that you bid that hand via a double?

Yep. My only cue bid hand contains 4 of the other major and a VOID in their suit. It seems to me that the standard cue just loses a round of bidding for no particularly good reason.

I just double on all hands that want to bid lacking an alternative route. Double followed by major, I play as forcing, double followed by 3m, non-forcing. Double followed by cue asks stop. I don't play scramble 2NT in response to double - 2NT is just natural.

I think you end up with a more fluid exchange of information this way albeit at the cost of information leakage to the opening leader.