BPO-006E

[inquiry]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sajt8765h83dt6ck4]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BPO-00E

 

Pard You

1♣   1♠

1NT  ?

 

Partner opens 1♣ and over your 1♠ response, rebids 1NT (opponents silent)[/hv]

 

This hand is open for discussion

[hrothgar]

BPO-006E: 2C

 

I'm bidding 2C and correcting the expected 2H response to 3S. Partner will (should?) understand that I'm interested in quick tricks and controls rather than “points”. If I'm lucky enough to hear 2S, then I'm blasting to 4S.

[han]

I'm bidding 2C and will bid 3S over the FORCED 2D response.

 

This shows an unbalanced invite, partner should degrade minor honors in side suits.

[Winstonm]

I don't like any form of NMF with this hand as I don't want to imply that partner needs some kind of decent spade fit for his hand to be of value - in my view the only thing that prevents this hand from being worth 4S is the terrible shape, so I'm going to make a straightforward bid of 3S so partner won't be reluctant to raise on xx or singleton Q of spades and control cards.

 

Winston

[Guest Jlall]

I would take 3S as a 1 suited SLAM try playing 2 way NMF. Not sure if this is "standard" or even if its defined by the system.

[cherdano]

I am not sure I understand this problem when we don't know the difference between a direct 3♠ (yes i know this is forcing in xyz but I doubt it is in standard 2-way nmf) and 2♣ followed by 3♠. I guess we agree that this is an invite.

 

Arend

[han]

I don't see the point of playing 3S as anything but a slam try when playing 2-way checkback. You have 2C-2D-2S and 2C-2D-3S available as an invite.

[Winstonm]

I would take 3S as a 1 suited SLAM try playing 2 way NMF. Not sure if this is "standard" or even if its defined by the system.

Odd. I would think 2D followed by 3S as forcing. I've never played the direct jump as anything but invitational - but then I'm used to playing 2C as the only force, regardless of the opening bid so what do I know?

[han]

Planning to bid 2D followed by a JUMP to 3S is wishful thinking! You can only do that if partner responds 2H. Although that may seem likely on this hand, it is not playable to have this as your only slam try.

 

2D followed by 3S is gameforcing of course (as 2D is gameforcing), but it does not guarantee slam interest. It also doesn't guarantee a great spade suit.

[mikeh]

When I sent my reply to Ben, I raised the question of what 3♠ meant, because it seemed undefined in the system notes (not a criticism of the notes, just a comment) so I answered by saying that I would bid 3♠ if invitational and 2♣ followed by 3♠ if a direct 3♠ was forcing.... I am waiting to see how Ben scored my vote :(

 

PS I play it both ways (but not with the same partners)

[inquiry]

This was my only "problem" of the set (by that, I mean this is the one I choose to include, although I did veto a few others). I choose this one for exactly the reasons being discussed here. Playing XYZ (as I think BBO Advanced does), how do the experts play

 

1) A direct jump to 3♠

2) 2♣ followed by 2/3♠

3) Would anyone suggest 2NT (presumably a tranfer to 3♣ followed by 3♠ and if so, what would that show?

 

I doubt we will get answers to all of these questions, but who knows. For what it is worth, Fred's view here is that a direct 3♠ rebid here is not forcing in BBO Advanced. Matts & Pamela Granovetter write up on xyz described all three level rebids by responder as "forcing" except for 3♣, which they play as signoff (their respnder 2NT is invitational). Others play 2NT response as the transfer to 3♣ as signoff in clubs, or one of several other hand types (if don't pass 3♣.

 

I will not say, yet, rather Fred went with 3♠ or something more exotic. But my choosing this problem was in an attempt to help define the boundries of the meaning of some of the xyz follow ups. If not directly from the experts initial response then from the subsequent discussion.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

I would take 3S as a 1 suited SLAM try playing 2 way NMF. Not sure if this is "standard" or even if its defined by the system.

That seems standard to me, but then I am biased, as that is the way I play it. BTW, when this hand was played in the Grov Cup (I beleive), it was played in 2♠ at one table and 4♠ at the other after the first three bids given in the problem. One player evaluated the hand as being worht a 4♠ bid (and as you will see, so did a fair number of panelist), the ohter player considered it worthy of only a signoff in 2♠.

[Blofeld]

I bid 3♠, but obviously I was hoping that that was natural and invitational.

 

If everyone agrees that this hand evaluates as an invitation with spades*, doesn't the problem just become "what's the system bid?" rather than judgement-related?

 

*of course, this is almost certainly not the case, so ignore my point.

[cherdano]

I will not say, yet, rather Fred went with 3♠ or something more exotic. But my choosing this problem was in an attempt to help define the boundries of the meaning of some of the xyz follow ups. If not directly from the experts initial response then from the subsequent discussion.

I know this has been discussed before, but I will say it once more: In my opinion, when we want to know whether 3♠ is forcing in BBO advanced, we should make a poll and ask whether 3♠ is/should be forcing. A bidding poll should be for discussion of judgement, or sometimes bidding strategies, given a fixed set of agreements.

[inquiry]

I will not say, yet, rather Fred went with 3♠ or something more exotic. But my choosing this problem was in an attempt to help define the boundries of the meaning of some of the xyz follow ups. If not directly from the experts initial response then from the subsequent discussion.

I know this has been discussed before, but I will say it once more: In my opinion, when we want to know whether 3♠ is forcing in BBO advanced, we should make a poll and ask whether 3♠ is/should be forcing. A bidding poll should be for discussion of judgement, or sometimes bidding strategies, given a fixed set of agreements.

Well, lets assume for the sake of arguement, that we already know that 3♠ is invitational (I think that would be a mistake, 3♠ should be ♠ and slam invite, but ok... sake of arguement).

 

That still doesn't mean 3♠ is right bid. Why? Because there would be in theory four possible ways to invite in spades..

 

1x-1S

1N-3S

 

1x-1S

1N-2C

2D-2S

 

1x-1S

1N-2C

2D-3S

 

1x-1S

1N-2N

3C-3S

 

Now, with the great limit on the nature of the 1NT rebid, you probably will never need four ways to invite, but clearly there must be some difference between 2C followed by 3♠ and a direct 3♠. Just setting up a poll to discover if 3♠ is forcing or not would not get to the heart of the matter (at least in my opinion). Perhaps a better way is to pick some well describe xzy-write up on the web and say, "here - this is the way BBO Advanced plays xzy" and then invite the panelist to complain if the write up is deficient.

[Winstonm]

As usual, without discussion continuations are undefined. I don't see the point in changing the meaning of the direct 3S because you can force this way:

 

1C-1S

1N-2C

2D-3S

 

However, there is a need to differentiate these hands:

 

K9xxxx, xx, AQxx, x

 

AKJ9xx, xxx, xx, Qx

 

I always used the checkback in checkback as a checkback - looking for a fit or help in the suit. If I have a good suit, I don't need to check.

 

Winston

[Guest Jlall]

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

[mike777]

This was my only "problem" of the set (by that, I mean this is the one I choose to include, although I did veto a few others). I choose this one for exactly the reasons being discussed here. Playing XYZ (as I think BBO Advanced does), how do the experts play

 

1) A direct jump to 3♠

2) 2♣ followed by 2/3♠

3) Would anyone suggest 2NT (presumably a tranfer to 3♣ followed by 3♠ and if so, what would that show?

 

I doubt we will get answers to all of these questions, but who knows. For what it is worth, Fred's view here is that a direct 3♠ rebid here is not forcing in BBO Advanced. Matts & Pamela Granovetter write up on xyz described all three level rebids by responder as "forcing" except for 3♣, which they play as signoff (their respnder 2NT is invitational). Others play 2NT response as the transfer to 3♣ as signoff in clubs, or one of several other hand types (if don't pass 3♣. 

 

I will not say, yet, rather Fred went with 3♠ or something more exotic. But my choosing this problem was in an attempt to help define the boundries of the meaning of some of the xyz follow ups. If not directly from the experts initial response then from the subsequent discussion.

 

Ben

I was not sure how we play direct 3s. Ben, if I remember the BBO notes do not say XYZ, in fact the notes seem to say a direct 3minor bid is not forcing, in XYZ a direct 3d bid would be forcing.

 

1c=1s

1nt=3d forcing in xyz but not in bbo advanced notes it seems.

 

1d=1s

1nt=3d=forcing in xyz but not in bbo advanced notes it seems.

 

"After 1 of a minor-1 of a major-1NT, 2♣ = Invitational checkback, 2♦ = Forcing checkback, 3 of minor = To play."

[Winstonm]

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

Only thing that kept me from 4 spades was the lousy shape.

 

Winston

[mikeh]

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

It was very close, but I decided to invite. I like the style in which an invite says: accept unless you have a reason not to. If your style is accept if you have a reason to, then I bid 4♠

[han]

Mikeh recently wrote down his agreements for XYZ here on the forum and I really liked it. It only uses 2 of these four auctions for invitational hands (those starting with 2C).

[cherdano]

Of course there are different invites, but the difference between these sequences is what you have agreed them to be with your partner. I would be highly surprised if any expert would be confident of assuming any difference in meaning when playing with another pickup expert.

(Btw, 2NT definitely doesn't force 3♣ just because you play "2way nmf" -- this is not xyz.)

 

Arend

[inquiry]

As usual, without discussion continuations are undefined.

I wonder if this is true. IF you agree to "Jacoby 2NT", does that mean all rebids are undefined? Of course not. Three level rebids are short. But the fuzzy area (without discussion) is waht are four level rebids... voids or second suits. Here, without discussion, you have to "guess" what your expert partner will take as "standard" (draw from you simple agreement to play jacoby).

 

While I prefer 4 level as second suit, if I agreed "jacoby" with no further discussion, I would interpret a four level response as a void. Same thing applies I would think with xyz. Without any other agreement, I would assume the convention the way it was written up most places where I have seen it. With jumps to three level forcing (even jump rebids). The fuzzy area seems to be jump 3♣ rebid. Some play 1x-1y-1Z-2NT as way to begin signoff in clubs. The logic of this is you can bid 2♣ and over partners forced 2♦ rebid 2NT with invite hand (at the risk of inviting some lead directing doubles). So that would be an area I would also like defined.

 

I am more than happy to dictate what the standard should be, because of course, I know how it REALLY should be play (I am always right, I am sure you have noticed).... :-) But somehow, trying to probe the area of expert agreement and draw a consensus seems better approach to me.

 

BTW Winston, in early 1980's I lived in Oklahoma City and played weekly iwht Fred Chen, didn't you live and play there then?

 

Ben

[mike777]

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

too many balanced 11-12 hcp hands will not make game.

Some 13 hcp balanced will not either.

[Walddk]

4♠ is a wild gamble with that shape in my opinion. There must be a way to involve partner in the decision. Isn't that what he is there for?

 

Roland