Tough call

[mike777]

Well if you really want to be conservative and opener could be 2=2=5=4 with 11 hcp you could just rebid 3d with responder's hand.

 

Let's give opener:

xxx=x=AKQxx=QJxx or worse ;).

 

Your responder hand was:

Jxx=AK9xx=xx=ATx

[adhoc3]

Without pre-disccussion with PD:

 

My bid is 2NT: showing minmum balanced hand. Qx is not perfect, but it is not totally unaccepable. Maybe PD has Axx or Kxx. I should possess favorable position right now. If he is a serious and considerable PD (so I can put blame on him ;) ), his immediate 3NT will promise ♠ stopper or enough fast winners. I can confirm with him later.

 

If without ♠ Qx; a straight and neutral 3♣.

 

I'd like to reserve 2♠ as ♥ fit showing, so we can try game on 3 level, rather than blind invitation. So direct 3♥ is showing slam interests.

 

For big hands, 3♠ or 3NT -- have not or have ♠ stopper.

 

Think these are all nature. There're many genius devices given upwards, I hope that I could memorize.

 

Regards,

 

Jack

[luke warm]

Jimmy, the question is not about whether NFFB are better or worse - the question revolves around playing a more "standard" agreement that a 2/1 in competition shows in the range of 10+ and is forcing for one round - the problem lies in opener's rebids when there is no room.

i'd never say nfb is better than standard, cause i'm not qualified to make that statement... i will say i prefer nfb to standard cause in my opinion it gives responder a way to bid hands he couldn't normally bid

 

playing nfb with

 

1) Qx, 10x, AQ10xx, KJxx or 2) Q, 10x, AKJxxx, KQ9x

 

Jxx, AK9xx, xx, A10x

 

after

 

1D-1S-X-3S

P - P - ?

 

i'd double again... *any* bid after my first double shows a game force hand, and if we have the points they can't play undoubled... true, they might somehow make 3S, but partner doesn't have to leave the x in... in any case, if he does leave it in and it makes, i'd never blame him... i'd chalk it up to just another one that went wrong

[mikeh]

Just wanted to mention that transfer responses (yes, just like transfer advances but as responder) would work well here. Partner would show 5+ hearts and we'd have an easy 2H bid, showing tolerance and a minimum.

 

Basically, transfers allow you to combine negative freebids with forcing freebids at the cost of giving up on negative doubles (on some auctions).

I agree: I played transfers in this auction for several years (can't find anyone willing to do so now)

 

However, we eventually abandoned them over the 1♠ overcall because the loss of a natural 1N turned out to be more expensive than we had hoped.

 

After 1♦ (1♠) 1N was ♣, and opener assumed a weak 2 type hand until and unless responder clarified.

 

2♣ showed a 2♦ raise

 

2♦ was a transfer to 2♥: less than gf

 

2♥ was natural, gf

 

2♠ was a limit raise

 

The problem was that we usually had to pass with the 8-10 flat hand with ♠ stopped (or raise the minor with imperfect support.. altho for us 1♦ promised 4... making the 1♣ auctions even tougher), and hope for a reopen and a chance to describe the hand later. This was relatively infrequent but painful when (as happened) we lost some partscore battles.

 

It still worked well after a 1♥ overcall: double wsa a transfer to ♠ showing 4+, while 1♠ was a transfer to 1N and so forth.

[the hog]

2♠ is my bid.

 

In those sequences, the cue bid does not show force and is ambiguous !

 

It is the more economical way to tell partner that we have no clear bid ( so probably no ♥ support and no ♠ stop)

 

Alain

Absolute rubbish unless you play it like Winston and justin suggest - a good treatment imo. To play the cue as non descript as suggested here is reductio ad absurdum.

English is not my mother tongue but the words you are using here seems very insulting.

 

I'm happy to see that my bid is absolute rubbish.

 

I'm not here to reply to those kind of provocations and will simply ignore them.

 

Fortunately there are a lot of polite people on this forum.

 

Alain

You are posting in the Advanced and Expert class forum and you make a comment like this? Please!! Nondescript!! - really!

[han]

I'm not sure I like the transfers that Mikeh suggests, giving up on the natural 1NT seems indeed a high price to pay. I've been talking about this sequence with various people lately. There are many different options. Here is how equality (made by misho and inquiry) handles it:

 

1D-(1S)-..

Dbl= clubs or balanced unsuitable for 1NT.

1NT= natural.

2C= 4 hearts.

2D= 5+ hearts, forcing

2H= 5+ hearts, nonforcing.

 

This has many heart raises, but has no diamond raise at the two level (2S, 2NT and 3D are all diamond raises) and no unambiguous club bid, but it has 3 ways to show hearts and handles balanced hands quite well.

 

Here is a different treatment that I've been thinking about:

 

1D-(1S)-..

Dbl= negative.

1NT= natural.

2C = diamonds.

2D= hearts, invitational or better.

2H= negative freebid.

2S= clubs.

 

Here the main disadvantage is that you have to go to the 3-level to show clubs.

 

I will start a thread on this soon.

[junyi_zhu]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sq4h108dq8742cakq3]133|100|Scoring: IMP

S W N E

1♦1♠2♥P

?

 

What call do you make? Do you have a way to separate good hands from bad? What about the concept of using a 2-level cue bid here as good/bad?[/hv]

I bid 2S which relays to 2nt here, then 3C, 3D, 3H all show minimum hands.

so direct 3C, 3D and 3H are gameforcing.

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sq4h108dq8742cakq3]133|100|Scoring: IMP

S W N E

1♦1♠2♥P

?

 

What call do you make?  Do you have a way to separate good hands from bad?  What about the concept of using a 2-level cue bid here as good/bad?[/hv]

I bid 2S which relays to 2nt here, then 3C, 3D, 3H all show minimum hands.

so direct 3C, 3D and 3H are gameforcing.

So basically you use 2S as good/bad-lebensohlish, which I think is a good concept. The only thing I would want to do is keep the meanings of the bids consistent so they are easier to remember. If you play good/bad 2N that a direct bid is better than a puppet, then I'd do the same here, which it looks like you do.

 

Winston