Defend undoubled

[Dwingo]

One of the possible outcome is Defend undoubled.

 

What type of auction, will this be an outcome?

 

I am yet to see this being selected in any of the FD files.

 

For a Jacoby transfer bid like 2D or 2H , why do people select all the suits and Defend undoubled as possible outcomes?

 

 

Godwin

[Gerben42]

For a Jacoby transfer bid like 2D or 2H , why do people select all the suits and Defend undoubled as possible outcomes?

 

First, because no one uses this option.

Second, because they are possible outcomes.

 

Defend undoubled means if a forcing pass situation has been set up or not. Usually a situation like

 

1♠ 2♦ says: It's our hand, either we play or they play doubled.

[Dwingo]

I still don't get understand Gerben. Probably a bit dumb.

 

Am I understanding this rightly as

 

1) Choose "Defend Undoubled" as an outcome until such time the auction has not reached a Forcing Pass situation.

 

2) Dont choose " Defend Undoubled" as an outcome, when balance of strength is in your side and you will penalise Opps wherever they go.

 

Godwin

[csdenmark]

I still don't get understand Gerben. Probably a bit dumb.

 

Am I unerstanding this rightly as

 

1) Choose "Defend Undoubled" as an outcome until such time the auction has  not reached a Forcing Pass situation.

 

2) Dont choose " Defend Undoubled" as an outcome, when balance of strength is in your side and you will penalise Opps wherever they go.

 

Godwin

You remove the option 'Defend undoubled' when you are sure it is no longer an option. Something like you make a call for slam. Could be 4NT or CAB response after strong ♣ openings(16+HcP) with 4+controls.

 

The same you use for other features like preempt in MAJOR. Ordinary major openings and response in other major. Then you remove options for minor outcome.

 

For major openings(5+cards) and response 3+cards support you remove minor outcome and other major and responded 4+cards support you remove as well minors, other major as NT outcome. For slam try you may need to add the NT outcome again.

 

Gerben I use those options - but of course make creation of the cards more complicated - but I really think it is a very useful feature.

[helene_t]

I really think it is a very useful feature.

Agree. FD forces you to think about whether a pass is forcing or not. I was chocked to learn in how many situations I'm unsure as to the agreements I have with regular partners - let alone what is supposed to be "standard".

[david_c]

Gerben I use those options - but of course make creation of the cards more complicated - but I really think it is a very useful feature.

I strongly disagree: this information is only useful in very specific circumstances. Most of the time the possible outcomes are "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def" and this string clutters up the display. (If you don't believe me, try unchecking all of the possible outcomes - the display is so much more readable!)

 

Also, even in those situations where the information is useful, there are better ways of presenting it. For example, if your bid agrees hearts as trumps, you could write "sets ♥". This is much easier to understand for the reader than changing from "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def" to "♥". (It also neatly avoids the question of whether you can get back to other suits after agreeing trumps.)

 

Agree. FD forces you to think about whether a pass is forcing or not.

If you're using FD primarily as a tool to help you learn your bidding system, then fine. But I believe its main use is as a convention card, and then you have to question whether displaying this information for every bid is really helpful.

[csdenmark]

Gerben I use those options - but of course make creation of the cards more complicated - but I really think it is a very useful feature.

I strongly disagree: this information is only useful in very specific circumstances. Most of the time the possible outcomes are "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def" and this string clutters up the display. (If you don't believe me, try unchecking all of the possible outcomes - the display is so much more readable!)

 

Also, even in those situations where the information is useful, there are better ways of presenting it. For example, if your bid agrees hearts as trumps, you could write "sets ♥". This is much easier to understand for the reader than changing from "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def" to "♥". (It also neatly avoids the question of whether you can get back to other suits after agreeing trumps.)

 

Agree. FD forces you to think about whether a pass is forcing or not.

If you're using FD primarily as a tool to help you learn your bidding system, then fine. But I believe its main use is as a convention card, and then you have to question whether displaying this information for every bid is really helpful.

Also, even in those situations where the information is useful, there are better ways of presenting it. For example, if your bid agrees hearts as trumps, you could write "sets ♥".

The feature is there to help you to explain in a uniform and simple way. Nobody interferes with you not taking advantage of that.

 

 

But I believe its main use is as a convention card, and then you have to question whether displaying this information for every bid is really helpful.

Convention card is the basic way in bridge for information. Full disclosure is mandatory in bridge. I am sure you know that!