bidding question

[sceptic]

1 D

2C

2NT

3C is this forcing a bit? 100% not at all?

[mikeh]

I am sorry to give you this answer, but it is true: whether it is forcing depends on agreements. In my partnerships, it is forcing.

 

It really comes down to the minimum strengths of 2♣ and 2N.

 

If 2N shows extras, then 3♣ is forcing.

 

If 2N does not promise more than a minimum, then 3♣ is non-forcing, if 2♣ was 'standard'...i.e. 10+

 

Also, consider what 1♦  3♣ would show. If that is a limit bid, with invitational values and 6+♣ (which a small segment of the bridge population plays) then your sequence has to be forcing

 

And so on.

 

If you do not play strong jump shifts, then you probably need your sequence to be forcing: how else can responder explore for a ♣ slam while staying below 3N? Some would say, don't worry about that... :P

 

All of this is why the answer to your question is: it depends on your agreements.

 

If I sat down with a casual partner playing standard, I'd take it as non-forcing, but I would not be confident.

[sceptic]

Dealer: North Vul: EW Scoring: IMP ♠ Q76 ♥ AKT ♦ 54 ♣ AKQ86

 

West North East South

 

 -     1♦    Pass  2♣

 Pass  2NT   Pass  3♣

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

 

thiswas the hand, but undiscusseed sequence, I think I will shoot myself

[foo]

This was the hand, but undiscusseed sequence, I think I will shoot myself

Q76.AKT.54.AKQ86

 

1D-2C;-2N-??

 

No need to shoot yourself.

 

Playing SA w/o discussion and special agreements, 3C by Responder shows an invitational hand, say ~10-11 HCP, with 6+C with this sequence.

 

W/ a minimum opening bid of their own, Responder could just rebid 3N.

 

W/ 18 HCP, Responder has slam aspirations and needs to set a GF for a slow exploratory auction instead of just showing their length or rebidding Game.

 

This hand is an excellent one to introduce the idea of "The Advance Cue Bid".

 

Rebid 3H.

 

Opener may be confused about what your hand is at first, but there is no way you will miss game and when you bid past game, the "I've got a much better hand than you GOP and I'm looking for slam" message will be clearly sent.

 

Most likely auction:

1D-2C;2N-3H;3N-4C-??

 

Opener's attention should be naturally drawn to their pointed suit holdings.

With both the SA and the DA, you are heading for a slam.

With neither, Opener will sign off in 4N.

[mikeh]

This hand is an excellent one to introduce the idea of "The Advance Cue Bid".

 

Rebid 3H.

 

Opener may be confused about what your hand is at first, but there is no way you will miss game and when you bid past game, the "I've got a much better hand than you GOP and I'm looking for slam" message will be clearly sent.

 

The advance cue bid is one of the worst ideas in bridge, except in a very, very few specific sequences. This is NOT one of them. 3♥ is NOT a cue bid, advance or otherwise: it is a natural, forcing, descriptive bid, and when you pull 3N to 4♣, you confirm a probable 4♥=6♣ with slam interest.

 

And there is absolutely no reason to distort your hand anyway.

 

The solution to the problem is to raise 2N to 4N: a quantitative raise: partner will bid slam with any extras and pass with a minimum.

 

By the way, I have read many old Bridge Worlds from the late 50's and 60's and the NA teams were fond of advance cuebids.. and the main reason the Blue Team smoked them every time was the appalling record of NA pairs in the slam zone: the Blue Team was actually not very good (by today's standards) but they were far ahead of NA then.

[luis]

Depends on agreements, without any special considerations I would say it is not forcing.

3♣ seems wrong because responder doesn't have a sixth club and 3♣ risks being passed out, I think with a balanced 5332 of 18hcp a 4NT bid over 2NT is absolutely clear.

There is no need to bid 3♥ as if you had an unbalanced hand when you have 5332, for the same reason there is no need to bid 3♣

 

Luis

[foo]

By the way, I have read many old Bridge Worlds from the late 50's and 60's and the NA teams were fond of advance cuebids.. and the main reason the Blue Team smoked them every time was the appalling record of NA pairs in the slam zone: the Blue Team was actually not very good (by today's standards) but they were far ahead of NA then.

"...the Blue Team was actually not very good (by today's standards)."

 

That is the only statement in print I've ever seen by mikeh that is 100% wrong.

The Blue Team had some of the finest Bridge players to ever live on it and even more uniquely it is one of the few occasions in history where 4 of the top 10 (maybe even 4 of the top 6) players of their time were on the same team.

 

Avarelli may be the weakest of these four, but in this group the differences are matters of such small degree that the rest of us are not capable of measuring the diffference.

 

Belladonna was one of the greatest Theorists in the history of Bridge as well as considered the best ATT player in the world at the peak of his career..

 

Forquet was known as "The Rock" because in more than a decade of top flight international competition, he =never= made a 5 level decision wrong given the information available to him.

 

Garozzo was an =amazing= single dummy and double analyst at the peak of his powers. The only ones I've ever heard of being as fast or faster with his level of accuracy are Sontag and Sion.

 

Perhaps the best measure of just how good The Blue Team was is obtained by asking former members of The Dallas Aces. Hamman, Soloway, and Lawrence have all said that The Blue Team was exceptionally strong both as a team and as individuals.

If anyone on earth would know just how well these guys play(ed) bridge, it would be The Dallas Aces.

 

As to the other comment, NA slam bidding of the time =stank=.

[jdonn]

Foo, when Mike said the Blue Team wasn't very good by today's standards, he was specifically referring to slam bidding, not all that other stuff. It's not a knock on the players.

 

I completely concur with his post, without regard to this little sidebar about the blue team.

[foo]

"The solution to the problem is to raise 2N to 4N: a quantitative raise: partner will bid slam with any extras and pass with a minimum."

 

"I think with a balanced 5332 of 18hcp a 4NT bid over 2NT is absolutely clear."

 

Gentlemen.

 

18+14= 32 which means it is possible for 2 A's to be out even if Opener has a maximum.

 

Therefore Opener may accept a quantitative 4N invite with a 14 HCP maximum that puts us into a doomed 6N contract. Nor is it clear that 6N is better than 6C.

 

4N is a =HORRIBLE= rebid in this situation, and an excellent example of why good slam bidding requires careful auctions.

[mikeh]

Foo, when Mike said the Blue Team wasn't very good by today's standards, he was specifically referring to slam bidding, not all that other stuff. It's not a knock on the players.

 

I completely concur with his post, without regard to this little sidebar about the blue team.

Thanks, Josh :D

 

Foo, just so that there can be NO understanding: the Blue Team was undoubtedly, in all of its many iterations, the dominant team, playing systems that gave them an edge, and with some members who will go down in history, even if this game is played for a thousand years, as amongst the best ever.

 

But the reality is that their methods, great tho they were in context, were rudimentary by the standards of todays top players.... and their slam bidding was nothing special, by those same standards. I wasn't actually knocking the Blue Team: I was knocking the use of 'advance cue-bids'.... as a very bad slam idea in the type of auction posted here: I just got carried away with my historical observations :angry:

[mikeh]

"The solution to the problem is to raise 2N to 4N: a quantitative raise: partner will bid slam with any extras and pass with a minimum."

 

"I think with a balanced 5332 of 18hcp a 4NT bid over 2NT is absolutely clear."

 

Gentlemen.

 

18+14= 32 which means it is possible for 2 A's to be out even if Opener has a maximum.

 

Therefore Opener may accept a quantitative 4N invite with a 14 HCP maximum that puts us into a doomed 6N contract.  Nor is it clear that 6N is better than 6C.

 

4N is a =HORRIBLE= rebid in this situation, and an excellent example of why good slam bidding requires careful auctions.

Foo: I had not realized that you were a walter the walrus clone :angry: :D

 

Firstly, it is difficult to conceive of an opener with 14 hcp being off 2 Aces: one would have to give opener all the missing cards, and, even then, many would argue (and I would be one of them) that that hand is no 14 count. KJx QJx KQJxx Jx is about a good a hand as I can imagine consistent with the auction: I tend to downgrade Q's and J's and upgrade A's and Kings, as I have frequently posted: the former are overvalued on the 4321 scale and the latter undervalued.

 

Secondly, your argument would mean that one should not make a quantitiative 4N raise of a 15-17 with a decent 16, including a good 5 or 6 card suit: after all, partner will/should accept with 16 and a 5 card suit and get doubled by the hand with 2 aces.... heck, give one of us 17, and opening leader may hold an AK!!!

 

Bridge is not played that way... at least, it is not played well that way.

 

Thirdly, if 6♣ is superior, opener is permitted to bid 6♣ along the way.. altho he will and should rarely hold the hand for it.

[foo]

More like the Unlucky Expert if you do this to me as CHO. :angry:

 

One of the few things HCP are unequivically good for is making sure we do not get to a NT slam off two A's.

 

No method that allows for =any= risk of Us getting to a slam off the required controls can be called good or even acceptable expert level slam bidding

 

Given the apparently high standard you expect of modern slam bidding, advice from you that has =any= chance of getting to a slam off the required controls is a bit puzzling.

 

Darn certain that Blue Team whose slam bidding you consider mediocre would not be blasting with 4N in this auction playing these methods.

[mikeh]

I once got a (shared) top for bidding 7N doubled, with an Ace led on the go: out of turn: and we had 14 side winners :angry:

 

I once won imps for bidding 7N off an Ace... they did not double, and our partners did...win 3

 

Show me a long-standing partnership that has never bid a slam off 2 cashng tricks, and I will show you a poor partnership. I am not saying that such bidding is 'good bridge', but I am saying that the style and methods that constitute good bridge do not always avoid these disasters.

 

Indeed, the French won a world championship when Hamman ( I think... it may have been Wolff) had to guess which of TWO aces to lead against a grand... he guessed the wrong one.

 

Rodwell (it may have been Meckstroth) once doubled a slam with 2 cashing Aces in his hand... he was so sure of the set that he led another suit, in an effort to build extra undertricks: the opps made it

 

The Blue Team (remember them?) won a world championship by bidding and making 7♣ with a trump suit of AQ tight opposite J98xxx.

[awm]

On the whole I agree that we'd do better to never bid a slam off two cashing aces. With this said, I agree with Mikeh's general approach. To really know for sure whether to bid slam we need to know:

 

(1) Partner's exact distribution.

(2) Exactly which honors are in partner's hand.

(3) The same information about at least one opponent's hand.

 

There are no methods (besides peeking) that can guarantee you this information. Figuring out the first two is the "holy grail" of relay methods, but in the majority of cases you can't get even that information in time to make the slam/no slam decision.

 

Given that I can't obtain all this info, I need to focus on particular parts of this info. If I can figure out: (1) is partner minimum or maximum for the notrump rebid and (2) does partner have any sort of fit for clubs, I'll be able to make fairly accurate decisions about slam versus no slam. Simply knowing the number of aces in partner's hand is not nearly so useful -- it's easy to construct hands where we have all the aces and no play for six. So with limited space available to me I would much rather ask "are you maximum or minimum" rather than try to initiate a cuebidding auction with no idea of partner's total strength.

 

I should note that a fairly large subset of partnerships has the agreement that "if you are about to accept a 4NT quantitative invite, you should show aces (respond to blackwood) on the way." This agreement would seem to avoid the "off two aces" issue. On the other hand, I should also note that a majority of expert partnerships prefer not to play this agreement and instead use the bids between 4NT and 6NT to suggest a (possibly superior) suit slam on hands strong enough to accept the invite.

[foo]

I once got a (shared) top for bidding 7N doubled, with an Ace led on the go: out of turn: and we had 14 side winners :angry:

 

I once won imps for bidding 7N off an Ace... they did not double, and our partners did...win 3

 

Show me a long-standing partnership that has never bid a slam off 2 cashng tricks, and I will show you a poor partnership. I am not saying that such bidding is 'good bridge', but I am saying that the style and methods that constitute good bridge do not always avoid these disasters.

 

Indeed, the French won a world championship when Hamman ( I think... it may have been Wolff) had to guess which of TWO aces to lead against a grand... he guessed the wrong one.

 

Rodwell (it may have been Meckstroth) once doubled a slam with 2 cashing Aces in his hand... he was so sure of the set that he led another suit, in an effort to build extra undertricks: the opps made it

 

The Blue Team (remember them?) won a world championship by bidding and making 7♣ with a trump suit of AQ tight opposite J98xxx.

Great. Now we are using NS,TWW stories to justify lazy or bad bidding because we got lucky and did not get the punishment we deserved.

 

People do not ask us how to be lucky, and even if they did we could not tell them.

 

People ask us how to bid and play as accurately and well as possible.

 

Slam exploration is qualitatively different from game exploration mostly because you are not supposed to be "shooting the moon" or "blasting".

 

Give me a flat 18 HCP including the 3-4 A's opposite a 2N rebid here and then I might trot out 4N Qualitative. Because then I can be sure of the auction.

 

Missing 2 A's and 2 K's, it is not enough to know partner is at the top of their range. I need to know that they have specific values for slam to be odds on. Or even safe.

 

Superior slam bidding in uncontested auctions is not supposed to be an exercise in any form of gambling.

 

I'm stunned and aghast that players of supposedly superior caliber are suggesting tossing away accuracy in the exact type of auction that requires the most accuracy in all of bridge bidding.

[whereagles]

In french standard

 

1♦ 2♣

2NT

 

is good 13-14 (with 12 to bad 13 a 1♣ opener is preferred). Now any bid by responder except 3♣ is forcing to game. The 3♣ would show 10-11 and bad clubs. With good clubs you bid 3NT and that's it.

[jdonn]

More like the Unlucky Expert if you do this to me as CHO. :(

 

One of the few things HCP are unequivically good for is making sure we do not get to a NT slam off two A's.

 

No method that allows for =any= risk of Us getting to a slam off the required controls can be called good or even acceptable expert level slam bidding

 

Given the apparently high standard you expect of modern slam bidding, advice from you that has =any= chance of getting to a slam off the required controls is a bit puzzling.

 

Darn certain that Blue Team whose slam bidding you consider mediocre would not be blasting with 4N in this auction playing these methods.

This risk is unavoidable.

 

Your partner opens 1NT, you have AT9 KQx KQJx JTx. Do you not bid 4NT? Should partner not accept with KQJx AJT9 Ax Qxx? It simply can't be avoided from time to time. Even in the rare cases when it happens, as here, they still have to make the right lead.

 

Or are you suggesting that on the above hand you start bidding your suits left and right without the promised length, as you are suggesting in the current thread?

[foo]

More like the Unlucky Expert if you do this to me as CHO. :(

 

One of the few things HCP are unequivically good for is making sure we do not get to a NT slam off two A's.

 

No method that allows for =any= risk of Us getting to a slam off the required controls can be called good or even acceptable expert level slam bidding

 

Given the apparently high standard you expect of modern slam bidding, advice from you that has =any= chance of getting to a slam off the required controls is a bit puzzling.

 

Darn certain that Blue Team whose slam bidding you consider mediocre would not be blasting with 4N in this auction playing these methods.

This risk is unavoidable.

 

Your partner opens 1NT, you have AT9 KQx KQJx JTx. Do you not bid 4NT? Should partner not accept with KQJx AJT9 Ax Qxx? It simply can't be avoided from time to time. Even in the rare cases when it happens, as here, they still have to make the right lead.

 

Or are you suggesting that on the above hand you start bidding your suits left and right without the promised length, as you are suggesting in the current thread?

Sometimes the risk is unavoidable. System Theorists bust their chops to try and minimize the occurance of those occasions.

 

However, often the risk is avoidable. When it is and we do not avoid that risk, we are not playing bridge as well as we could.

Sooner or later, those that gamble most will lose to those that gamble least. Especially in the slam zone.

 

AT9.KQx.KQJx.JTx

 

GOP opens 1N= 15-17. Response?

Let's start with Baby Bridge. 16+15= 31, 16+17= 33.

We are clearly in the slam invite zone.

 

Playing Standard methods with a pickup or indifferent partner, we are getting to a bad slam when Opener has KQJx.AJTx.Ax.Qxx

Our methods give us no choice but to play the odds and roll the dice.

 

Expert pairs competing or hoping to compete at the highest levels improve upon Standard methods here by using something like the suggestions of Jeff Reubens or Eric Kokish for this situation so that they will avoid a bad slam and bid a good slam.

 

Those methods are inappropriate for a B/I forum. But many of my fellow posters appear to be of a caliber that they know very well that such methods exist.

...and if they were in a partnership using them and they were =not= used; thereby hitting a bad slam that could have been avoided; I am =sure= the postmortum would be "interesting".

[hrothgar]

Those methods are inappropriate for a B/I forum.  But many of my fellow posters appear to be of a caliber that they know very well that such methods exist.

 

...and if they were in a partnership using them and they were =not= used; thereby hitting a bad slam that could have been avoided; I am =sure= the postmortum would be "interesting".

The only bad slam is one that doesn't make...

 

Science is all well and good, but it helps the defense every bit as much as the offense. The same delicate explorations that let you determine that you're off a cashing A/K are the ones the let the opponetns set you in your 5 NT contract.

 

Sometimes a quick blunt blast works much better

[foo]

Yes Richard; I know that your preferred approach to The Game is to put the Opponents to The Guess at every possible opportunity.

 

I submit that History shows that the more constructive the auction, the less this approach is effective. Slam auctions are the most constructive in Bridge.

 

I also submit that the better the opposition, the less "guessing" is involved and the more often They are going to get it right. If We have ~ same number of such decisions and We get less of them right than They do, we Lose.

 

If in addition We play methods that require Us to guess more often than Their methods make Them, the problem becomes worse.