whats your bid

[jocdelevat]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakj65hq843djtca6]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 Pass  1♥    Pass  1♠

 Pass  3♦    Pass  ?

 

3d=sjs my pard(advanced level) plays sjs by opener and wjs by responder. he doesn't play jacoby2nt. I bid 1s because of that.

1.whats your bid after 3d?

2. is 3h forcing or not?

......................................................................................................................

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakj65hq843djtca6]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     1♠

 Pass  2♦    Pass  3♣

 Pass  3♦    Pass  ?

 

1. do you open 2c with this hand?

2.whats your bid after 3d?

[goobers]

Hand 1:

3H is absolutely forcing. You are in a game force. Anything you do is forcing. Bid 3H to set trump, and you're off to 7H or something.

 

Hand 2:

I'd just bid 3S. 3C should establish a GF. I would not open 2C, but I'm a very traditional 2C opener.

[jtfanclub]

Dealer: West Vul: NS Scoring: IMP ♠ AKJ65 ♥ Q843 ♦ JT ♣ A6  

 

West  North East  South

 

 Pass  1♥    Pass  1♠

 Pass  3♦    Pass  ?

 

3d=sjs my pard(advanced level) plays sjs by opener and wjs by responder. he doesn't play jacoby2nt. I bid 1s because  of that.

1.whats your bid after 3d?

2. is 3h forcing or not?

1. Um, 4NT, RKC for diamonds. Sure, I'm going to put it in hearts, but I don't mind finding out about the diamond honors.

 

2. I play it as forcing, expecially playing WJS by responder so I didn't bid 1♠ with six spades and no points or hearts.

[kenrexford]

 

On the first, 3♥ does not force game. 3♦ forced game. So, 3♥ is "GF" in the sense that I cannot override partner's GF. It also makes a lot of sense to bid 3♥, as I have four-card support that I strangely buried simply to show a spade suit that neither of us will care about as a possible trump suit later. Playing 2/1GF, this would be an easy 2♣ call, hoping for (and receiving) a 2♦ call, so I can set trumps with 2♥ and have lots more room to cuebid, this being a hand where cuebidding would be really nice.

 

On the second one, I'll bid 3♠ after this start. I forced game, partner made a temporizing rebid of his suit, and I'll focus spades again. If he bids 3NT, as I hope, I'll bid 5♦, which should be Exclusion RKCB for my own suit.

 

 

Oh crap! I just wrote a lot of junk down and realized I got zingered again -- "Beginner/Intermediate."

 

Re-do.

 

On the first, 3♦ forced game, so 3♥. I'll not stop below 5♥.

On the second, 3♣ forced game, so 3♠. I'll not stop below 6♠.

[goobers]

On the first, 3♥ does not force game. 3♦ forced game. So, 3♥ is "GF" in the sense that I cannot override partner's GF. It also makes a lot of sense to bid 3♥, as I have four-card support that I strangely buried simply to show a spade suit that neither of us will care about as a possible trump suit later. Playing 2/1GF, this would be an easy 2♣ call, hoping for (and receiving) a 2♦ call, so I can set trumps with 2♥ and have lots more room to cuebid, this being a hand where cuebidding would be really nice.

 

On the second one, I'll bid 3♠ after this start. I forced game, partner made a temporizing rebid of his suit, and I'll focus spades again. If he bids 3NT, as I hope, I'll bid 5♦, which should be Exclusion RKCB for my own suit.

Do experts bid 2 card suits to set up a GF when you have a 5 card suit headed by the AK and 4 card trump support for partner?

[jdonn]

Do experts bid 2 card suits to set up a GF when you have a 5 card suit headed by the AK and 4 card trump support for partner?

No

[kenrexford]

Do experts bid 2 card suits to set up a GF when you have a 5 card suit headed by the AK and 4 card trump support for partner?

No

Some. I was given a hand almost identical to this (the pattern was 5422 after a 1♥ opening) by a professional player who suggested to me a 2♣ call as making sense. He learned that from another, better known expert. So, some.

[jdonn]

Do experts bid 2 card suits to set up a GF when you have a 5 card suit headed by the AK and 4 card trump support for partner?

No

Some. I was given a hand almost identical to this (the pattern was 5422 after a 1♥ opening) by a professional player who suggested to me a 2♣ call as making sense. He learned that from another, better known expert. So, some.

He misapplied what he learned. There are a few who will respond a natural 2♣ on a doubleton holding a balanced hand with support. There are no experts (and don't confuse pro with expert) who would respond 2♣ on a small doubleton holding AKJxx of another suit unless the 2♣ bid was artificial. None.

[mikeh]

Do experts bid 2 card suits to set up a GF when you have a 5 card suit headed by the AK and 4 card trump support for partner?

No

Some. I was given a hand almost identical to this (the pattern was 5422 after a 1♥ opening) by a professional player who suggested to me a 2♣ call as making sense. He learned that from another, better known expert. So, some.

I know of several 'successful' pros, if success is winning 1000+mps a year playing exclusively with clients, whom I would not want on any team of mine, because they either don't know how to bid or they can't shake the horrific habits they have acquired through years of playing with very weak players. They are, generally, lightning fast analyzers of the play, excellent declarers, strong at working out defences without help from partner... in other words, good at their job... but their bidding is designed to maximize their laying hands on dummy and they rarely worry about misleading partner... after all, partner learns very quickly to leave the driving to the pro... and, in the meantime, any confusion engendered amongst the opps is grist to the pro's mill.

 

So, unless I knew who the pro was, I wouldn't be the least bit impressed by the idea that a strong 5=4=2=2 should respond 2♣ to a 1♥ opening.... and even if it were a Grant Baze or Mike Passell... I sure would want to explore their thinking before even considering buying into the idea.

[kenrexford]

Nope. Not just paid folks. People who win world championships.

[jdonn]

By all means, a name would be more than welcome. I bet then we would even be resourceful enough to contact the person and ask for a comment. Most experts are friendly especially when approached by a friend (like when I had a friend of Larry Cohen ask him to comment a couple weeks ago) so it should be no problem.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 3H, and yes it is forcing, since 3D

did already create a game force.

 

The mayor problem with 3H is, that

it may be made on xx, i.e.a pure

preference.

 

The alternative is 4NT RKCB for

diamonds, correcting to 6H or 6NT,

most likely the simplest way to proceed.

 

#2 3S, and no this is not a 2C opener

 

With kind reards

Marlowe

[Fluffy]

Hand 2 is not close to a 2♣ opener, if you think of opening with 14 you might find me lunatic when I tell you I don't ever open 2♣ with less than 20 HCP (and I never play 1♠ +3)

[mhais]

for me 3h is not forcing i will bid 4c specific ace asking - 4d 03, 4h h ace, 4s s acem 4nt d ace 5c c ace 5d 2 mixed aces 5h 2 same colored aces & 5s 2 same rank aces

[kenrexford]

By all means, a name would be more than welcome. I bet then we would even be resourceful enough to contact the person and ask for a comment. Most experts are friendly especially when approached by a friend (like when I had a friend of Larry Cohen ask him to comment a couple weeks ago) so it should be no problem.

Check your mail.

 

And, I did not "misapply" what I learned. The very specific hand was 5422 pattern. Not balanced. Not 4432. 5422 was the specific hand.

 

The specific point was that there is no reason to show the five-card spade suit when you have a known four-card heart fit, when your hand is distributional enough to take over the auction, and when cuebidding is in great need. The point of confusing proper trumps, working your way to a GF auction, and the other practicality issues were discussed.

 

So, the point taught to me was that 2♣ looks right with a GF 5♠/4♥/2♦/2♣ (and a club A/K) after 1♥ by partner.

[mikeh]

By all means, a name would be more than welcome. I bet then we would even be resourceful enough to contact the person and ask for a comment. Most experts are friendly especially when approached by a friend (like when I had a friend of Larry Cohen ask him to comment a couple weeks ago) so it should be no problem.

Check your mail.

 

And, I did not "misapply" what I learned. The very specific hand was 5422 pattern. Not balanced. Not 4432. 5422 was the specific hand.

 

The specific point was that there is no reason to show the five-card spade suit when you have a known four-card heart fit, when your hand is distributional enough to take over the auction, and when cuebidding is in great need. The point of confusing proper trumps, working your way to a GF auction, and the other practicality issues were discussed.

 

So, the point taught to me was that 2♣ looks right with a GF 5♠/4♥/2♦/2♣ (and a club A/K) after 1♥ by partner.

This argument reveals a great deal about your approach to bridge as a partnership game: you hold a good 5=4=2=2 opposite a 1♥ opener, and begin your constructive dialogue by bidding 2♣?????

 

I used to play a relay method in which we would start with 2♣, obliging partner to provide very specific information, following which responder would often place the contract.. or break the relay. But unless you are playing a relay type gadget (say, Jacoby 2N), standard bidding is most effective when each partner describes his hand, until one partner or the other can assume captaincy. Here, we have the idea that responder will make a natural-sounding bid, conceal a prime feature... a potential source of winners... and somehow, after partner has completely misread the auction, get us to the best spot. Responder as superman and partner as idiot.

 

Or, alternatively, you feel such little confidence in your ability to actually hold a dialogue in the auction that you'd rather seize control immediately.

 

Remind me not to ask you for a game anytime soon.

[kenrexford]

This is not a matter of seizing captaincy! This is actually a matter of good partnership bidding, despite what you seem to think.

 

The value of bidding 2♣ with 5422 pattern (this hand) can be explained in partnership terms.

 

First, if you bid 2♣, and if partner fortunately bids 2♦, you can bid 2♥ (in a GF context, which is assumed for the 2♣ call to make sense), and (a.) partner is thrilled, and (b.) you have a nice low start to a constructive auction.

 

Second, if partner cannot bid 2♦, you can bid 3♥ at your next bid, getting to a GF in hearts without ambiguity and in only four bids.

 

Third, compare this with a 1♠ response. If partner raises, you have extreme difficulty (and cannot, I hope) returning to hearts as an understood trump agreement, let alone in a GF context. So, you end up playing in the inferior spade contract (stealing the play from partner) because the practicalities of a slam approach auction will require it. Maybe you can eventually choice-of-slams him.

 

Fourth, if partner fails to raise your spades (thank God!), you must have a huge series or artificial bids to get him to the heart contract, as shown by this deal. Suppose 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♦-P-3♣-P-3♠-P-? A mess!

 

Fifth, even when you do raise hearts, he will be assured that you only have three, whereas a 2♣...2♥/3♥ looks like 3-4 hearts.

 

Look. You don't understand the style. Fine. But, to claim that this is grabbing captaincy and not partnership bidding is absurd. Far from it, this style was described to me as a technique to, primarily, show support with support as soon as possible. In other words, it is the 1♠ call that is less partnership oriented.

[SoTired]

OK - here goes... About the 2C bid on a GF 5422. It actually makes sense. The problem with 1S when you don't make an immediate GF heart raise is the auction may continues like this:

 

1H 1S

2D ... now what? 2H is weak, 3H is invitational, and 4H is sign-off. But we have extras. So we bid 3C, 4th suit... Now auction continues:

 

.... 3C

3H ... now what? We still have not shown our heart support nor done any minor suit q-bidding. So we bid 4H, only indicating that we had extras.

 

Solution: Immediate jump-shift to 2S, shows 5+♠, 3+♥, GF, and sets hearts as trump.

 

If we had a minor suit we could 2/1 and then raise hearts. But with spades, it is very awkward to do that. The immediate j/s to 2S solves this problem.

[kenrexford]

OK - here goes... About the 2C bid on a GF 5422. It actually makes sense. The problem with 1S when you don't make an immediate GF heart raise is the auction may continues like this:

 

1H 1S

2D ... now what? 2H is weak, 3H is invitational, and 4H is sign-off. But we have extras. So we bid 3C, 4th suit... Now auction continues:

 

.... 3C

3H ... now what? We still have not shown our heart support nor done any minor suit q-bidding. So we bid 4H, only indicating that we had extras.

 

Solution: Immediate jump-shift to 2S, shows 5+♠, 3+♥, GF, and sets hearts as trump.

 

If we had a minor suit we could 2/1 and then raise hearts. But with spades, it is very awkward to do that. The immediate j/s to 2S solves this problem.

Not a bad solution if you are willing to give up other meanings for 2♠.

 

I'm glad to see someone else getting it, by the way. :) Attacks about not wanting to play with me (not a great loss for me) because people cannot understand the problem are not quite as constructive. LOL

[mikeh]

Ken... believe me, I 'get it'. I understand the problems you are attempting to solve.

 

In fact, I agree that adopting a SYSTEMIC artificial 2♣ response has some merit.. it lends itself very nicely to relays, btw.

 

My concerns were threefold: one, that in a standard method, opting for 2♣ without prior discussion IS seizing captaincy. It has to be.. you are lying to your partner while making what is ostensibly a natural bid: a bid that denies any significantly longer suit than ♣s. He will make his bids on a false assumption of how his hand meshes with yours. You expect to be able to control the auction, and, on many hands, you will be able to do so.. but don't kid yourself... you are 'controlling' the auction.. which is the role of captaincy.

 

The second branch of my concern is that 2♣ on shortness is not a panacea. You MAY be able to control the auction, but not always. Partner may become wrongly enamoured of his hand because of clubs... or may fail to become enamoured of his hand because of spades.. and even if you dodge those bullets this time, there will later be hands on which responder holds.... clubs! and needs opener to trust that he does in order to get to the right spot.. yet, once you incorporate this short 2♣ response, opener is going to have to be careful.

 

The third branch relates to your apparent assumption that 1♠ creates nothing but problems. Heck, you even went so far as to say that a raise to 2♠ created a problem!!! Your ideas about bidding are far different from mine if you feel that you can no longer bid intelligently, with a gf, slam-interest hand once partner reveals the double-fit via 2♠ :) Personally, I'd be delighted. I can bid 3♥ FORCING and natural... do you seriously tell us that this can be passed? Or I can bid a new suit... plus I have a good idea of partner's strength... the single raise to 2♠ limits his hand far more than does any normal rebid over 2♣.

 

And if he rebids either of 1N or 2♣ (neither of which are exactly uncommon rebids) I am going to be far, far further ahead in my bidding than any who started with 2♣ by responder.

 

If he rebids 2♦, then I have a problem.. but not an insoluble one. I bid 3♣, the worst 4SF sequence. If he bids 3♦ (many play that the default rebid on a nightmare 2=5=4=2 or 1=5=4=3 hand with no club stop is 3♦), I am back in the running with 3♥. If he rebids 3♥, I can always bid 4♥ having expressed some interest and having shown a long ♠ suit. This is the worst of auctions, and I have personally missed a slam after this sequence (or one very close to it). But if responder has significant extras, he may be able to make a more aggressive call.. whether that be 5♥, keycard etc.. I am not saying that responder can always overcome the problem, but i am saying that this problem does not, in my view, warrant the drastic measure of fabricating a 2♣ response. As I hope is apparent, the 2♣ response will actually impair your bidding on at least as many hands as it will help, and will be neutral on many more.

 

I didn't mention a 2♥ rebid: it also is problematic for my approach, but so is it after 2♣: it is far from clear what degree of fit is shown by a raise to 3♥, as earlier posts in this forum have shown.

[kenrexford]

I think that you are missing a middle ground here. You are viewing the 1♥-P-2♣ auction as being one of two things. First, it could be natural, meaning that clubs is longer than any other suit. Second, 2♣ could be the start of a relay approach (like maybe Golady) and completely artificial.

 

The middle ground is that 2♣ is as "natural" as a 1♣ opening when you play a "short club." Meaning, it shows either the "natural" meaning of "longer clubs than anything else" or a "convenient minor" when your plan is to raise Opener's major later.

 

If you use the middle approach, partner will not expect that clubs are always longer than any other suit when your next call is a raise of partner's major. So, he will not be tricked or given misinformation because the bid sometimes features that holding. Whereas you would be "controlling the auction" if you told a fib with the intention being to take over and make the brilliant decisions yourself, you are not controlling the auction if 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♥ merely shows heart support, a club feature (possibly Kx), and GF, because you have described your hand perfectly under your agreements. Similarly, the exact same analysis of a 3♥ raise (if forced to that level) is not a problem when partner does not expect purity of the club suit when you bid that way.

 

When you open a short club (4432 pattern), you also could have held five clubs and four hearts. So, when you raise partner's 1♥ response, he is not sure that you have five clubs, of course. Would you interpret playing a short club as playing a style where Opener seizes captaincy with his opening bid? Of course not. Would you consider the "short club" agreement to be anti-partnership? No.

 

This is the same thing. This is not as natural as a 1♣ opening would be in a 4-card major openings system, but it is not as artificial as a 1♣ opening in Precision. It is, perhaps, "quasi-natural." :)

[mike777]

Geez does this thing come up often enough and have such an advantage to bother to play it? Do not top class players have more important things to think of or work on?

[kenrexford]

Geez does this think come up often enough and have such an advantage to bother to play it? Do not top class players have more important things to think of or work on?

What, like life and stuff?

 

Are you crazy? :lol: