blame game

[neilkaz]

EDIT was looking at wrong hand I think ?.. neilkaz ..

[neilkaz]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq8ha8dqjt9ckj765&s=sakt754ht4da753c2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1♠

 Pass  2♣    2♥    2♠

 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass

 5♥    5♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

I had a heated discussion with this partner (pickup) after the board

I think I am 100% correct of course :P . However, in his words I was out to lunch

100% North

 

South has a 2♠ bid with a good 6 carder. N can expect good play for 4♠ but to bid 5♠ especially at IMPs with what is likely only 8 trumps and these defensive values is awful.

 

As N I double 5♥ rather than making a forcing pass.

[neilkaz]

Well the discussion became heated when my p told me that I must have a much better 6 card ♠ suit for my 2♠ bid and my only bid was pass after opening this c****.

 

When I said I thought 2♠ did not even promise 6 the discussion went further downhill, this is not the first time I have had partners who expect a good 6 card suit.

How is AKTxxx not a good 6 card suit ? This would have been my last hand with this pickup PD after he/she rudely commented on my opening this 11 HCP 3 QT 6-4 hand as crap.

 

K&R says this hand is worth 16.75 points. I open and rebid 2 all year long.

 

http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi?ha...KTxxx+Tx+Axxx+x

 

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

So...

 

1♠:2♣  2♠  can be 5

1♠:2♣ (2x) 2♠ promises 6

 

 

ps I dont play 2♣ is GF here

How about:

 

1♠ X 2♦ P

 

What does 2♠ 'promise' now? only

5 I hope

:)

[Guest Jlall]

Most people play 2D as NF, in which case 2S would typically be 6 (I suppose with 5305 min and very chunky spades you might bid 2S though). If 2D is forcing in your system then yes, 2S just shows 5.

 

As Han was explaining earlier the difference in the original auction is that the 2S bid was a free bid and pass was an option.

[jillybean]

I play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦

If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

[skjaeran]

I play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦

If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

Most people play 2♣/♦/♥ as non-forcing in this position, most play it as constructive. To force you start with redouble.

Of course it's possible to keep the meaning as without the double, but that's not standard (and not adviceable, mostly because of frequency).

[Echognome]

I  play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦

If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

Most people play 2♣/♦/♥ as non-forcing in this position, most play it as constructive. To force you start with redouble.

Of course it's possible to keep the meaning as without the double, but that's not standard (and not adviceable, mostly because of frequency).

And henceforth they created transfers.

[Guest Jlall]

I  play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦

If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

Most people play 2♣/♦/♥ as non-forcing in this position, most play it as constructive. To force you start with redouble.

Of course it's possible to keep the meaning as without the double, but that's not standard (and not adviceable, mostly because of frequency).

And henceforth they created transfers.

and Jeff R said....let there be space... and so there was.

[jillybean]

And so...

 

1♠ (P) 2♣ (2♥)

2♠ = 6+ (free bid)

 

 

1♠ (P) 2♣ (P)

2♠ could be 5 (min)

 

 

1♠ (X) 2x nf (P)

2♠ = 6+

 

 

1♠ (X) XX forcing, values.

 

 

(1♦) X (1♥) 1♠ (free bid 6-7)

 

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding. :huh: Where can I learn this?

[Stephen Tu]

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding. huh.gif Where can I learn this?

 

Books, though you may have to dig for the right ones. Lawrence had a book "Contested Auctions", though out of print now. Also he has many good books on overcalls, balancing, takeout doubles, etc.

 

Other worthwhile books are Robson & Segal, "Partnership Bidding", and Marshall Miles' two books "Stronger Competitive Bidding" and "Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century", though be warned many of Miles' views are not mainstream, though he is usually good about presenting the logic behind them so you can make your own decision on what you prefer.

[helene_t]

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding. :huh: Where can I learn this?

Mike Lawrence's bidding quizzes, the contested auction.

[P_Marlowe]

And so...

 

1♠ (P) 2♣ (2♥)

2♠ = 6+ (free bid)

 

 

1♠ (P) 2♣ (P)

2♠ could be 5 (min)

 

 

1♠ (X) 2x nf (P)

2♠ = 6+

 

 

1♠ (X) XX forcing, values.

 

 

(1♦) X (1♥) 1♠ (free bid 6-7)

 

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding.   :huh: Where can I learn this?

Hi,

 

the main problem is, that competitive bidding

depends a lot on partnership understanding, and

while there may exist a "standard system" in

uncontested auctions, this is not the case for

contested auction, at least not to the same extend.

The reason is, that most system books only consider

contested auction very briefly, in bridge courses you

usually have those lectures at the very end, if at all.

 

I would suggest you decide together with your partner

on a book to learn a system for contested auction.

You may have a look at Marshall Miles book, the advantage

being, it is fairly complete and well written, another book

would be Marty Bergens "Better Bidding with Bergen Vol. 2",

a little bit dated, but ok ... if you like the style.

 

Most likely there are other books out there, have a look

at "How the Expert win at Bridge" from Burt Hall and

Lynn Rose-Hall, also a very well written book, although it

deals only briefly with contested auctions, but you can find

further reading recommendations in the book.

Side Remark: Could it be that Burt Hall is bhall?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: As I have stated, I dont agree, that the first sequence

shows a 6 carder (it usually will be a 6 carder, but that is not

the point), because it is not (!) a free bid assuming that pass

would be forcing, in which case bidding shows simply a min.

opener and no interest in defence. And pass should be forcing.

But thats just me.

[Stephen Tu]

it is not (!) a free bid assuming that pass

would be forcing

And pass should be forcing

Don't these statements contradict each other? Most agree that pass should be forcing after partner's 2/1 bid. And if pass is forcing, just by definition 2♠ is a "free" bid, since you are allowed to pass here, and a free bid is any bid you make when you weren't virtually forced to make a call. Whether that free bid shows 6+ or merely no interest in defence is partnership agreement, but everyone here except you is assuming 6+. Why is your way better? Make your case. Min opener, by itself, is not reason to not want to defend, only shortness in enemy suit. If you are short in enemy suit, and not 6 spades, you must have side 4+ suit. Why not bid that suit if bidding, or pass & see if partner has genuine 3 cd support, bid side suit later if necessary? What advantage do you gain by rebidding 5 cd suit, which you have already promised by your opening bid, and thus conveys little useful information?

 

Having 2♠ show 6 makes responder's decisions easier, passing with 5 retains more space, which make responder's actions more descriptive also. I don't see any reason to bid 2♠ on a 5 bagger, please enlighten me.

 

But thats just me.

It appears to be only you.

[jtfanclub]

Most people play 2D as NF

Has that finally become the norm?

 

That's one of those forcing bids in 'Standard American' that got me to switch to Precision.

[P_Marlowe]

it is not (!) a free bid assuming that pass

would be forcing

And pass should be forcing

Don't these statements contradict each other? Most agree that pass should be forcing after partner's 2/1 bid. And if pass is forcing, just by definition 2♠ is a "free" bid, since you are allowed to pass here, and a free bid is any bid you make when you weren't virtually forced to make a call. Whether that free bid shows 6+ or merely no interest in defence is partnership agreement, but everyone here except you is assuming 6+. Why is your way better? Make your case. Min opener, by itself, is not reason to not want to defend, only shortness in enemy suit. If you are short in enemy suit, and not 6 spades, you must have side 4+ suit. Why not bid that suit if bidding, or pass & see if partner has genuine 3 cd support, bid side suit later if necessary?

But thats just me.

It appears to be only you.

Hi,

 

I wont go in semantics, if you say, 2S is a free bid, even if pass is

forcing, than so be it.

 

For the following discussion, please assume that 2C is not 100%

game forcing, i.e. 2C just promises another bid.

I believe most posters, who argue that 2S shows a 6 carder, have

a 2/1 game force background.

 

The question is, what do you bid with a min opener and 5-1-4-3,

hopefully this shows 5 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs.

 

You can say, that you can raise to 3C or bid 3D.

 

But the question is, are those bids forcing or can they still be made

on a min opener.

 

In my opinion 3C and 3D should show additional strength, and hence

be forcing, because 2H does not necessarily show strength, the bid could

be made on just a good 6 card suit (weak two strenght), and 3C should

show a real fit, and as far as I know, 2C does not promise a 5 card suit.

 

To differentiate between a good and a bad 3D bid, you could use

some kind of good/bad 2NT, if you want to go scientific, but this

was not part of the discussion, and good/bad 2NT has some nice

side effects as well, which I am happy to avoid, if I can.

 

In other words, allowing 2S to be bid with 5 card suit, allows opener

to limit his hand, which helps in the decision "playing game / just a

partial / slam".

 

You may believe that opener can still limit his hand later in the auction,

but it gets tough, ... just look at varius question in the 2/1 context

"How to bid a given hand", and the main issue is, that both sides are

unlimited, and the auction already reached the 3 level,

and those problems pop up as well, if a 2/1 just promises a 2nd bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

The question is, what do you bid with a min opener and 5-1-4-3,hopefully this shows 5 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs.

 

You can say, that you can raise to 3C or bid 3D.

If bidding shows a minimum, and passing shows extras or a willingness to defend, then why wouldn't you use X to show 5-1-(43) distribution?

[Stephen Tu]

So mainly you are wanting to limit opener's hand.

 

My point is that you are not exploiting the pass option the opponent has given you. Why can you not pass w/ min, then support partner/bid side suit later to accomplish this, with the direct bid being stronger? Why is rebid your 5 bagger better than this alternative?

 

Not in comp, one has to temporize with 2S with minimums, so that 3 level bids can show extras. Thus 2S rebid after 2/1 not in comp cannot promise 6 without lots of problems. But with the opponent's bid, you have the option to temporize with pass instead of 2S. This conserves space and gives you more options, makes the 2S call more descriptive, and increases responders options as well.

[P_Marlowe]

The question is, what do you bid with a min opener and 5-1-4-3,hopefully this shows 5 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs.

 

You can say, that you can raise to 3C or bid 3D.

If bidding shows a minimum, and passing shows extras or a willingness to defend, then why wouldn't you use X to show 5-1-(43) distribution?

Since Pass is forcing:

#1 Dbl, Penalty, i.e. Dbl shows a hand which wants

to defend (strong bal. hand is possible)

#2 Pass, a hand, which has awaits partners decision,

if he wants to defend or not, usually this shows xx

or xxx in their suit (the weak NT hand is typical)

#3 No interest in defending

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

So mainly you are wanting to limit opener's hand.

 

My point is that you are not exploiting the pass option the opponent has given you. Why can you not pass w/ min, then support partner/bid side suit later to accomplish this, with the direct bid being stronger? Why is rebid your 5 bagger better than this alternative?

 

Not in comp, one has to temporize with 2S with minimums, so that 3 level bids can show extras. Thus 2S rebid after 2/1 not in comp cannot promise 6 without lots of problems. But with the opponent's bid, you have the option to temporize with pass instead of 2S. This conserves space and gives you more options, makes the 2S call more descriptive, and increases responders options as well.

I use the addional option, I use it to differentiate

between offensive / defensive hands.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Why do I believe this is better? I use the standard

forcing pass rules, which reduces the memory load and

keeps things simple. May this be inferior? Sure, but you

wont get rich on the difference, because it is fairly seldom,

that they interfere in our 2/1 auctions, and the options to

kill them is still there. And any advantage will get lost, if

one of us forgets this special case.