BW Master Solvers

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

In my own preferred methods, I'd bid 2♦, transfer showing a constructive heart raise, and then bid diamonds if necessary, but I don't think that is BWS either.

Why not transfer to diamonds

and bid hearts later?

 

Just curious, because we started

currently to use transfer in this

kind of situation.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

Frankly I've never heard of 2/1 after a X being anything other than NF. My partner got that idea once for about a week and I had a helluva time finally convincing him that he was imagining it. :) But there is a place on the convention card for it to be forcing so I guess someone does play that!

Here in the UK, the (just about) majority method is to play a 2/1 as forcing after a double. The alerting regulation says that both are sufficiently common that neither forcing nor non-forcing is alertable.

 

Playing 3D as weak is virtually unheard of here. It's commonly played either as strong (if 2D is non-forcing) or as fit, typically showing 4 hearts and 5 diamonds.

[Flame]

I never liked the fit jumps the way most ppl play them showing 4 cards fit, in my cc they show 6 in the suit and 3 in support and they are non forcing.

IF this isnt avaliable i think ill go with the weak 3D with second choise being 2H and third 2D.

[Halo]

2D and bid on over 4S.

 

I believe this works out most often. We might make and opponents might be making. I don't expect them to bid to the five level which makes this a close decision. On the whole I prefer to bid faced with such unknowns.

[kenrexford]

I almost share opinion with the Suit/Lead folks (2♣ as a transfer to 2♦). The only difference is that I believe that this is a swan hand and would likely pass 2♦. I'd compete, and I might even take a stab at some sort of swan-indicating choice call, but my focus would be diamonds if the swan-indicator is not available.

[Guest Jlall]

The hand seems too strong to be a classic WJS.

The way a lot of people seem to play them it is. I've even seen people at the club say it denies as many as 6 points lol. The way I have seen them played by experts (and most experts I know don't play them) this would just be about above average but pretty much in the range of what partner would expect (minus the third heart!).

[mike777]

I thought this was a really interesting hand and the comments here and in BW this month were fascinating.

 

Here we have a simple every day auction and yet so many play the standard BW or standard understanding of 2d, 3d, 2h or 3h as meaning very different things.

 

 

We cannot even agree what these bids mean in a WC pickup partnership, let alone what our judgement bid is given what these bids mean. :lol:

[ralph23]

Frankly I've never heard of 2/1 after a X being anything other than NF. My partner got that idea once for about a week and I had a helluva time finally convincing him that he was imagining it.  :lol: But there is a place on the convention card for it to be forcing so I guess someone does play that!

Here in the UK, the (just about) majority method is to play a 2/1 as forcing after a double. The alerting regulation says that both are sufficiently common that neither forcing nor non-forcing is alertable.

 

Playing 3D as weak is virtually unheard of here. It's commonly played either as strong (if 2D is non-forcing) or as fit, typically showing 4 hearts and 5 diamonds.

♣♦♥♠

 

That's really very interesting. Live and learn I guess. On the ACBL conv. card, 2/1 forcing after the X isn't alertable either, which leads me to believe that people in the US must play this way, because if it were considered really weird it would be alertable.

 

We still play Bergen is on after a double, so 3♦ by responder over the X would just be a conventional ♥ limit (or better! :D) raise with 4 trumps, saying nothing about ♦. We reserve Jordan 2NT to show exactly a 3-card limit ♥ raise.

[foo]

North,Both,IMP,

2,J62,AQT8652,32

 

1H=X=?

Your call and plan?

Unless you play Negative Free Bids (NFBs), a 2 level bid of a new suit in a Contested Auction shows 5+ cards in suit and the playing strength of 10+ HCP. Such a 2level bid is 100% forcing if Advancer passes.

 

This hand has 10 playing points in support of ♥'s, and that ♦ suit is 9 of them.

 

I'm bidding 2D and then supporting ♥'s.

[mike777]

North,Both,IMP,

2,J62,AQT8652,32

 

1H=X=?

Your call and plan?

Unless you play Negative Free Bids (NFBs), a 2 level bid of a new suit in a Contested Auction shows 5+ cards in suit and the playing strength of 10+ HCP. Such a 2level bid is 100% forcing if Advancer passes.

 

This hand has 10 playing points in support of ♥'s, and that ♦ suit is 9 of them.

 

I'm bidding 2D and then supporting ♥'s.

Foo,

You may wish to double check the BW site that is listed in this thread.

If I understand BWS 2d is not forcing.

 

Of course you may still choose 2D and assume the bidding will never die there. :)

[Gerben42]

In continental Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Poland, that kind of places) 2♦ is normally played as non-forcing, 3♦ as fit-showing jump (as in if you would sit down with an expert from these countries, that's how they'd take it)

[ArcLight]

Why isn't this a good hand for hearts?

We are short in spades and pard can ruff them in the short hand. Diamonds can work out, but its possible pard has just 1.

What if the opps compete to some level of Spades? Do we want to then bid 4♥, down 1?

[ArtK78]

First, after a double, the "standard" treatment in North America is that a 2/1 is natural and non-forcing. Furthermore, when I say non-forcing, it is not encouraging and TENDS to deny a fit.

 

Second, while this hand does have a heart fit and a shortness, I do not believe it will play as well in hearts as it will in diamonds. If partner has a good fit for diamonds, hearts will play well if he can maintain control of the heart suit. However, if his fit for diamonds is only minimal or marginal, the diamond suit will be almost worthless to him in a heart contract. On the other hand, even opposite a small singleton diamond a diamond contract is very playable.

 

So, if I had no special methods, I would bid 2D over the double intending it as natural, non-forcing and non-encouraging. However, as I mentioned above, I would like to be able to bid 2C as a transfer advance showing diamonds with the intention of supporting hearts at the two level.

 

Finally, I don't understand why so many posters seem to think this hand is going to produce a lot of tricks in hearts. It might, but there is no way you can tell that is the case. Those who bid 4H are just taking a wild stab in the dark, and it could be very wrong.

[whereagles]

I'll bid a Truscott 2NT, followed eventually by some diamond bid.

[benlessard]

1♠ is my bid except against strong opps. This classic psych simply work often enough and the risk is minimal.

 

Against strong opps at imp ill bid 2♦ if partner raise or rebid ♥ i might sacrifice otherwise i prefer to tell partner what to lead.

 

 

 

 

PS

 

2♦ could be quite weak it just show a decent suit

[foo]

North,Both,IMP,

2,J62,AQT8652,32

 

1H=X=?

Your call and plan?

Unless you play Negative Free Bids (NFBs), a 2 level bid of a new suit in a Contested Auction shows 5+ cards in suit and the playing strength of 10+ HCP. Such a 2level bid is 100% forcing if Advancer passes.

 

This hand has 10 playing points in support of ♥'s, and that ♦ suit is 9 of them.

 

I'm bidding 2D and then supporting ♥'s.

Foo,

You may wish to double check the BW site that is listed in this thread.

If I understand BWS 2d is not forcing.

 

Of course you may still choose 2D and assume the bidding will never die there. :D

BWS is a system based on consensus amongst polled players.

Unfortunately, that seems to mean NFBs got the nod.

 

In SA, 1H-pa-2D is forcing.

In SA, 1H-2D;foo-H Raise shows an Invitational hand with support and a side ♦ Suit.

 

The meaning stays the same in SA when the auction becomes contested.

In SA or 2/1, 1H-X-2D is also forcing. !not! GF, but forcing for 1 round if Advancer passes.

 

Why? because =unless playing NFB's= Responder's bid of a new suit at the 2 level still shows 10+ playing points.

 

...and the reason is =exactly= hands like this. Note how the "problem" on this board goes away if you know that Responder's new suit at the 2level shows 10+ playing points.

 

If I am playing a system where 2D does !not! shows 10+ points and therefore is nf, I will do whatever I have to "manufacture" a forcing call.

 

My choices under those circumstances include

XX followed by a ♥ raise

2N! Showing a LR+ in H's. (see comment below)

3D if Fit Showing (I usually want 4 card support, but I'm cornered here)

 

All these choices distort the hand. 2D showing 10+ playing points followed by a ♥ raise is the best way to describe our hand.

 

Playing 2D as nfb here results in system problems.

[hrothgar]

Quick question regarding nomenclature:

 

I'm not used to the expression "Negative Free Bid" being applied to auctions following a takeout double.

 

My understanding is that Negative Free Bid traditional referred to auctions such as

 

1X - (1Y) - 2Z

 

or

 

1X - (2Y) - 2Z

 

I had always assumed that the name had some kind of linkage to a Negative Double. If you are playing Negative Free Bids than you typically need to shift game forcing single suited patterns into the Negative Double.

[ralph23]

In SA or 2/1, 1H-X-2D is also forcing. !not! GF, but forcing for 1 round if Advancer passes.

♣♦♥♠

 

No, a 2/1 response after a double is non-forcing in SAYC.

 

http://www.swangames.com/main/Duckling/SAYC/sayc.html

"If RHO makes a takeout double:

Suit bids at the one level are forcing for one round.

Suit bids at the two level are not forcing and usually show six cards and less than 10 points."

 

http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...tem%20Notes.pdf (old version)

The ACBL Standard Yellow Card System Booklet

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf (new version

 

See also William S. Root, Commonsense Bidding (a basic & fairly recent American text)

 

Also see "Bridge Base Standard" (either basic or advanced) on this site, which use standard and which state 2/1 after a X is NF.

 

Regular 2/1 is the same. People do play this differently, I have come to learn, esp. apparently in the UK, but SAYC is NF after the X.

[foo]

I did a quick poll amongst my friends and discovered that although some of us =play= 1banana-x-2apple with the same strength requirements as 1banana-(foo)-2apple, this is an idiosyncracy. It is !not! Standard.

 

Standard after a T/O X is different than after an overcall and basically shows a hand that looks like the lower range of a Weak Two or 3level preempt bid.

 

For my money this makes WJS in competition useless since then there'd be two bids for the same kind of hand, but there you go.

 

Under such circumstances, I'm making a Fit Jump with the OP hand.

[ochinko]

I did a quick poll amongst my friends and discovered that although some of us =play= 1banana-x-2apple with the same strength requirements as 1banana-(foo)-2apple, this is an idiosyncracy. It is !not! Standard.

 

Standard after a T/O X is different than after an overcall and basically shows a hand that looks like the lower range of a Weak Two or 3level preempt bid.

 

For my money this makes WJS in competition useless since then there'd be two bids for the same kind of hand, but there you go.

 

Under such circumstances, I'm making a Fit Jump with the OP hand.

I play it even simpler than the standard.

 

Any new suit from an unpassed hand after an intervention is forcing, and doesn't deny fit.

 

Any new suit after a double is non-forcing and denies fit.

[helene_t]

In Robson-Segal methods, 3♦ is a fit-bid, right? I think I would do that, then. If the only fitbid is 4♦, I'd rather bid a non-forcing 2♦ or maybe a weak 3♦ or 2♥.

 

Added: I have two messages to partner but probably only time to convey one of them before LHO bids space at a level beyond my safety. Unless I pretend to have a 4-card hearts.

 

I like Wayne (Cascade)'s case for 2♥ but on the other hand, if I show my diamonds with a weak 3♦ at least I will get to know whether that encouraged p to double 4♠ or not. If I bid 2♥ I'll have to listen to whatever uninformed decision p makes over 4♠, that won't make my next decision easier.

Edited July 27, 2007 by helene_t

[ArtK78]

Calling Jxx a "fit" is pretty strong. I would expect better.

[helene_t]

Calling Jxx a "fit" is pretty strong. I would expect better.

Yes, that's why it's an MSC problem.

[hrothgar]

My own suspicion is that a 3♦ or 4♦ fit showing jump won't really factor into the core "debate" in the MSC.

 

1. As folks have already noted, BWS doesn't use fit jumps in this auction.

 

2. Even if a fit jump were available, most partnerships require a much better suit as support. Hxxx is far from uncommon as an agreement.

 

If fit jumps are mentioned, I expect it to be a throw away line. (Furthermore, if anyone does vote for a 3♦ bid, I expect that they are doing so as a weak jump shift)

 

This is not to say that the notion of fits won't be important. I readily expect to see a fair amount of debate between people who want to bid 2♥ and immediately show a fit and people who want to bid 2♦ and show their suit.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't fit jump because the support isn't good enough, as Richard said. At the same time, the fact that these hands with 3 card support seem waaay more common than hands with a good sidesuit and 4 card support make me wonder if this is really the best way to play them. If allowed with 3 card support, the frequency increase would certainly be large.

 

In any case, for my money I am not going to fail to bid diamonds on this hand. That seems way more important to partner for any decision he makes than showing the meager heart support.