rogerclee Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 What kind of hand would bid this way? (1♠ then 3♣) 1♠-(Dbl)-Rdbl-(P)3♣ Values, distribution, or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 6-5 GF - which isnt that strong after the redouble. Maybe some 5-5-3-0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 shapely GF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 2♣ here would be weak. A better hand usually starts with pass. But with wildly distributional hands, passing first may not be so practical.This should show a GF hand with two good suits and at least 10 cards in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I'd assume that it was non-forcing. Something like AQJ10x x xx KQJxx. I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be forcing - this is just what I believe to be the default meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 It seems like after an opening and a redouble, you're on a pretty narrow range of values. Any bid that "sounds strong" like a jump should probably be GF. Otherwise it just becomes very hard to bid intelligently. I'd bid 2♣ with any 5-5 hand that doesn't want to be in game opposite partner's 10+ so 3♣ would be a "good 5-5" since passing and then bidding later will be more ambiguous about shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I'd assume that it was non-forcing. Something like AQJ10x x xx KQJxx. I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be forcing - this is just what I believe to be the default meaning. you're so english :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 2C would be forcing since XX is forcing until at least 2S. So 3C show extreme distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 2C would be forcing since XX is forcing until at least 2S. ?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 2C would be forcing since XX is forcing until at least 2S. So 3C show extreme distribution. Usually an immediate 2C shows a weak shapely opening (why else would you object to partner's desire to double, after all) so in particular it is non-forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I agree with gnasher. It doesn't sound forcing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 3♣ sounds very forcing to me. Partner said "I am strong, do you want to dbl them?" Response: "I am strong too, but I have too much shape and whatever we double, I'll be afraid we will miss something better" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 3♣ is obviously some strong, offensive 55. A fit is virtually guaranteed because pard's rdbl usually shows something in clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 2♣ would be NF with a weak 2-suiter, 6-5 with my regular since we open 1♣ with a minimum 55. 3♣ should be a strong GF 2-suiter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 2♣ would be NF with a weak 2-suiter, 6-5 with my regular since we open 1♣ with a minimum 55. 3♣ should be a strong GF 2-suiter. agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 2♣ can't be forcing but I doubt its passed very often. 3♣ shows a very offensive hand, since both 2♣ and pass are in the game. I'd say 3♣ looks like a minimum of: ♠AQxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣AKxxx Whether or not we have to play 5♣ or can get out in 4♣ on a misfit where 3N isn't appealing is another issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Forcing, but 2C is not forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I agree with gnasher. It doesn't sound forcing to me. How many non-forcing ways do we need to get out to clubs? 2♣ NF 3♣ Forcing seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 How many non-forcing ways do we need to get out to clubs? I don't think anyone suggested 3C was a way to "get out". The idea is that 2C is weak, 3C is invitational, and pass followed by 3C is forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Isn't weak already invitational? How strong is an invitational hand opposite a redouble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Isn't weak already invitational? How strong is an invitational hand opposite a redouble? No, weak is weak. Two ill-fitting ten counts don't add up to an invitation. In a quick look through my bookshelf, the only examples I found were: 3C: AQ9xx x Jx KQJxx2C: AQJxx x xx K10xxx Personally, I'd want better suits for 3C. FWIW, Miles says that 3C "must be forcing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 what?! no votes for autosplinter?! heh i'm with the crowd 2♣ an "oh, did I open this crap?" hand3♣ Godzilla hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 I'd say 3♣ looks like a minimum of: ♠AQxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣AKxxx Agree with this, but I'm not sure anyone has gotten to a big point--what's the upper range, if any? What does ♠AKQxxx ♥void ♦x ♣AQxxxx bid? Can it bid 3♣, or should it pass first and then start jumping in clubs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Isn't weak already invitational? How strong is an invitational hand opposite a redouble? No, weak is weak. Two ill-fitting ten counts don't add up to an invitation. In a quick look through my bookshelf, the only examples I found were: 3C: AQ9xx x Jx KQJxx2C: AQJxx x xx K10xxx Personally, I'd want better suits for 3C. FWIW, Miles says that 3C "must be forcing". In this context weak obviously means a very minimal hand. But that doesn't mean that the partnership won't go to game, even opposite a minimal redouble. Doesn't invitational mean that you can stop below game with a poor fit and go to game with a good fit? So yes, if responder has a poor fitting 10-count then they will pass over 2C, but that doesn't mean the bid isn't invitational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 I'd say 3♣ looks like a minimum of: ♠AQxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣AKxxx Agree with this, but I'm not sure anyone has gotten to a big point--what's the upper range, if any? What does ♠AKQxxx ♥void ♦x ♣AQxxxx bid? Can it bid 3♣, or should it pass first and then start jumping in clubs? If you think 3C is forcing as most seem too then there is no upper limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.