MP decision

[Winstonm]

I don't understand why it would be taken as non-forcing. I always considered it a standard rule that if responder makes an invitational bid and opener bids over it, the invitation has been accepted.

 

 

Well, the main reason is because it is one heck of a lot harder to produce 11 tricks than it is 9 or 10 tricks - especially when one hand is known to be limited to non-game-forcing strength. I agree that once opener accepts, we are commited to either 3N or 4-of-a-major - but 5-of-a-minor is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

If I had this forcing to 5m agreement, I would be less likely to make invitational jumps.

[jdonn]

If I had this forcing to 5m agreement, I would be less likely to make invitational jumps.

You shouldn't be, you probably end in your invitational jump or in 3NT over 95% of the time. Also, partner knows 11 > 10 too.

 

If you play 4 of a minor is nonforcing in these auctions you have to screw yourself when you have good hands with nothing else to bid, like this one. Make up a cuebid in a suit that doesn't merit one, or just jump to game, these are the options? Anyway I can understand why someone would play the other way, but I would consider that the exception to standard. 3♦ = "I invite you to game". Not-pass = "I accept your invitation". I've yet to meet the pair that makes its living accepting invitations to game then stopping on a dime in 4 of a minor!

 

For most people I dont think 4♦ would be forcing in this auction.  I would bid 4♥ and  am happy whether it is a cue or we're playing it as RKC.

If you're happy with RKC why not just bid 4NT?

[Apollo81]

For most people I dont think 4♦ would be forcing in this auction.  I would bid 4♥ and  am happy whether it is a cue or we're playing it as RKC.

If you're happy with RKC why not just bid 4NT?

Because a cue would be my first choice, but if that is not available then I will settle for RKC.

[Free]

I'll Blacky this sucka :)

[CSGibson]

I think partner is cue-bidding his cheapest ace and claiming no clear heart stop with 3♠.  I'm bidding key card, whatever that is in your methods, and, if we have all the key cards, asking partner to bid 7 with 3rd round control of clubs.  If partner has one key card, I'm stopping at 5♦.

Again, the earlier bidding is essential - was 3D forcing or non-forcing?

 

If non-forcing, how can 3S bid a slam try?

3♦ was non-forcing, but 3♠ can be a slam try after 3♥, which shows extra values and might be an advance cue-bid. 3♠ denies the solid heart stopper, as does 4♣ and 4♦. I prefer my denial to have a purpose, in this case cooperation in case 3♥ was an advance cue for a slam.

 

I suppose the other interpretation would be that 3♠ shows a five card spade suit, but I wouldn't want to play that way; if I had 3 card support, I'd bid it at the 3 level (forcing), and partner can expect me to give preference at the 4 level for 2 card support later in the auction if I move over 4♣/4♦

[Cascade]

This looks middle of the road for 2♣.

 

Not close to 3♦ or 3♣ for me. Or anything else ...

[Winstonm]

3♦ was non-forcing, but 3♠ can be a slam try after 3♥, which shows extra values and might be an advance cue-bid. 3♠ denies the solid heart stopper, as does 4♣ and 4♦. I prefer my denial to have a purpose, in this case cooperation in case 3♥ was an advance cue for a slam.

 

I suppose the other interpretation would be that 3♠ shows a five card spade suit, but I wouldn't want to play that way; if I had 3 card support, I'd bid it at the 3 level (forcing), and partner can expect me to give preference at the 4 level for 2 card support later in the auction if I move over 4♣/4♦

 

Maybe it is only semantics, but the logic does not flow here for me. Here is my case:

#1 - partner limited his hand with 1D/2C sequence

#2 - I limited my hand with a limited, invitational, passable bid (3D)

#3 - My partner said he had enough extras for possible game (3H)

 

Where is slam to be found anywhere in this scenario? Even if partner is making some odd slam try in this sequence, I cannot make that assumption - we are still in "looking for the best game" mode at this point in time (3H). At the same time, I made a passable bid, my partner squeaked he hand enough for game, and now I want to start a slam try because he has an extra King?

 

See what I mean. It doesn't make sense. I believe that whatever I chose to bid now must be in keeping with thie present mode, i.e., we are looking for the best game. The most logical reason to bid 3S is as a suggestion for trumps. Perhaps something like KQJ9xx, xx, xxxx, Ax. How else to reach 4S when partner holds: 10x, Kx, AKJxx, KQJx?

 

Ah. There may be the light. The important thing here is that the best game may not be in an 8 or 9-card fit. So the argument of looking solely for 3-card spade support is mute - the object is to find the best game contract - even a 5/2 if that is best.

 

Anyway, that's my position. I can't say one would never try for slam after making a passable bid, but it would occur so rarely as to be senseless to base further bidding on that assumption.

[mike777]

and we're not strong enoug for 3♣ or 3♦.

I think we are fairly strong enough for a 3♦ rebid :).

 

Anyway, everyone agreed on first decision.

 

Now the auction goes on.

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-3♦

3♥-3♠

??

Now 4H rkc for d I hope. :)

[Fluffy]

Partner held:

 

♠A10xx

♥Qxx

♦xxxx

♣Ax

[Winstonm]

Partner held:

 

♠A10xx

♥Qxx

♦xxxx

♣Ax

Automatic 3N over 3H.