omg what is that?

[neilkaz]

Acol has nothing to do with it. This bid is 100% to play.

OK...you're Australian if I recall so you get your fair share of ACOL with 4 card majors I'd suspect.

 

So if you want to play exclusion with the monster Paul was dealt you must double first and then bid 5♦ ?

 

This does make sense since one all one risks is having the opps at 5♦ prior to your 2nd call and you can then bid your suit and imply super playing strength.

 

Love this forum and it is SO instructive. .. neilkaz ..

[jdonn]

Now Josh, where's that download ....

http://web3.acbl.org/internet/websiteForms...pbForm?OpenForm

<_<

[P_Marlowe]

Acol has nothing to do with it. This bid is 100% to play.

OK...you're Australian if I recall so you get your fair share of ACOL with 4 card majors I'd suspect.

 

So if you want to play exclusion with the monster Paul was dealt you must double first and then bid 5♦ ?

 

This does make sense since one all one risks is having the opps at 5♦ prior to your 2nd call and you can then bid your suit and imply super playing strength.

 

Love this forum and it is SO instructive. .. neilkaz ..

A 1S overcall, intending to follow up with 6C, is a

simpler alternative and less prone to create a

disaster. The risk that 1S gets passed out is ...

 

Just because I think 5D is artifical and even has to

show the actual hand, does not mean I like it, and

I would never make this bid unless being 100%

sure, what it means, and I would never be 100% sure,

because for certain bids (like bidding the enemy suits)

there are more meanings out there than one believes.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[the hog]

Even if you are not playing Roman Jump overcalls or Ghestem where you can show 2 specific suits, why not bid 2NT to show a M/m 2 suiter? That would be a good start, then you can make forcing bids in Ds to show the strength of the hand.

[gwnn]

Discussed or not, she played for Scotland a week earlier so is an experienced player.

I hope you mean that as "well, she's a good player, so I am probably wrong, since she and lots of good players in this thread (and poor players like gwnn) have expressed their opinion that 5♦ here should be to play" and not "well, she's a good player so I figured she'd understand. I think good players should realize this is not to play."

[paulg]

Discussed or not, she played for Scotland a week earlier so is an experienced player.

I hope you mean that as "well, she's a good player, so I am probably wrong, since she and lots of good players in this thread (and poor players like gwnn) have expressed their opinion that 5♦ here should be to play" and not "well, she's a good player so I figured she'd understand. I think good players should realize this is not to play."

Yes, essentially.

 

Actually what I meant was, "I hope she has sufficient diamonds to know that it is not natural, and then she is certainly good enough to work out what it might mean absent discussion".

 

I was quite aware that this was a glory or bust bid, and that I would be fully responsible for all outcomes. I posted it just to get abused a bit, but it was interesting to see that there is no consistent meaning for the bid amongst Scottish experts and I wondered if this was global - now I know.

 

In mitigation, I did have most things right on the hand. Bidding the small slam gains no IMPs, the auction will be at 5♦ for your next call so you will never have the chance to find out about the ♥A, and we were actually 10 IMPs worse off than estimated.

[brianshark]

Sorry Paul but I think this is a clear natural bid. Any hand that has some diamond void and wants to force partner to bid something can bid 4♦ which makes even less sense as a natural bid than a jump to game. If you have some big major hand, why would you want partner to choose one at the 5-level?

[helene_t]

Even if you are not playing Roman Jump overcalls or Ghestem where you can show 2 specific suits, why not bid 2NT to show a M/m 2 suiter? That would be a good start, then you can make forcing bids in Ds to show the strength of the hand.

2N usually shows hearts/clubs. Might not be the optimal treatment but many pairs don't have a way to show spades/otherminor.

[whereagles]

well.. neilkaz did make the right inference and got it right. I think opps playing weak NT is the key. Unless opener has a 11-13 hcp 4441, there's little chance pard can have solid diamonds and playing strength to the 5 level.

 

but hey, pard's actual hand is probably LESS likely than a bucketload of diamonds and a goodish side suit.

[Finch]

I'm very used to playing against Acol and I still think it's natural, for two reasons:

i) General rule: unless specifically agreed otherwise, game is always bid to play

ii) Specific hand: partner has lots of ways of showing a huge single- or two-suiter, but no other way of showing a very good hand that wants to play in diamonds

 

Yes, I know we have two diamonds and LHO supposedly has 4 which means partner only has seven... but I've still seen Acol players open 1D on a 3-card suit even when it is not systemic.

[Flameous]

I know I wouldn't have passed with this hand, what ever the bid means. If it was natural, p should have the game in own hand which means my ace just made slam playable. If it's not, as was the case, we end in atleast better contract even if partner doesn't get the info he propably was after.

 

But my bid with the monster hand would have been 2♦, not 5. (Spades and other)

[the hog]

Even if you are not playing Roman Jump overcalls or Ghestem where you can show 2 specific suits, why not bid 2NT to show a M/m 2 suiter? That would be a good start, then you can make forcing bids in Ds to show the strength of the hand.

2N usually shows hearts/clubs. Might not be the optimal treatment but many pairs don't have a way to show spades/otherminor.

No Helene, 2NT usually shows C and a Major in this sequence if you play Michaels.

Playing Roman JO 2NT actually shows a gf unspecified 2 suiter.

[han]

2NT = clubs and a major, standard in Laos and other obscure places.

[jdonn]

No Helene, 2NT usually shows C and a Major in this sequence if you play Michaels.

Whhhhaaaaaaaa?

 

Don't worry Helene, I think your apology is imminent ;)

[the hog]

No Helene, 2NT usually shows C and a Major in this sequence if you play Michaels.

Whhhhaaaaaaaa?

 

Don't worry Helene, I think your apology is imminent ;)

Seriously absolutely stock standard in Oz and with every pd I have ever played that it ,[ (1D) 2NT ], shows C+ an unspecified major. Maybe you play it differently, but then I am curious how you show C+S.

 

Btw I assume none of you disagree with my comment re RJO 2NT being a gf 2 suiter. Just looked this up in the Yallouze book again.

[whereagles]

It's not just in Oz. I play that too:

 

(1m) 2NT = 55 other m + major.

[gwnn]

1m-2NT is om+M in Romania too but I hate it very very much. mind you, I'm somewhat biased because I also hate 1M-2M=oM+m , but not that much

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Seriously absolutely stock standard in Oz and with every pd I have ever played that it ,[ (1D) 2NT ], shows C+ an unspecified major. Maybe you play it differently, but then I am curious how you show C+S.

<snip>

You cant.

 

If you happen to hold this suit combination, you have to

make a simple overcall.

Thats the price you pay for requiring that the cue shows

all unbid mayors.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nige1]

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

(1♦) 5♦ (Pass) ?

 

[1♦ shows 4+♦ in a weak 1NT, 4-card majors system]

You are playing in the final of the district pivot teams. You were 54 IMPs down going into the last 14 boards and may have picked up about 20 IMPs in the first 10 hands.

 

You have a semi-regular expert partner and are playing basically your own system, so you know that the notes have nothing about this sequence (nor (1♦)-4♦).

 

What do you think the 5♦ bid means?[/hv]

IMO ...

 

_P = 10, 6♦ = 9, 5♥ = 8.

 

5♦ should be treated as natural because ...

• As Frances points out, how else can partner get to play in 5♦?
  
• Your ♦ holding is consistent with partner having a different intention but partner could not rely on you having a ♦ holding that would arouse your suspicions.
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistant with partner having a heart ♥ or two in with his ♦ but he should still have sufficient ♦ for 5♦ to be playable.
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistent with an opponent psyching or making a mistake and in such cases trusting partner is better for long term partnership morale.
  

But there is quite a good case for bidding, as a safety play, in case partner overrestimates my telepathic powers.

[the hog]

It's not just in Oz. I play that too:

 

(1m) 2NT = 55 other m + major.

Thanks Nuno. So where is this apology of yours, Josh? :rolleyes:

[jdonn]

It's not just in Oz. I play that too:

 

(1m) 2NT = 55 other m + major.

Thanks Nuno. So where is this apology of yours, Josh? :rolleyes:

Laos, Australia, AND Portugal? It must be standard! :)

[the hog]

And Csaba!

[jdonn]

And Csaba!

Ok toss in Romania. Tell you what, add Djibouti and the Bailiwick of Jersey to the list and I'm sold.

[P_Marlowe]

IMO 5♦ should be treated as natural because ...

• 
   
  
• As Frances points out, how else can partner get to play in 5♦?
   
  
• Your ♦ holding is consistent with partner having a different intention but partner could not rely on you having a ♦ holding that would arouse your suspicions.
   
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistant with partner having a heart ♥ or two in with his ♦ but he should still have sufficient ♦ for 5♦ to be playable. 
   
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistent with an opponent psyching or making a mistake and in such cases trusting partner is better for long term partnership morale.
   
  

A1 Passing first, and bidding diamonds later?

If you cant bid a certain suit direct, a delayed bid will

be natural.

A2 If you have no clue what a given bid means, it surely

makes some sense to look at your cards, maybe they will

tell you something?

A3 Do you suggest, that I should assume partner made a

mistake? How does this go along with A4?

A4 Do you suggest that the oppoenents made a psych bid

in first position leading by 20-30IMPs, the majority

of boards already being played?

 

You have to know, if the bid was meant to be natural or artificial,

the discussion showed that most expert on this forum,

 

and you can make this all expert who posted in this thread,

because I am certainly not claiming to be an expert,

 

believe the bid to be natural, which is fine.

 

You buy it or you dont, I dont, but it does not matter, as long as

you get it right, if the bid pops up, because those hands dont come

up often enough to make a discussion with partner worthwhile.

[the hog]

Uwe,

"A1 Passing first, and bidding diamonds later?

If you cant bid a certain suit direct, a delayed bid will

be natural". So how do I make a cue raise when you suggest the bid will be "natural"?

 

Secondly if you are playing with a, (good), regular partner and she makes a bid you do not understand, then I would suggest that that bid IS natural. Good partners do not practise masochism.

 

Thirdly - A4. Whom do YOU trust, partner or the opponents?

 

But you are right, this is too rare to spend a lot of time discussing.