Over a Fert

[pclayton]

You decide to be a guinea pig against crazy Dr. Todd and his mad assistant aptly named Foobar for a few hands during lunch yesterday.

 

1st board out of the box you look at AQx Kx ATx AKJxx.

 

RHO opens 1♥ which is some assorted nonsense with 0-8 points and some unknown number of hearts.

 

You decide to bid 2N which you announce as 20-21 balanced (ignore the fert pard).

 

Pard transfers with 3♥ and bids 5♥ over 3♠.

 

No discussions, but you know pard to be a reasonable, rational player.

 

What now?

[h2osmom]

Is it exclusion?

[ArtK78]

If exclusion is a possibility, that is what it is.

[gnasher]

The opening bid seems irrelevant. It's effectively gone

 

pass 2NT pass 3H

pass 3S pass 5H

 

I usually play 4H as a forcing slam try and 5H as showing a void (not Exclusion Keycard). No idea if that's normal or not.

[mikeh]

If we play texas, then 5♥ cannot be exclusion.. not to a rational player, anyway... we don't use both the 3-level transfer then 5♥ and the 4 level transfer and 5♥ for the same purpose.

 

So I think that 5♥ is his way of showing a forcing major 2-suiter.

 

This is contingent on my assumption that we don't have an agreement on how to show, say, KJxxx AJxxx Kx x any other way.. ie show the 2-suiter, forcing

 

I am also assuming that the 'unknown number of hearts' shown by opener is possibly as few as 3 or 4, such that partner will be looking for a heart fit.

 

If I am of this view, then my hand is truly huge..... but is it huge enough to bid 7♠? I would, in a heartbeat, if you moved a minor x into the spade suit, but.... I need him to have good interior cards, and minor honours, in the majors for grand to be high percentage.

 

I am generally a coward when it comes to taking a flier at a grand, altho fairly aggressive when it comes to risking a close small slam. A grand needs to be pretty good.. certainly far better than 50%, and I don't think that I can place our odds that high, and I don't think I can meaningfully involve partner.

 

So 6♠ it is.

[jdonn]

If we play texas, then 5♥ cannot be exclusion.. not to a rational player, anyway... we don't use both the 3-level transfer then 5♥ and the 4 level transfer and 5♥ for the same purpose.

 

So I think that 5♥ is his way of showing a forcing major 2-suiter.

Wouldn't a rational player just rebid 6♥ on a hand like that so we aren't in this position? I think you are confusing a rational player with a rational system designer. This is obviously exclusion to me. Granted my hand makes this unlikely, but why can't he just have a bucketfull of spades?

 

I'll just bid 7♠, I don't think this can be awful no matter what he meant.

[Apollo81]

I bet it's exclusion and he thought it wouldnt be on after Texas bc it wouldnt be a jump bid. Anyway I'd bid 6♠.

[whereagles]

What exactly does the fert have to do with this? This seems like natural bidding :)

 

Anyway, I'll just bid a natural 5♠ which, incidently, is also the reply to exclusion blackwood.. lol.

[han]

Agree with Nuno.

[Codo]

Yes really easy, 5 Spade is always right.

I bet he has a two suiter, but otoh what had 3 Diamond followed by 3 Spade from hm shown?

 

Does he want to show better/longer spades with his apporach? A narrow target for such a dangerous bid.

[pclayton]

I would agree it shouldn't be exclusion - thats what Texas is for. To me the main question is if its forcing or not. What do you all think?

 

I felt my hand was just prime enough for 7, so I bid 7♠. I think this is wrong in retrospect. I think the hand I'm looking for bids 6♥, not 5.

 

Pard held: Txxxxx AQTxxxx x void. Got REALLY lucky on this one - got ♠Kx in the slot.

[the hog]

Not talking about the hand but I think bidding 2NT is wrong. I think best against ferts is X followed by Herbert negatives.

We play 2NT as a m 2 suiter, opening values, 1NT as 12-15 bal/semi balanced, and 2C/2D/2H/2S as soap, 1S natural and opening values.

 

I would have bid 6C with your hand on the given bidding and I guess we'd end in 6H.

[gnasher]

We play ... 2C/2D/2H/2S as soap

What is "soap"?

[gnasher]

If a four-level transfer followed by 5H is exclusion, what do you do with a hand that wants to set spades as trumps and then cue bid ♥A, like AKJxxx Ax xx xxx?

[jdonn]

I would agree it shouldn't be exclusion - thats what Texas is for. To me the main question is if its forcing or not. What do you all think?

 

I felt my hand was just prime enough for 7, so I bid 7♠. I think this is wrong in retrospect. I think the hand I'm looking for bids 6♥, not 5.

 

Pard held: Txxxxx AQTxxxx x void. Got REALLY lucky on this one - got ♠Kx in the slot.

I assume you meant to make partner 6-6? In that case I don't see why he can't just be practical and rebid 6♥ instead of 5♥, why give us the headache?

[the hog]

Soap = system over artificial pre emption. This is the best method I know of to bid over ferts. You can use it over 1NT also.

2C = H

2D = S

2H/S = 4M and a longer m

[jdonn]

Soap = system over artificial pre emption. This is the best method I know of to bid over ferts. You can use it over 1NT also.

2C = H

2D = S

2H/S = 4M and a longer m

Ok I'm making this up out of my butt since I certainly have no experience in the area (well not quite out of my butt, I'm royally ripping off a few different ideas that are out there), but why wouldn't something like this be good over a 1♥ fert?

 

Dbl = 13-15 balanced or any 18+ that isn't ridiculously offensive (like many play double of multi)

1♠ = Long minor, may have 4 card major on the side. 1NT asking or 2♣ p/c.

1NT = 15-17 balanced

2♣ = Both majors

2♦ = One major

2♥/2♠ = 5+, 4+ minor

 

I imagine these would be constructive, essentially a minimum opening to about a 6 point range. I picture in my mind responder being able to pass the double with some hearts and they are on the run.

[CSGibson]

Ewww. Who ferted?

[the hog]

Soap = system over artificial pre emption. This is the best method I know of to bid over ferts. You can use it over 1NT also.

2C = H

2D = S

2H/S = 4M and a longer m

Ok I'm making this up out of my butt since I certainly have no experience in the area (well not quite out of my butt, I'm royally ripping off a few different ideas that are out there), but why wouldn't something like this be good over a 1♥ fert?

 

Dbl = 13-15 balanced or any 18+ that isn't ridiculously offensive (like many play double of multi)

1♠ = Long minor, may have 4 card major on the side. 1NT asking or 2♣ p/c.

1NT = 15-17 balanced

2♣ = Both majors

2♦ = One major

2♥/2♠ = 5+, 4+ minor

 

I imagine these would be constructive, essentially a minimum opening to about a 6 point range. I picture in my mind responder being able to pass the double with some hearts and they are on the run.

There are many schemes you can use. One friend of mine - a very strong player - played a counter fert. A 1NT overcall showed 0-10, pass 16+ and bids 11-15. He figured "if they can use a fert, why cant I?"

[mike777]

yes

 

over the past 20 or 30 years...many discuss bidding a counterfert over fert.

 

My reading of the bridge literature over past 30 years says:

1) This makes for fewer bridge paying membership, far fewer.

2) Those who play this style disagree.

3) Hamman/Wolff/Murray/ many many others write often about this issue. IN fact some of these WC stop bridge.

4) Most if not all uni level players disagree.

[jdonn]

self-removed... I'm just too mean I guess

[DrTodd13]

yes

 

over the past 20 or 30 years...many discuss bidding a counterfert over fert.

 

My reading of the bridge literature over past 30 years says:

1) This makes for fewer bridge paying membership, far fewer.

2) Those who play this style disagree.

3) Hamman/Wolff/Murray/ many many others write often about this issue. IN fact some of these WC stop bridge.

4) Most if not all uni level players disagree.

This post is nearly so incomprehensible that I don't know what you are trying to say. The use of the word "many" in conjunction with "fert" surely has to be an exaggeration. In both absolute and relative terms, most bridge players around the world probably couldn't even tell you what a fert is. Far fewer sit around trying to figure out how to defend it. Why should they? It has largely been banned all that time. Anybody into bridge enough to have learned what a fert is and to discuss defenses against it is surely not going to leave bridge, particularly paid bridge. You won't face it in competition anyway so why would paying members quit because of it?

[the hog]

yes

 

over the past 20 or 30 years...many discuss bidding a counterfert over fert.

 

My reading of the bridge literature over past 30 years says:

1) This makes for fewer bridge paying membership, far fewer.

2) Those who play this style disagree.

3) Hamman/Wolff/Murray/ many many others write often about this issue. IN fact some of these WC stop bridge.

4) Most if not all uni level players disagree.

Mike can you rewrite this pls. I really don't know what you mean.