Rambling thoughts on this possible slam hand

[P_Marlowe]

I totally agree, that on this particular hand Gerber had solved a guess. But so had any other tool like a forcing 3 Spade, nmf, checkback, etc.

Yes indeed. The difference is that use of Gerber is an add-on. It does not change the rest of the system. Contrast this with 2♣ and 2♦ check-back. Here a plethora of new ways of showing your hand are opened up, requiring detailed agreement. Great for "system nuts" but not practical unless you and your partner are likeminded and are prepared to spend a lot of time on it. Even using 3♠ forcing, you could argue needs system tinkering. say play 1m-2s as 0-5 1m-1s-1nt-2s as 6-8 invite, releasing 1m-1s-1nt-3s as agame force.

Or play NMF, i.e. only 2C is artificial, which is more

or less similar to 3rd suit forcing.

 

I am certainly not a scientiest, and actually I favor

natural and simple agreements, but this does not

mean "No agreements", it means "only very few

with an high frequence".

 

Did you discuss, which kind of RKCB you played? If yes,

skipp this and just mentoion / ask, we play NMF?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Checkback is for system nuts, great.

[Wackojack]

Checkback is for system nuts, great.

No, check back (particularly 2-way cb) I said was great for system nuts, not specifically for system nuts. But check-back does require detailed agreements that you have to spend some time on.

 

He said with a voice as though talking to a child.

[cherdano]

Checkback is for system nuts, great.

No, check back (particularly 2-way cb) I said was great for system nuts, not specifically for system nuts. But check-back does require detailed agreements that you have to spend some time on.

 

He said with a voice as though talking to a child.

2-way checkback or xyNT seems actually easier to play than new minor forcing.

[han]

Wacko, it seems that you are suggesting that we answer bidding questions like this assuming that we are not playing with a partner we know. To me that seems a complete waste of time. Why spend a lot of time on the forums discussing what the best bid is if we are not willing to spend a little bit of time agreeing what we play over a simple 1NT rebid? The answer "set up a gameforce in spades in whatever way you and your partner have agreed to do so" seems a very good answer to the question in this thread. If you do not know how to create a gameforce and you are not sure whether 4C is Gerber or a splinter then it is a completely useless question.

[gwnn]

It seems to me that many threads start with "good partner, 1 minute system discussion 2/1 udca, what to bid with this one?", but maybe it's just me. I agree with Han's feeling, though.

 

BTW I think in 100% natural bidding you can set a GF with spades with 1m-p-2♠, but then it's pretty much impossible.

[pclayton]

Checkback is for system nuts, great.

No, check back (particularly 2-way cb) I said was great for system nuts, not specifically for system nuts. But check-back does require detailed agreements that you have to spend some time on.

 

He said with a voice as though talking to a child.

2-way checkback or xyNT seems actually easier to play than new minor forcing.

Because it is. For much the same reason that 2/1 is easier than a 2/1 standard american auction.

 

In NMF, you have a lot of conflicting views on what bids are forcing and what bids aren't. With 2-way NMF / XYZ, you know exactly what is forcing in an auction.

 

I hate it when new players are taught SAYC and NMF, only to 'transition' into 2/1 and 2-way.

[skjaeran]

I agree with Han that there's not much point in discussing a hand like this when you have absolutely no agreements and can't force to game below game leven and make an intelligent slam invitation. It's just a "random" guess, and there's not much point discussing that.

[awm]

I think bidding gerber with this hand is okay. Obviously it'd be better to have more methods, but it does seem that:

 

(1) The only place we can be off two quick tricks is diamonds, which is opener's first bid suit. It's a reasonable bet that he has something in this suit, and even if not the opponents might not find the lead (since it is opener's first bid suit).

 

(2) If partner has three aces, he has shown 15-17 so he will have some other card also. This could easily be spade honor, or the diamond king with that ace missing, and so forth and so on.

 

I do think it's a reasonable question to say "we do not have many agreements, what do you bid" -- not every pair agrees to a few hundred pages of detailed notes before playing a session.

 

With that said, 2-way NMF is a very good convention to play/discuss/add to your methods. It is both simpler and better than "regular" NMF and a huge improvement over "not playing methods over 1NT rebids."

[Wackojack]

Playing 2-way cb whats the difference between:

1c-1M-1nt-2c-2d-2nt and 1c-1M-1NT-2NT?

1c-1M -1nt-2d-2nt-3s and 1c-1M-1nt-3S when 1c-1M-1nt- 2c-2d-3s is invitational?

I could go on with lots of different sequences that require discussion.

 

The different meanings you can assign to these bids can be very powerful. I dont think the partner I was playing with is ready for this level of complexity or would welcome it either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I value the answers all posters give as a fantastic opportunity for learning. Just this time I wanted to get a point over about Gerber in the context of easy bidding.

[awm]

Playing 2-way cb whats the difference between:

1c-1M-1nt-2c-2d-2nt and 1c-1M-1NT-2NT?

1c-1M -1nt-2d-2nt-3s and 1c-1M-1nt-3S when 1c-1M-1nt- 2c-2d-3s is invitational?

I could go on with lots of different sequences that require discussion.

The point though is that you have a huge number of sequences available.

 

Even if the sum total of your discussion is that 2♦ is artificial game force and 2♣ puppets to 2♦, after which any call is invitational, look what you've accomplished:

 

(1) You can game force at the two-level, leading to an easy negotiation about fit.

 

(2) You can invite and play 2M.

 

(3) You now have three ways to bid 3M (1c-1M-1N-3M and 1c-1M-1N-2c-2d-3M and 1c-1M-1N-2d-2N-3M). Clearly the second is invitational and the third is GF. You can define the first how you want, or not even discuss it. Even if that sequence "no longer exists" you are ahead of people who play "no methods" here and have only one way to bid 3M.

 

While getting the most out of 2-way NMF requires assigning meanings to all these many sequences, you are already ahead of people playing "regular NMF" even if a lot of those sequences are meaningless.

[skjaeran]

Playing 2-way cb whats the difference between:

1c-1M-1nt-2c-2d-2nt and 1c-1M-1NT-2NT?

 

I could go on with lots of different sequences that require discussion.

 

The different meanings you can assign to these bids can be very powerful. I dont think the partner I was playing with is ready for this level of complexity or would welcome it either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I value the answers all posters give as a fantastic opportunity for learning. Just this time I wanted to get a point over about Gerber in the context of easy bidding.

In Norway it's normal to play that the first shows club support and the second don't. And that at direct jump to 3♣ over 1NT is to play.

 

I'd like to play that the direct raise to 2NT is a puppet to 3♣, a jump to 3♣ shows 5-5GF and that the first sequence is the only to show a balanced invite with 4cM.

1c-1s -1nt-2d-2nt-3s and 1c-1s-1nt-3S when 1c-1M-1nt- 2c-2d-3s is invitational?

I've played the second sequence as a distributional invite with a long suit and not much high card strength (all GF hands had to go via 2♦). But I prefer it to set trumps (max one loser) and invite slam. Then the first sequence would still be slam invite, but not with the semi-solid or solid trumps. When the second sequence is invitational, the first sequence must cover all GF hands with (5)6+ spades that both are unsure of strain (COG) and level (slam try).

[Wackojack]

Ok lets go through what I might do had we agreed 2-way check-back. I am trying to learn, how much in the way of agreements we need and how much we can just use intelligent bridge logic. Lets say we have agreed that all invitational hands must go via 2♣ and so we have 2 pathways for game force hands. I want to play in at least 4♠.

 

So my first decision after 1♣-1♠-1NT, is do I force with 3♠ or do I force with 2♦? If I force with 2♦, I expect partner to respond 2♠ with 3. That would be very welcome, then with spades agreed I could cue 3♣ and if I hear partner cue 3♦ we are on our way finally checking with RKB. If I hear 2♥, 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ I am not much further forward. Partner could have 1 or 2 spades, and if I next bid 3♠ and partner bids 3NT, I will still not know.

 

Better then to tell than to ask and I will force with a direct 3♠ rather than go through the 2♦ route. I believe that should show a 6 card suit but how good it should be I am not sure. If partner has Hx spade support, I would expect her to start cue bidding. If partner has a singleton spade I would expect her to bid 3NT and I will then sign off in 4♠. If partner has a small doubleton spade, I am not sure. Nevertheless a dirct 3♠ looks like the best bid.

 

Now I look at the FD file for BBO Adv. It says 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ shows 5 spades + 6 hearts and is forcing and 1♣-1♠-1NT -3♥ shows 6 hearts with 2 top honours. OK an obvious case of mixing up hearts and spades and I take it that the intention was that 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ shows 6 spades with 2 top honours. This disturbs me, because it seems to mean that BBOAdv wants me to go through the 2♦ route with my hand. So I look up 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT and unfortunately the continuation to 3♠ is undefined. So I stick with my original intention and force directly with 3♠.

 

Right, suppose otoh that partner agrees to play simple NMF. As was pointed out you need to be clear which sequences are forcing and which are not. Suppose I bid 2♦ NMF. I expect partner to respond 2♥ with 5 and 2♠ with 3 and denying 5 hearts. However, if partner responds 2NT is 3♠ forcing or invitational? Is a direct bid of 3♠ forcing. As phil has pointed out, there are lots of conflicting views.

 

What I am coming down to is that not everybody wants to be bothered with putting in all this work. If someone wants to play 2 play check back with me, I would be delighted, but I dont want to impose this on my partners unless they are really keen to play it. I think it is a big step to play this. otoh it is a small step to play the hated Gerber in this situation.

 

btw I would be very happy to be corrected if my analysis of 2 way check-back is faulty. I like to learn. Oh and thanks Skaeren for your interpretation of the sequences I mentioned earlier.

[Wackojack]

Playing 2-way cb whats the difference between:

1c-1M-1nt-2c-2d-2nt and 1c-1M-1NT-2NT?

1c-1M -1nt-2d-2nt-3s and 1c-1M-1nt-3S when 1c-1M-1nt- 2c-2d-3s is invitational?

I could go on with lots of different sequences that require discussion.

The point though is that you have a huge number of sequences available.

 

Even if the sum total of your discussion is that 2♦ is artificial game force and 2♣ puppets to 2♦, after which any call is invitational, look what you've accomplished:

 

(1) You can game force at the two-level, leading to an easy negotiation about fit.

 

(2) You can invite and play 2M.

 

(3) You now have three ways to bid 3M (1c-1M-1N-3M and 1c-1M-1N-2c-2d-3M and 1c-1M-1N-2d-2N-3M). Clearly the second is invitational and the third is GF. You can define the first how you want, or not even discuss it. Even if that sequence "no longer exists" you are ahead of people who play "no methods" here and have only one way to bid 3M.

 

While getting the most out of 2-way NMF requires assigning meanings to all these many sequences, you are already ahead of people playing "regular NMF" even if a lot of those sequences are meaningless.

Perhaps you are right that even if many sequences are not defined we are way ahead of those not playing it. But unless I am playing with a true expert, I have my doubts.