After righty overcalled

[H_KARLUK]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=shat7dakqj5ckj432]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

W   N   E   S

               1♦

1♠  2♦  P 2NT  

P    3♠  P 3NT  

P    4♣ P 4NT  

P    ?

[whereagles]

Pard told us 3 times he's got 12 hcp with spade wastage. I'll pass.

[brianshark]

♠KQJx ♥Kxx ♦xxxx ♣Qx

and

♠KQJx ♥Jxx ♦xxxx ♣Ax

 

are about the worst sub-minimums I can think of. Where do we want to be?

[Fluffy]

options are pass and 5♦. I wouldn't had bid 3♠, 3♣ or 4♠ look much more describing.

[TylerE]

Am I the only one who plays 2♦ here as non-forcing?

[hrothgar]

Abstain

 

the bidding so far is compeltely incomprehensible...

From what I can tell,

 

1. Partner opened 1♦

2. RHO overcalled 1♠

 

I'm sitting on a 4 loser hand, a spade void, and 5 card trump support to the AKQ...

SOMEHOW, I decided that to bid 2♦ (Which, BTW is non forcing where i come from)

 

If I start by fundamentally misdescribing my hand, what hope do I have of ever trusting any of partner's subsequent bidding..

[cherdano]

Am I the only one who plays 2♦ here as non-forcing?

No you are just the first one who read the auction.

[brianshark]

2♦ obviously NF in standard. I just assumed that they play inverted minors (or some sort of forcing raise) on over interference.

[MFA]

I'm bidding slam for sure.

Would have preferred a splinter to start with and then strong bidding from there. Perhaps partner would be able to drag up a cooperative bid at some point.

[gnasher]

It's obvious that this partnership plays 2♦ as forcing. Given that agreement, I can't see why you'd want to bid anything else.

 

I would, however, have bid 3♣ over 2NT. What we can make will depend on the club fit, and the right way to make that clear is to bid 3♣ and 4♣. 3♠ then 4♣ sounds more like a cue-bid.

 

Anyway, Brian's examples are pretty convincing, so I'd bid 6♦. I can't imagine it being worse than a finesse.

[cherdano]

Given the history of the OP I would rather assume this partnership doesn't know what it is playing.

[Fluffy]

I'm sitting on a 4 loser hand, a spade void, and 5 card trump support to the AKQ...

SOMEHOW, I decided that to bid 2♦ (Which, BTW is non forcing where i come from)

Good point, I though 3♠ was first mistake, but actually not bidding 3♠the round before was the mistake.

[Finch]

Even assuming that 2D was forcing, I prefer a 3S bid as more descriptive on the first round.

 

Having not done that, I prefer 3C over 2NT to show my length. Failing that, I prefer 4S over 2NT to show the void.

[mikeh]

We can safely assume that 2♦ was forcing.. if it wasn't, then the only question is which grand slam to bid... partner bid 2N opposite a 6 point raise?

 

We can (I think) be virtually unanimous in our dislike of the methods... I personally would prefer 2♠ on round one, since if I splintered I would be taking up a lot of space, and I'd prefer to keep the bidding low.

 

I agree with bidding 3♣ over 2N (which is presumably the call I'd get after 2♠ as well as after the chosen 2♦)

 

I would drive to slam on this hand, after the given auction. One can (barely) conjure up hands on which a horrible opening leads to a poor slam, but that is far too negative an approach. Besides, I don't think that hands such as AQJx Qxxx xxx Qx make for an opening 1♦ bid in any standard method.

[keylime]

As slam happy as I get, I bailed - I'm sensing we're off the KH and a club honor that's critical.

[gnasher]

We can (I think) be virtually unanimous in our dislike of the methods.

I don't particularly dislike the methods. What's wrong with them?

[H_KARLUK]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=shat7dakqj5ckj432&w=sa98632hq92d93ca7&e=st54hj54d876ct985&s=skqj7hk863dt42cq6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

W   N   E   S

               1♦

1♠  2♦  P 2NT  

P    3♠  P 3NT  

P    4♣ P 4NT  

P    

 

All pass

[mikeh]

We can (I think) be virtually unanimous in our dislike of the methods.

I don't particularly dislike the methods. What's wrong with them?

If one assumes that one never has the need to raise to 2♦ competitively, then.. no, there is nothing wrong with them. But some of us have the need to do so on occasion. Are we to choose between pass or an over/misbid when we hold, for example, xx Jxx QJxx Kxxx and rho bids 1♠ over our partner's 1♦?

 

Generally speaking, I don't like methods that don't allow us to describe common hands in common auctions, merely to make uncommon hands (slam try responses) marginally more efficient... and on this hand... what expectation is there that being able to bid 2♦ forcing will save room compared to 2♠? If 4th seat holds spades, as is often the case when the opps are assured of at least 9 of them, or if partner holds spade stoppers, as is often the case on those hands on which 4th seat can't raise spades... we save zero bidding space... while destroying our ability to tell partner when we hold a normal single raise.

 

I would be interested in seeing where this analysis is flawed :)

[nige1]

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ [space] ♥ AT7 ♦ AKQJ5 ♣ KJ432

W   N   E   S                1♦ 1♠  2♦  P 2NT   P    3♠  P 3NT   P    4♣ P 4NT   P    ?

Why do some assume SAYC or 2/1? <_<

There is a forum especially devoted to such methods :)

IMO 2♦ forcing is quite playable althougn I agree with Frances Hinden's comments. Anyway, IMO you should bid on.

[gnasher]

If one assumes that one never has the need to raise to 2♦ competitively, then.. no, there is nothing wrong with them. But some of us have the need to do so on occasion. Are we to choose between pass or an over/misbid when we hold, for example, xx Jxx QJxx Kxxx and rho bids 1♠ over our partner's 1♦?

You don't have any particularly attractive bid after 1♦ (pass) either. Is that sufficient reason to dislike inverted minor raises in uncontested auctions? There are bad hands for every method.

 

Not that I think this is one of them. Given the methods, to bid 1♦ (1♠) 3♦ wouldn't be either an overbid or a misbid; it would be the correct bid, it would usually come to no harm, and it might well do some good. Even if you did have a non-forcing 2♦ bid available, 3♦ might be the best call.

 

Generally speaking, I don't like methods that don't allow us to describe common hands in common auctions, merely to make uncommon hands (slam try responses) marginally more efficient... and on this hand... what expectation is there that being able to bid 2♦ forcing will save room compared to 2♠?

I don't think anyone has suggested that one plays 2♦ forcing here in order to facilitate slam bidding - the idea is to make it easier to investigate game. After 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ there is only one cue bid available below 3NT; after 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ there are two. That gives you considerably more space for investigating stops and alternative contracts - look at the difference between

  1♦ 1♠ 2♦ pass

  2♠

and

  1♦ 1♠ 2♠ pass

  3♠

 

If 4th seat holds spades, as is often the case when the opps are assured of at least 9 of them, or if partner holds spade stoppers, as is often the case on those hands on which 4th seat can't raise spades... we save zero bidding space... while destroying our ability to tell partner when we hold a normal single raise.

Responder won't necessarily raise with support and an otherwise worthless hand. And when neither player has a good enough stop to bid notrumps himself, but between us we each have sufficient for us to belong in notrumps, we have the space to find that out.

 

Notwithstanding my comments about your example hand, I agree that there are some hands with diamond support which would want to bid 2♦ but not 3♦. Whether the cost of not being able to bid on these hands is justified by the gains on other hands depends on how great and how frequent these gains are. In this case that's not even something we can determine in advance, because it's dependent on RHO's overcalling style. The decision to exchange flexibility in competitive bidding for accuracy in game-bidding is largely a philosophical one.