1, Forcing, semi-forcing, namyats?

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=saqt9654ha6d8cak2]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

(P)-p-??

 

What do you open if you have following choices:

1♠: 5card Majors

2♦-2♥-3♠: semi-forcing in ♠

3♦-3♥-3♠: GF in ♠

4♦: Namyats

4♠: To play

 

If you have the above choices, what typical min and max hands would you use for them? e.g: 4♦ is longer ♠ or more concentrated values in ♠ then 2♦-2♥-3♠?

 

Thanks,

Koen

[Phil]

Not good enough for 2♣ (but close) and I hate Namyats with three outside cards.

 

Besides, playing with MikeH, I can't resist making an autosplinter that he won't read.

[whereagles]

I'll just use the system's forcing bid. Seems like in this case it's 2♦ or 3♦.

[H_KARLUK]

1♠

[Fluffy]

depdnds on your agreements, I think I'd go with 3♦ or 2♠, depends on how strong you think a 3♦ bid is.

 

EDIT: I meant 1♠, not 2♠

[kgr]

depdnds on your agreements, I think I'd go with 3♦ or 2♠, depends on how strong you think a 3♦ bid is.

After 3♦-3♥-3♠ you can not pass under game.

Partner can pass 2♦-2♥-3♠. This is semi-forcing.

[Fluffy]

but maybe you 3♦-3♠ hand looks like 11 top tricks, not 9 and a half.

 

3♦ opening has also other strong (probably 2 suiter) hands in the equation?, if that's true you are sensible to preemps. And it might be hard to explain to partner what is going on. So 3♦ might have to be bid with a very exclusive hand.

[Hanoi5]

I open 1♠, especially if we play drury, although expecting partner to have 3 spades might be too much.

[rbforster]

I see no reason to disguise my hand - I've got a semiforcing bid in spades (9 tricks) so that's how i'll bid it. Here that's 2♦...3♠. In standard I'd open 2♣ and be willing to stop in 3♠ opposite a negative response. Remember that if partner doesn't have the 1 trick you need for 4♠, he also won't have the entry you need to finesse in trumps... I don't like my odds of dropping both the K and J of spades playing the suit out of my hand.

[OleBerg]

I force this to game.

 

There are just to many hands partner will pass. It will play well facing the ♣Q and xx in spades.

[jdonn]

I think it's worth a game force but I would open 1♠ anyway, since rebidding 4♦ over 1NT is such a perfect description.

 

I guess I shouldn't be playing these methods then. Not that I needed a problem to tell me that.

[mikeh]

I am not familiar with the options that include opening 2 or 3♦, and since I can immediately think of a host of reasons for not playing those methods (what problem do they solve?) I will make the wtp opening of 1♠.

 

As for Phil's fear of my misreading the autosplinter.. he is welcome to the device. Me, I prefer, over a foring 1N, to bid 3♣ as gf with one of: specifically 4 hearts (3♥ over 1N would show 5+), both blacks, or a power one-suiter in spades not right for a namyats.

[jdonn]

I am not familiar with the options that include opening 2 or 3♦, and since I can immediately think of a host of reasons for not playing those methods (what problem do they solve?) I will make the wtp opening of 1♠.

 

As for Phil's fear of my misreading the autosplinter.. he is welcome to the device. Me, I prefer, over a foring 1N, to bid 3♣ as gf with one of: specifically 4 hearts (3♥ over 1N would show 5+), both blacks, or a power one-suiter in spades not right for a namyats.

Isn't this exactly the same as either 2♦ then 3♠ or 3♦ then 3♠ depending whether you think it's a game force opposite a random hand or only opposite a responding hand?

 

You put down the methods, then suggested your own methods that give the exact same information at the exact same level. :)

[mikeh]

I am not familiar with the options that include opening 2 or 3♦, and since I can immediately think of a host of reasons for not playing those methods (what problem do they solve?) I will make the wtp opening of 1♠.

 

As for Phil's fear of my misreading the autosplinter.. he is welcome to the device. Me, I prefer, over a foring 1N, to bid 3♣ as gf with one of: specifically 4 hearts (3♥ over 1N would show 5+), both blacks, or a power one-suiter in spades not right for a namyats.

Isn't this exactly the same as either 2♦ then 3♠ or 3♦ then 3♠ depending whether you think it's a game force opposite a random hand or only opposite a responding hand?

 

You put down the methods, then suggested your own methods that give the exact same information at the exact same level. :)

Nonsense.

 

I 'put down' methods that start the bidding at 2 or 3♦ which is not the same at all.

 

For example, I doubt that the methods starting with 2 or 3♦ would shine opposite x KJx AQx QJxxxx, while 1♠ offers a good chance of reaching 7♣.

 

Of course, this is a low percentage occurrence, but opening 1♠ allows for the conveying of far more information by responder than does any sequence that involves an artificial high level opening and (I gather) an automatic or semi-automatic artificial response.

 

BTW, with your approach.. the auto-splinter.. and I am not saying it is a bad approach... exactly how does it move your auctions forward while my 3♣ then 3♠ (responder will usually but not always bid 3♦ over 3♣) fails?

 

I have run through a series of possible auctions, and while I am not going to claim that my way always works better than the splinter, it seems pretty effective to me. Now, admittedly, we use a fairly comprehensive scheme, involving 3N over 3♠ as announcing some willingness to move towards slam, with no club control, so I have an easy 4♣ and this will clarify the red suit situation for me to some degree.

 

Anyway, if you really thought that my method was equivalent to the OP diamond bids, you need to think a little more deeply... about responder's bids... it isn't all about opener. :)

[hanp]

Partner is passed hand and unlikely to hold that 13-count.

 

For the rest I agree with what mikeh says, a lot of good things can happen after 1S that won't happen after 3D. Lacking mikeh's comprehensive methods I'm perfectly happy to bid 1S-1NT-4D.

[jdonn]

Fair enough Mike, except for partner being a passed hand but that is neither here nor there.

 

I'll note I have played what you play too! However, I won't attempt to weigh 1♠ 1NT 4♦ vs 1♠ 1NT 3♣ 3♦ 3♠ etc because I don't see any way to compare it to what you lose by having one fewer bid to show clubs after a jump shift. Or for that matter what someone else loses by not playing the 4♦ bid as something else, though I would argue that is essentially nothing.

 

Btw do you use 3♠ as spades and 3NT+ as clubs? I think it's a big improvement to use 3♠ as clubs and 3NT+ as spades. I even talked Justin into it. I'll let you decide for yourself though. Of course best is 3♠+ as clubs and don't include spades. :)

[Gerben42]

Semiforcing. Big dislike of not being able to show strong hands on a convenient level.

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saqt9654ha6d8cak2&s=shq43dq42cqt98765]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Bidding was:

2♦!-2♠!

3♠!-All Pass

2♦=multi

2♠=preempt of invite opposite a 6c♥

3♠=semi-forcing ♠

 

How do you bid to 5♣ or 6♣

...How do you play on a ♣ lead?

[skjaeran]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQT9654 ♥ A6 ♦ 8 ♣ AK2 ♠ [space] ♥ Q43 ♦ Q42 ♣ QT98765

Bidding was:

2♦!-2♠!

3♠!-All Pass

2♦=multi

2♠=preempt of invite opposite a 6c♥

3♠=semi-forcing ♠

 

How do you bid to 5♣ or 6♣

...How do you play on a ♣ lead?

With my previous partner:

 

1♠ - 1NT

2♥ - 3♣ (2♥=strong 2♠ rebid, 3♣=to play)

4♣ - 5♣ (4♣=FG)

 

On a club lead I win the ace and ruff a spade. If both followed to the trump lead I play a club to the king, discard a diamond on the spade ace and ruff a spade. If spades are running now, I make 6. If not, I give up a diamond. I ruff a diamond return in dummy and ruff good the spades if I can. If not I cash the ♥A and play towards my queen.

[Phil]

I am not familiar with the options that include opening 2 or 3♦, and since I can immediately think of a host of reasons for not playing those methods (what problem do they solve?) I will make the wtp opening of 1♠.

 

As for Phil's fear of my misreading the autosplinter.. he is welcome to the device. Me, I prefer, over a foring 1N, to bid 3♣ as gf with one of: specifically 4 hearts (3♥ over 1N would show 5+), both blacks, or a power one-suiter in spades not right for a namyats.

I also play the 3♣ gizmo Mike mentions, although a 4♦ autosplinter is also in use.

 

Have I differentiated between 1♠ - 1N - 4♦* and 1♠ - 1N - 3♣* - 3♦* - 3♠ much with my partners? No, not really. But I don't think you are in any better shape after a forcing 3♠ call in the latter than a descriptive, self-splinter in the former.

 

With one occasional partner we play 1M - 1N - 2N as forcing to game and we can ferret out these 6-3 fits.