continuations after 1m-2nt(inv)

[Stephen Tu]

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

 

Newish partnership, sequences here undiscussed.

Opps silent, partner opens, you bid:

1♦-2nt (no 4cd major, invitational)

5♣-?

 

1. Are you allowed to raise here, and should you?

2. What's the difference between 4♣ and 5♣ by opener?

3. Do you have methods for opener to show singletons/voids in a major? Should you? If you do, how can opener show a 5 major 6minor hand?

[mike777]

PASS

 

 

 

I HAVE NO IDEA...

 

 

 

I hope we make it.....if we have slam ok blame me

 

 

-----

 

I assume 3c here is 100% gf...

 

-------------

 

 

any bid over 2nt should bid gameforce 100%

 

yes that means pard must pass with any any crap...

[Stephen Tu]

Why in the world should 3♣ be forcing? Don't you want to be able to play a safe partial at IMPs, when the 2nt bidder is basically guaranteed to have some clubs (at worst 3343?), opener can have hands where there is a guaranteed fit in at least one of the minors, and is distributional and minimum?

[TylerE]

So, if 3♣ is natural, 4♣ is G----r, 5♣ must be a splinter, right?

[mike777]

Yes

 

 

over 2nt any and all bids gf

 

 

that means ecven 3c is gf...you cannot cannot play in 3c

[CSGibson]

You are always allowed to raise. I would, too - all of your cards besides the J of hearts are working, you have a 5th club, and even diamond shortness in case the suit is AKxxx or something.

[whereagles]

1. Are you allowed to raise here, and should you?

2. What's the difference between 4♣ and 5♣ by opener?

3. Do you have methods for opener to show singletons/voids in a major? Should you? If you do, how can opener show a 5 major 6minor hand?

1. In theory, NO. You bid your hand within very strict shape/strength limits the round before, so you left all the decisions to partner. Right now he's only asking you to take a preference.

 

In practice, the 2NT bid is often very undefined when it comes to controls. You can do it with both

 

KJx KJx xxx QJxx

 

or

 

Axx Axx xxx QJxx

 

and that might make a world of difference when pard has a strong hand, as he seems to have. So, yeah I'd say you can raise. But you should only do it on very special hands (this one might be it) and fully prepared to take the blame if it goes wrong.

 

As for me, I might do it if I need points and pard is reliable. Otherwise no way.

 

 

2. 4♣ is stronger. 5♣ is more distributional, with bad controls. Say...

 

--

xx

AKQJTx

KJxxx

 

(a possible hand) or perhaps something even more extreme like

 

x

-

KQJxxx

KQJxxx

 

 

3. There are methods: just bid 4♣. Should you have more than those? Honest answer: if you're a pro, perhaps. Else forget it. This auction is so rare you needn't bother.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Technical speaking, yes - you can raise, but I doubt that p was asking

you, in the end he gave you clubs, you have them, you have certainly

golden cards, but that does not justify a raise, since p may have been

stretching, and golden cards may just ensure, that the contract is cold.

#2 4C is certainly a slam move

#3 no

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bluecalm]

Yes

 

 

over 2nt any and all bids gf

 

 

that means ecven 3c is gf...you cannot cannot play in 3c

 

LOL.

This must be one of the worst agreements ever.

[mgoetze]

Are you playing 2/1, and if not, why did you not bid 2♣?

[ArcLight]

Are you playing 2/1, and if not, why did you not bid 2♣?

Maybe he didn't consider it good enough?

Just on the cusp.

[ArcLight]

Yes

 

 

over 2nt any and all bids gf

 

 

that means ecven 3c is gf...you cannot cannot play in 3c

 

LOL.

This must be one of the worst agreements ever.

Why?

What is the standard?

In Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD (or book) he suggests a bid beyond 2NT is forcing, though he suggests you go over what these bids mean with your partner.

 

I don't see why the LOL.

Mikes response seems to be the standard (unles sthe standard has changed over the last 5-10 years, and it might have).

You may not think this is the bets treatment, but in a new partnership I would assume the standard without prior discussion.

 

 

>>Why in the world should 3♣ be forcing?

 

Because every system/treatement has some advantages and disadvantages. I believe 3♣ is forcing in standard,, even if thats not optimal (no opinion either way)

[pooltuna]

1) Yes and yes

2) 4♣ is highly invitational

3) well 3♥, 3♠ should be forcing and I suspect initially inquiring about oM stoppers however 4♣ now implies either a shortage or a qbid. Note that 4M is either a 5x6y or x56y hand. Playing these as GF hand seems to make sense altho some will argue we should use 3M for those hands.

[aguahombre]

A statement that a certain agreement might be the worst ever could start a whole new thread of other people's choices for that exalted title.

 

One style, which I believe in, is for neither 3D nor 3C to be accepting of the 2NT game invite. 3C does not even expect a preference for diamonds unless responder has four of them.

 

3M can be used as an acceptance with worry about the other major; or it can show shortness in that major; or it can show shortness (or fragment) with a minor two-suiter and a good hand. Obviously, agreeing beforehand would be nice.

 

Depending on the above possibilities, a leap to 4m could be Minorwood (six keys, if the jump is to the other minor).

 

Jump to 5C should not be inviting slam opposite the limit shown, IMHO.

[benlessard]

Why in the world should 3♣ be forcing? Don't you want to be able to play a safe partial at IMPs, when the 2nt bidder is basically guaranteed to have some clubs (at worst 3343?), opener can have hands where there is a guaranteed fit in at least one of the minors, and is distributional and minimum?

 

Because looking for slam /best game is way more important and frequent than hands where 3C/3D will play better than 2Nt. If 3m is the best spot its mean the opps had a 17 cards in the M (good double fit) 16-18 pts wich making them likely to compete anyway.

 

Secondly if 3C/3D isnt forcing, opener has to be 3M to force bids that are just asking for lightner double.

[Bbradley62]

A statement that a certain agreement might be the worst ever could start a whole new thread of other people's choices for that exalted title.

He said "one of the worst"... Just means it belongs on the list... No need to try to determine what else should be on the list...

 

3♣ and 3♦ should both be non-forcing over 2NT.

[bluecalm]

Because looking for slam /best game is way more important and frequent than hands where 3C/3D will play better than 2Nt

 

This is completely wrong.

First weak hands with either 6diamonds or 5diamonds-4+clubs are way more frequent than slammish hands.

Second there is a lot of space in this sequence so it's not like you are unable to explore slam if you don't have 3♣/3♦ available for the purpose. There are 3M bids which can be used as Aquahombre said to either show values or shortness, there are 4m bids which can be used as either natural slam tries or some kind of kc asks (I prefer natural tries) and last there are 4M bids which can be used as splinters with 5-5 minors.

 

So you lose some precision with slam hands. Now how much do you lose with weak hands with 6diamonds or 5d - 4+c ?

The answer is: a ton. How bad do you think is passing a hand like:

Kxx x QJxxxx AJx ?

 

I made simple simulation for this hand. 3♦ makes 90% of the time while 2Nt makes 31% of the time. Which means that you lose about 3imps/hand by passing. This is huge. Giving up blackwood, stayman or transfer wouldn't produce even comparable damage on hands where they come up.

 

This hand is not special in any way. You can easily have 6-4 in minors and even weaker hand where you will just handle opponents 5+imps on average passing 2NT when vulnerable.

 

Because every system/treatement has some advantages and disadvantages.

 

Thinking this way is sure way to never make progress. You can assert any random treatment and say "well every system/treatment has some advantages and disadvantages" so it can't be bad !

 

I believe 3♣ is forcing in standard,, even if thats not optimal (no opinion either way)

 

Many treatments which just plain suck made their way to "standard" in America (Capp for example) but here playing 3m as forcing is so bad I don't believe it coudl sneak into people's mind as standard :)

 

Mikes response seems to be the standard

 

I don't know Lawrence's take on 2/1 but are you sure 1m - 2NT isn't 12+ there ?

[ArcLight]

>>I don't know Lawrence's take on 2/1 but are you sure 1m - 2NT isn't 12+ there ?

 

In the example from my notes on MLs books/CDs 2NT shows 11-12, not 12+. I'm not saying this is the best treatment, just that there are many who play this, and if you are playing with a new pard, you shouldn't assume they are doing something different. ML also says to discuss this sequence, as people have different continuations over 2NT.

 

 

>>Because every system/treatement has some advantages and disadvantages.

 

>Thinking this way is sure way to never make progress. You can assert any random treatment and say "well every system/treatment has some advantages and disadvantages" so it can't be bad !

 

This is you misinterpreting what I said. Actually more like twisting it.

A response to a bid (say over 2NT) over a large set of hands will win some and lose some. If the overall expected value is higher than another meaning, its probably a good set of responses. But you wont always get a good result and the worse set of responses may sometimes give a better one.

 

>.I made simple simulation for this hand.

 

What were the parameters?

 

>3♦ makes 90% of the time while 2Nt makes 31% of the time.

 

Then you need to discuss with pard ahead of time other responses to 2NT, like 3H, 3S, etc. What does 4D mean? 4C? Standard might not be the bets, but if you and pard have a bididng misunderstanding, you will get burned. Making a bid that works out poorly and blaming pard for assuming standard (whatever that is) will harm your partnership.

[Phil]

I have never heard of 3♣ being forcing. This sounds very strange to me considering the 2N bidder will have 4/5 clubs most of the time.

 

If 3♣ was artificial, that might be useful. It might help to sort out stoppers, etc..

 

3M is widely used as shortness now. I play this although it doesn't come up a whole lot.

[Stephen Tu]

I doubt that p was asking

you, in the end he gave you clubs, you have them, you have certainly

golden cards, but that does not justify a raise, since p may have been

stretching, and golden cards may just ensure, that the contract is cold.

 

P_Marlowe nailed my opinion on the hand. I thought just by basic principles, limited, tightly described hands aren't allowed to evaluate & raise if partner just offers choice of game and didn't invite slam.

 

Basically partner already won the board by selecting 5♣ instead of 3nt. He has a stiff heart and you are also off the ace of diamonds. The other table went down 2 in 3nt. In real life this hand raised to 6, down 1. Win 3 imps.

[junyi_zhu]

>>I don't know Lawrence's take on 2/1 but are you sure 1m - 2NT isn't 12+ there ?

 

In the example from my notes on MLs books/CDs 2NT shows 11-12, not 12+. I'm not saying this is the best treatment, just that there are many who play this, and if you are playing with a new pard, you shouldn't assume they are doing something different. ML also says to discuss this sequence, as people have different continuations over 2NT.

 

 

>>Because every system/treatement has some advantages and disadvantages.

 

>Thinking this way is sure way to never make progress. You can assert any random treatment and say "well every system/treatment has some advantages and disadvantages" so it can't be bad !

 

This is you misinterpreting what I said. Actually more like twisting it.

A response to a bid (say over 2NT) over a large set of hands will win some and lose some. If the overall expected value is higher than another meaning, its probably a good set of responses. But you wont always get a good result and the worse set of responses may sometimes give a better one.

 

>.I made simple simulation for this hand.

 

What were the parameters?

 

>3♦ makes 90% of the time while 2Nt makes 31% of the time.

 

Then you need to discuss with pard ahead of time other responses to 2NT, like 3H, 3S, etc. What does 4D mean? 4C? Standard might not be the bets, but if you and pard have a bididng misunderstanding, you will get burned. Making a bid that works out poorly and blaming pard for assuming standard (whatever that is) will harm your partnership.

Well said. There are two schools of players. One school is trying to find a reasonable spot in every hand, the other is trying to maximize their gain in good hands and don't mind playing a not so great partial. For the first school of players, their 3C/D have to be nonforcing because that's the only way to allow them to play the best possible partial in a certain layout. For the second school, they don't mind playing some bad 2NT, and they have a higher bidding accuracy in determine whether 3NT, 5C/D or slams are good. I certainly belong to the second school.

[Stephen Tu]

For the second school, they don't mind playing some bad 2NT, and they have a higher bidding accuracy in determine whether 3NT, 5C/D or slams are good. I certainly belong to the second school.

Even playing 3m nf, it seems to me that you still have a couple bids below 3nt to investigate choice of games, and the entire 4 level for slam investigation. So you are getting "some" accuracy on a small subset of hands, in exchange for going down in a stupid 2nt that will happen on a much larger subset of hands.