Just Checking

[ArtK78]

Let's say you are playing with a pickup partner who says he is a "grandmaster" (not from US).

 

You have agreed to play 2/1 and you have had some discussion about methods, but none of them apply to this uncontested auction:

 

1♣* - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

 

*We agreed that 1♣ only promises 2 clubs (for better or for worse), not that it matters on this auction.

 

1) What is 2♦?

2) If you have not already answered this in (1), is 2♦ forcing?

[mgoetze]

I would think NMF is a sensible default here. Can't speak for any "grandmasters", US or otherwise.

 

(Personally I assume that anyone whom I have (a) never heard of and (b) is willing to play pickup with me can't be phenomenally good but you may presume your reputation is different if you so choose.)

[jjbrr]

I'd assume it's artificial and asking about the majors, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't intend it that way.

[rduran1216]

Its forcing, shows 5+ spades, that is all.

 

This is a default bid for forcing hands with 5+ spades.

[Phil]

This is my partner? Didn't know he played bridge.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ChjLMbXVrU

 

2♦ is forcing. Whether or not it shows diamonds is dubious.

[gnasher]

Ostensibly natural, 5+ spades, forcing for one round. Without agreement, it seems very strange to assume that it's artificial. I've never heard of anyone playing this as non-forcing (except perhaps in 1960s England).

[ArtK78]

Well, my pick-up partner passed 2♦ and, when I would up declaring 2♦, he texted to the table "Pard, can we start playing bridge now?"

 

Partner was 2-2-3-6 and I was 5-3-3-2. I had game forcing values.

 

I wound up making 11 tricks for a near average score, which I found amusing.

 

Personally, I like playing 2♦ as extended NMF, but I thought it was a basic principal of Standard bidding (and 2/1 in this context) that a new suit by responder is forcing. However he interpreted 2♦, I never expected to be passed.

 

This was the hand:

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skq543hq92dat3ckt&w=sj6hkt6dk9842cj95&n=s87ha5dqj6ca87642&e=sat92hj8743d75cq3]399|300[/hv]

 

West led a low heart which I let ride to the Q.

A heart to the Ace and a low spade, East ducking.

Heart ruffed low in dummy followed by another spade, East taking the A.

East continued with a spade. I played the Q. After some thought, West pitched a club, and I did the same.

A club to dummy's A and back to my K, all following.

I played another spade. East went in with the ♦K and continued diamonds. I claimed on a high cross ruff.

 

I was the only player to declare a diamond contract in my direction (go figure!). One player declared 3♦ down 4 in the other direction.

 

Most pairs found 3NT. About half were successful, and about half were not.

[MrAce]

Let's say you are playing with a pickup partner who says he is a "grandmaster" (not from US).

 

You have agreed to play 2/1 and you have had some discussion about methods, but none of them apply to this uncontested auction:

 

1♣* - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

 

*We agreed that 1♣ only promises 2 clubs (for better or for worse), not that it matters on this auction.

 

1) What is 2♦?

2) If you have not already answered this in (1), is 2♦ forcing?

 

1- I call this 2♦ 3rd suit forcing. Works just like nmf or 4th suit forcing in std methods. NMF (or checkback or 2 way etc..) if opener rebids NT, 4th suit forcing if opener rebids 3rd suit without a reverse or jump shift. And 3rd suit forcing if opener rebids his minor.

 

You can play this in 2 different styles;

 

A- After 2♣, it is ALWAYS 2♦ bid that is forcing and later will make clear his intentions just like nmf or 4th suit forc. in std style, while 2♥ will be natural 6-4 5-5 and nf.

 

B-After 2♣, both 2♦ and 2♥ forcing, can be artificial if he has 5♠ and/ or trying to rightside the NT contract. This is the popular one if i am not wrong.

 

I like the first one though.

[MickyB]

Ostensibly natural, 5+ spades, forcing for one round. Without agreement, it seems very strange to assume that it's artificial. I've never heard of anyone playing this as non-forcing (except perhaps in 1960s England).

 

Odd. At many English clubs, I would expect the entire field to be playing this as natural and non-forcing. I strongly suspect the partner of the OP was from the UK [the term 'Grandmaster' is consistent with this].

[jmcw]

I don't know anyone who plays this as NF in a standard american based system.

2♦ is a natural bid promising a real suit, a common treatment is to apply 2♦ as a forcing call in the contecxt of NMF. Playing with a "Grandmaster" I would be shocked if he passed...maybe he meant chess.

[mike777]

If I played with wc player witn no agreements I would just assume 2d is art and gf. I aint passing below game.

 

If I am wrong so be it.

--

 

 

to be honest this is the least very least of bidding auctions I am concerned about messing up playing with Zia or Martel

[mich-b]

Playing with an unknown player , I would assume 2♦ is forcing, artificial (since this is more or less the only forcing bid available) , not necessarily showing 5♠ (what should he bid with strong 4234?), and not GF , though at least nvitational. I would never pass 2♦ , and if my random pd did , I probably would not play with him much more.

[gnasher]

Odd. At many English clubs, I would expect the entire field to be playing this as natural and non-forcing. I strongly suspect the partner of the OP was from the UK [the term 'Grandmaster' is consistent with this].

Perhaps I overestimate English club player's willingness to move with the times. I'm definitely wrong about when players started playing it as forcing, because Crowhurst said it was non-forcing in 1974. He did say that a responder's reverse should be forcing, so there is some evidence of change.

[Free]

There are 2 possible explanations for 2♦:

- because of walsh, 2♦ shows longer ♦ and is a signoff

- semi natural and forcing, strongly suggesting 5♠

 

Imo the first meaning is so rare (because you also don't want to play 2♣ apparently) that it just doesn't pay off to play that way. I would suspect the second meaning is standard, but I've seen club players use the first and inferior meaning.

[Phil]

There are 2 possible explanations for 2♦: because of walsh, 2♦ shows longer ♦ and is a signoff

 

3♦ shows a weak 4-6. With a weak 4-5 you probably have to pass.

[gnasher]

3♦ shows a weak 4-6.

Does it really? I'm not that familar with 2/1, but I'd assume it was a splinter.

[mich-b]

There are 2 possible explanations for 2♦:

- because of walsh, 2♦ shows longer ♦ and is a signoff

- semi natural and forcing, strongly suggesting 5♠

 

Imo the first meaning is so rare (because you also don't want to play 2♣ apparently) that it just doesn't pay off to play that way. I would suspect the second meaning is standard, but I've seen club players use the first and inferior meaning.

 

Club players that play Walsh? They are an extremely rare species in my area...

[whereagles]

Where I live the classical meaning of 2♦ is natural, 5-10 hcp and a 5-4 shape.

 

Naturally, this is suboptimal.

[Vampyr]

Perhaps I overestimate English club player's willingness to move with the times. I'm definitely wrong about when players started playing it as forcing, because Crowhurst said it was non-forcing in 1974. He did say that a responder's reverse should be forcing, so there is some evidence of change.

 

I'm not sure, Andy. I think that today nearly all English players play a new suit by responder as forcing. I don't think that the apparently universal American interpretation of artificial as well is very popular, but this sort of bid can be shaded because you have to do something when it is your turn.

[aguahombre]

Where I live the classical meaning of 2♦ is natural, 5-10 hcp and a 5-4 shape.

 

Naturally, this is suboptimal.

It would seem strange if I lived in a place where there is a classical meaning for a bid when pass would be correct. Oh, wait. I live in one of those places, too.

[Vampyr]

[After 1♣-1♠

2-♣, 3♦ showing weak(!) 4-6]

 

Does it really? I'm not that familar with 2/1, but I'd assume it was a splinter.

 

I would be happy to play it as nearly anything apart from a weak hand introducing a new suit with no recourse to opener's bid and rebid suit at the 3-level.

 

But I think that there must be some misunderstanding somewhere, because I don't really think that the above suggestion was made on purpose.

[Phil]

I don't understand Acol.

 

Some of you might be well served not to try to understand Walsh :P

[whereagles]

It would seem strange if I lived in a place where there is a classical meaning for a bid when pass would be correct. Oh, wait. I live in one of those places, too.

 

Well, "classical" doesn't mean "modern standard". These days 2D is an artificial bid in most national standard systems.

[barmar]

The general rule in standard bidding is that new suits by a responder who hasn't yet limited his hand are forcing.

[cherdano]

The general rule in standard bidding is that new suits by a responder who hasn't yet limited his hand are forcing.

1C 1S

1N 2H