How do you respond with a balanced 19 count?

[P_Marlowe]

This is the kind of issue we are going to get in this forum. This is the normal way to play in the UK, and if you saw 1c-1d-1h undiscussed it would show 45 and that is what we teach all our beginners (if they arent learning acol). Partly I guess because this is the normal way to bid in acol, since you bid up the line and rebid 15-17 1N, so lots of people carried over this habit in club bridge. Partly I guess its because basically everyone now plays walsh style.

 

When you are teaching there is a strong emphasis on teaching the most common way to play in your region, so they can go to clubs and won't be surprised. The problem for a forum like this is we are not all from the same region. :)

I agree, the teaching should be the most common in the region the player lives.

And I will try to keep it in mind, what you said about the UK style - I learned

Acol in Ireland 1995/96, and I am sure, I was taught not to bypass, but 17 years

is a long time period and the modern Englisch standard system got devloped after 95/96.

 

I came across this style here on BBF, and the context was always Walsh.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[wyman]

Hi,

 

1D.

 

Simple rule: If opener opens in a suit, he promises to bid again, if given the chance

and if responder did not limit his hand.

 

Simpler rule: New suits by an unpassed hand are forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Simpler rule: New suits by an unpassed hand are forcing.

I agree, but ...

 

1C - 1H

1S - ...

 

Simple rules are hard to formulate.

[wyman]

Simpler rule: New suits by an unpassed responder are forcing.

 

Fixed, sorry for the confusion and thanks.

[Cthulhu D]

I agree, the teaching should be the most common in the region the player lives.

And I will try to keep it in mind, what you said about the UK style - I learned

Acol in Ireland 1995/96, and I am sure, I was taught not to bypass, but 17 years

is a long time period and the modern Englisch standard system got devloped after 95/96.

 

I came across this style here on BBF, and the context was always Walsh.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

Sitting down against a random pair playing 'australian standard' (ahaha), you're guessing if you think they are playing walsh style or otherwise imho, and people playing walsh style may not even know what that is or means if you ask them about it. It doesn't actually have any relevance at all to the question though, because you have no idea what partner is doing.

 

Anyway, I find the 'bid 1D and see what happens' pretty unsatisfactory. If you try that and partner comes back with, say, 1S, you are just as stuck as you where before. The plan seems to boil down to 'keep making forcing bids until partner bids NT, then bid 4NT' which isn't particular elegant, but may be the only 'basic' solution.

[P_Marlowe]

Sitting down against a random pair playing 'australian standard' (ahaha), you're guessing if you think they are playing walsh style or otherwise imho, and people playing walsh style may not even know what that is or means if you ask them about it. It doesn't actually have any relevance at all to the question though, because you have no idea what partner is doing.

 

Anyway, I find the 'bid 1D and see what happens' pretty unsatisfactory. If you try that and partner comes back with, say, 1S, you are just as stuck as you where before. The plan seems to boil down to 'keep making forcing bids until partner bids NT, then bid 4NT' which isn't particular elegant, but may be the only 'basic' solution.

No.

 

The plan after 1H or 1S from opener is to bid FSF, followed by

bidding clubs, tha way you set clubs in a forcing manner.

This also showes slam interest and has the advantage, that you

explore all possible strains, 6C, 6D and 6NT, and even a grand

slam.

FSF is a basic tool.

 

Unfortunately the power / strength of this tool is usually

forgotten in the maze of new conventions that get added day by

day.

 

On a more general note: if you play with a stranger, without

lots of prediscussion, than it is espesially important to keep

the amount of information, that gets transmitted by the various

bids to a maximum.

And 1D leaves opener the most room / the maximum number of bids

to choose from for his 2nd bid.

Taking advantage of the additionl information that gets transmitted,

is not easy, and something even more experienced player get wrong.

Playing sucessfully with lots of partner, witout many agreements is

a gift, and even among top class players it is rare.

I heard it say, that Paul Soloway, Rixi Markus and Kenneth Kostam,

possesed this gift.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cthulhu D]

No.

 

The plan after 1H or 1S from opener is to bid FSF, followed by

bidding clubs, tha way you set clubs in a forcing manner.

This also showes slam interest and has the advantage, that you

explore all possible strains, 6C, 6D and 6NT, and even a grand

slam.

FSF is a basic tool.

 

 

Fourth suit forcing is by default going to be the forcing bid you make on the next round.

 

After 1C-1D;1S You're going to bid 2H FSF. You're stuck if pard responds 1H because 1S usually isn't FSF so maybe you'd try 2S.

[Fluffy]

1♦ looks obvious 2♣ with 4 cards is space consuming and mudding the waters, we want to play the hand in no trump unless partner shows an unbalanced hand, 2♣ focuses the final contract elsewhere. 2♦ as many suggested is horrible, strong jump shifts are made on 6 card suits, balanced hands never jump except to game.

 

To clarify why 1♦ is the correct bid just look at second round:

 

If partner bids 1NT just look at what jillybean said. we have the easy 4NT bid to place the contract in one of the two 4NT and 6NT. Those are the only possible final contracts.

 

But if he bids 1♥ we have to use 4SF in order to know if he has a 2 suiter or not. If partner has 5♣-4♥ the hand belongs to 6/7♣ (or maybe only 5 on a very bad day), that's what we have to investigate, if partner is balanced or not, and that is something that 2♣ and 2♦ are not helping us to determine.

[P_Marlowe]

Fourth suit forcing is by default going to be the forcing bid you make on the next round.

 

After 1C-1D;1S You're going to bid 2H FSF. You're stuck if pard responds 1H because 1S usually isn't FSF so maybe you'd try 2S.

 

And sometimes, only sometimes, but it happens, sometimes partner rebids his first suit,

i.e. he bid 2Cs, in which case, we have an easy 4C bid, that sets trumps, and allowes

to investigate slam, and sometimes partner raises our suit.

 

If I dont have agreements, than I need the luck, that an auction develops in a way, that

is easy to control, ..., sure, if partner bids 1H, than I need to decide, what the safest

bid is, the decision can be 1S, it can be 2S, or 4C, I dont know, because in real life,

I will have context information about the background of the player I happen to sit across

..., and if it is on BBO with a random player, I wont see again, why should I care about

the outcome of an arbitary hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Phil]

+1 to P_Marlowe (especially the 2nd post), Wyman and Jilly.

 

(Most of) the rest of you really need to dial it down in the NooBee section.

[Vampyr]

Partly I guess its because basically everyone now plays walsh style.

 

I would say the reason is more that basically everyone plays checkback.

[mikeh]

Fixed, sorry for the confusion and thanks.

Wrong.

 

1♣ 1♠

1N 2♥

 

the standard, and imo clearly best, is that 2♥ is non-forcing.

 

What you mean is that in an auction in which opener has bid one or two suits, but not notrump, then a bid by responder of a previously unbid suit is forcing.

[wyman]

Wrong.

 

1♣ 1♠

1N 2♥

 

the standard, and imo clearly best, is that 2♥ is non-forcing.

 

What you mean is that in an auction in which opener has bid one or two suits, but not notrump, then a bid by responder of a previously unbid suit is forcing.

 

Point taken. Simple rules are hard to formulate.

[mikeh]

This thread has degenerated into precisely the type of discussion that caused this forum to be hived of from the old I/A.

 

There may be teachers who espouse inverted minors, but surely they are a tiny minority, so discussions about inverted minors don't belong here.

 

Discussions about the meaning of 2N as a response or the rebid issue for opener over 1♦, when holding a balanced hand with a major, probably do have a place here, since it is apparent that some newbies learn one approach and others another.

 

To me, jillybean nailed this thread early on: with 19 balanced, if your partner rebids 1N, you bid 4N, to ask whether opener likes his hand, in the context of the range shown by the 1N. If the range is 12-14, as is probably true for many newbies, then the question is: do you hold a 'good' 13 or any 14? If so, bid slam, if not, pass.

 

As for what to do if opener rebids 1♥, that is a trickier question. Most newbies are taught (and all should be taught, imo) that a change of suit here is forcing.....this is in a sense a form of fourth suit forcing, and the question is whether that topic is too esoteric for the B forum.

 

Btw, not only do I think that bypassing the major is the optimum approach in a standard method, but I also think it is easier to teach forward going constructive bidding on such a foundation. But most beginner texts use an older, more traditional approach, as far as I know.

[mikeh]

I actually play that 2H is GF in this auction -- but further discussion of that should probably go elsewhere.

 

Point taken, though. Simple rules are hard to formulate.

Another classic example of the wrong comment for the thread. It matters not whether you play 2♥ here as GF. It isn't standard...it isn't even remotely standard, and all you do by mentioning it is to add to the confusion experienced by newbies. This problem is non-trivial to a newbie, especially if they have been taught that opener has to bid up the line. Responder's call over 1♥ is a nightmare absent 4th suit forcing agreements. My suspicion is that in standard beginner bridge, 3♣ by repsonder is forcing, and in that case that is what I would recommend. Of course, that may lead to more problems later on.

 

I used to play a lot of club bridge, and I think it is the uncertainty about these hands that causes so many inexperienced players to simply respond to 1♣ with a blackwood 4N.

 

We should be trying to afford a relatively straightforward, and explicable, alternative to this bludgeon approach.

[jillybean]

This thread has degenerated into precisely the type of discussion that caused this forum to be hived of from the old I/A.

 

 

And now I understand why JaD wanted experts to keep out of this forum, and my apologies for questioning the resoning.

You were right all along :)

[wyman]

And now I understand why JaD wanted experts to keep out of this forum, and my apologies for questioning the resoning.

You were right all along :)

 

Without turning this into (yet another) "what's appropriate for N/B" thread, I'll say that I think it's good that people are calling others out on poor posts (for the audience). To keep the threads (moderately?) clutter-free, I'll suggest doing this via PM and making liberal use of the "edit" feature if you receive feedback that perhaps your post is not aimed at the right audience.

[wyman]

... And to make amends for my earlier comment, the following is an easy to follow description (for beginners) of which bids are and are not forcing partner to bid again!

 

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~belk/forcing.htm

[ArtK78]

I don't normally comment in this forum, but I thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

 

The original idea of inviting slam with 4NT if partner rebids 1NT is fine, as far as it goes. One of the posters even went so far as to mention that the only possible contracts would be 4NT or 6NT. And for the purposes of this Forum, perhaps that is as far as we should go. The main point is that a balanced 19 count opposite an opening bid is not a slam force - it is a slam invitation.

 

However, if one goes back to the initial post, one can see the spoiler. It was mentioned that the at the table result was a "good" 6NT which was made. All well and good, but 6NT is only a fair contract. You start with 4 clubs, 3 diamonds, 2 hearts and a spade for 10 tricks. There are many possibilities for an 11th trick (spade finesse, diamond finesse or drop, various plays in the heart suit that can result in an extra trick, and other possibilities beyond the scope of this forum), and, once one of them comes in, there are some possibilities for a 12th trick. Also, the opening lead may give you an 11th trick, which gives you many more chances to work on making a 12th trick. All in all, I would say that 6NT is a reasonable contract.

 

However, the BEST contract is 6♣. It needs far less to go right in order to make. And 6♣ is a contract that is very difficult to reach for any players at any level. While 6♣ does not score as well as 6NT, it is much more likely to succeed. So, even at matchpoints, I would rather be in 6♣ than 6NT.

 

EDIT: I note that in one of the early posts nigel_k mentioned that 6♣ is the best contract on this hand.

[Cthulhu D]

However, the BEST contract is 6♣. It needs far less to go right in order to make. And 6♣ is a contract that is very difficult to reach for any players at any level. While 6♣ does not score as well as 6NT, it is much more likely to succeed. So, even at matchpoints, I would rather be in 6♣ than 6NT.

 

EDIT: I note that in one of the early posts nigel_k mentioned that 6♣ is the best contract on this hand.

 

Scoring was matchpoints, which might change things a bit. At IMPs I am with you 100%