Sanity check 4-6

[nige1]

Notation: P = pass, X = Double, XX = Redouble, * = Alert, ?? = Your bid? (Opponents bids in brackets).

If you don't like a previous bid, please assume that you pulled the wrong card from the bidding box and now have to live with your mistake.

But comments are welcome

If you can spare the time, please mark second choices out ot 10 (Your first choice = 10)

[3] I don't think anybody will choose the bid I made :(

[6] In normal 2/1 is 1♣ (P) 1♦ (P) ; 2♥ game-forcing?

[chasetb]

1.) I misbid on the first one - I thought the opponents had bid 1♦ - 1♥, and we were in 4th seat. The suit's too weak for a jump, so I stay low. 2♦ = 10 / 3♦ = 7 / 1♠ = 4 / anything else = 0

 

2.) I'm afraid that if we X, they'll just bid 4♠ or even 5♠, and partner will continue over both with a 5-card ratty suit thinking we have at least 4 and probably 5. My partners love to bid slams so they'll move after my slight underbid.

5♦ = 10 / X = 8 / 4NT = 4 / 6♦ = 1

 

3.) I would have downgraded into 1NT. Aces and Kings are great for suits, but horrid for NT when there's no Quacks. We have 5 tricks and 4333 distribution. We have a likely 8+ card fit in Diamonds and my hand is SUIT ORIENTED.

I give 3♦ = 10 / 1♥ = 7 / 2NT = 5 (only because everyone will bid it)

[nige1]

IMO...

• 3N = 10. 3♦ = 9, 1♠ = 7, 2♦ = 6.
• 5♦ = 10, 6♦ = 8, Double = 7.
• 1♥ = 10, 2N = 9, 3♦ = 6

Does anybody know Is 1♣ (P) 1♦ (P); 2[HE} game-forcing in 2/1?

 

I'll report what would have worked, in a few days,

[rhm]

 

Does anybody know Is 1♣ (P) 1♦ (P); 2[HE} game-forcing in 2/1?

 

Strange question. What does this have to do with 2/1 ?

Do you know any natural system where a second round jump shift in a new suit by an unlimited opener is not played as forcing to game?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Do you know any natural system where a second round jump shift in a new suit by an unlimited opener is not played as forcing to game?

I do, having played a form of Acol where this was treated with a strength similar to a reverse. Not exactly willingly played, granted, but it does exist and it was better than the alternative I had on offer from my partner of the time.

[rhm]

I do, having played a form of Acol where this was treated with a strength similar to a reverse. Not exactly willingly played, granted, but it does exist and it was better than the alternative I had on offer from my partner of the time.

Well you can have with your partner any sort of specialized agreement differing from mainstream you like.

I grew up with Acol but I do not claim to be an expert of this system and all its variants.

However, if I sat down at a Rubber Bridge table, where my partner was a good player but a stranger to me and we agreed to play Acol, I would not have the slightest doubt that this sequence would be taken as game forcing.

I have the impression that Acol is particularly prone to the abuse, that many partnerships claim to play that system, when in fact they do not.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

Well you can have with your partner any sort of specialized agreement differing from mainstream you like. I grew up with Acol but I do not claim to be an expert of this system and all its variants. However, if I sat down at a Rubber Bridge table, where my partner was a good player but a stranger to me and we agreed to play Acol, I would not have the slightest doubt that this sequence would be taken as game forcing. I have the impression that Acol is particularly prone to the abuse, that many partnerships claim to play that system, when in fact they do not.

I agree with Rainer that, logically, it should be game-foricing in 2/1. I am trying to learn 2/1 but I think I know Acol quite well. In traditional Acol, a jump-shift, even a jump reverse is not forcing because your hand is limited by your failure to open a strong two or (or the Benjamin equivalent). Modern Acol players do play jump-reverses as forcing but only because they usually promise a fit.

[lalldonn]

IMO...

• 3N = 10. 3♦ = 9, 1♠ = 7, 2♦ = 6.
• 5♦ = 10, 6♦ = 8, Double = 7.
• 1♥ = 10, 2N = 9, 3♦ = 6

Does anybody know Is 1♣ (P) 1♦ (P); 2[HE} game-forcing in 2/1?

 

I'll report what would have worked, in a few days,

Judging by your answers to 4 and 6, your sanity needs further checking.

[gnasher]

In traditional Acol, a jump-shift, even a jump reverse is not forcing

Are you sure about that?

 

Basic Acol, Cohen & Lederer, 1968: "Over a one-level response, since a two-level rebid would be non-forcing, opener uses a jump rebid in a new suit if he wishes to force." (The example sequence is 1♥-1♠;3♣, so this one might be considered ambiguous.)

 

Precision Bidding in Acol, Crowhurst, 1974: "A jump bid in a third suit by the opener is forcing to game."

[gnasher]

Judging by your answers to 4 and 6, your sanity needs further checking.

Hand 6 has seven losers, so it's clearly not worth 2NT.

[lalldonn]

Clearly is an overused word on these forums, but with 18 points it's clearly worth 2NT. (In fact I didn't think the value of the hand was why we were being asked what to bid?)

 

But, if you think it's not good enough for 2NT, it sounds like you disagree with the opening bid.

[nige1]

Are you sure about that? Basic Acol, Cohen & Lederer, 1968: "Over a one-level response, since a two-level rebid would be non-forcing, opener uses a jump rebid in a new suit if he wishes to force." (The example sequence is 1♥-1♠;3♣, so this one might be considered ambiguous.) Precision Bidding in Acol, Crowhurst, 1974: "A jump bid in a third suit by the opener is forcing to game."

Now I'm unsure. In The Acol System of Bidding (1978) Reese and Dormer confirm what Gnasher says. But, earlier, we did play reverses and jumps as non-forcing and that is how I was taught :) Although I suppose I could be mistaken -- again :(

 

Playing Acol with strong twos,

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

[nige1]

IMO...

• 3N = 10. 3♦ = 9, 1♠ = 7, 2♦ = 6.
• 5♦ = 10, 6♦ = 8, Double = 7.
• 1♥ = 10, 2N = 9, 3♦ = 6

Judging by your answers to 4 and 6, your sanity needs further checking.

Good. Thank you. That is why I posted these problems.

• On the first board, the partnership hands were ♠ KQx ♥ Ax ♦ ATxxxxx ♣ Q opposite ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ KJ ♣ ATxxx If the bidding starts in the consensus fashion 1♦ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♦, is responder worth another bid and if so what?
• On the third hand I'm not proud of 1♥ but dislike 2N because it seems to wrong-side the contract, unnecessarily.

[gnasher]

Clearly is an overused word on these forums, but with 18 points it's clearly worth 2NT. (In fact I didn't think the value of the hand was why we were being asked what to bid?)

 

But, if you think it's not good enough for 2NT, it sounds like you disagree with the opening bid.

 

Clearly I should have included an emoticon of some sort.

[lalldonn]

Good. Thank you. That is why I posted these problems.

• On the first board, the partnership hands were ♠ KQx ♥ Ax ♦ ATxxxxx ♣ Q opposite ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ KJ ♣ ATxxx If the bidding starts in the consensus fashion 1♦ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♦, is responder worth another bid and if so what?
• On the third hand I'm not proud of 1♥ but dislike 2N because it seems to wrong-side the contract, unnecessarily.

On the first board I would have rebid 3♦.

 

On the third hand 2NT wrongsides the contract unnecessarily.

[nige1]

Clearly I should have included an emoticon of some sort.

:) :) :) Allow me :) :) :)

[lalldonn]

Clearly I should have included an emoticon of some sort.

It definitely sailed over my head. My bad!

[awm]

4) 3♦ = 10, 2NT = 6, 2♦ = 4. I think 3♦ is pretty clear; 2♦ seems like a big underbid to me (obviously big underbids can work out, but they're not percentage). A 2NT call could work, but really seems like an attempt to turn the hand at the risk of playing a silly partial some of the time.

 

5) 5♦ = 10, 6♦ = 5, 4♦ = 3. Again seems pretty clear-cut. Closer to a slam bid than to 4♦. Double or cue or 4NT all show a different type of hand than this.

 

6) 2NT = 10, 3♦ = 7. There are obvious problems with 2NT; it's a silly partial, it might wrong-side the game if you need to protect partner's spades. However, 2NT is very much the "system bid" and anything else is a pretty big distortion. Of the other choices, 3♦ seems the least bad and in fact has a lot of ways to win, but partner will expect a fourth trump and we could certainly reach some silly diamond contracts (including 3♦ itself).

[rhm]

Hand 6 has seven losers, so it's clearly not worth 2NT.

If

♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

 

has seven losers how many does

 

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

 

have?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

Do you know any natural system where a second round jump shift in a new suit by an unlimited opener is not played as forcing to game?

Rainer Herrmann

If you take the view that transfers are natural systems, this is a minimumish 4 card support :P

[gnasher]

If

♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

 

has seven losers how many does

 

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

 

have?

Obviously this didn't come across very well, and now I'm going to make my joke even less funny by explaining it. I was satirising (possibly unfairly) excessive reliance on the Losing Trick Count, its lack of accuracy, and Nigel's rejection of the obvious 2NT rebid. I don't, in fact, use the Losing Trick Count to determine how many notrumps to bid, or indeed for any other purpose.

Edited August 1, 2012 by gnasher

[gnasher]

Playing Acol with strong twos,

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

 

I assume you mean Acol with a weak notrump?

 

I'd probably still respond 1♥, because partner's most likely hand-type is a balanced 15+, and I'd rather play 2♥ or 3♥ than 1♣.

 

If partner now made a game-forcing jump to 2♠, I'd pass it. My objective in responding was to improve the contract. I've probably achieved that, but even if I haven't, bidding again is likely to make it worse.

 

When you agree that a bid is forcing, that's an agreement about what you'll do if your hand matches partner's expectations, not an absolute commitment to bid regardless of whether you've got your previous bids.

[chasetb]

If ♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

 

has seven losers how many does

 

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx have?

 

Rainer Herrmann

LTC sucks, we know that. If you are to use any losing count, use the Italian loser count. The first hand comes out to 7.5 losers, the second hand 9.25. Here's the link - http://www.clairebridge.com/textes/romanclubdietlindbernard.pdf

 

I stick by my premise that I downgrade the first hand (hand #6) into a 1NT opener, for a balanced hand it's 16+ imo. Once partner says Diamonds, my hand shoots back up in value, so I'll show it by bidding 3♦.

[the hog]

If

♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

 

has seven losers how many does

 

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

 

have?

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

More than 7 if you know anything about LTC. Qxx is 2 1/2 losers.

[Yu18772]

5) 5♦ = 10, 6♦ = 5, 4♦ = 3. Again seems pretty clear-cut. Closer to a slam bid than to 4♦. Double or cue or 4NT all show a different type of hand than this.

 

 

Hi Adam :) I am missing something, what does

3♠-X-P-4♥

P-5♦

or

3♠-X-4♠-P

P-5♦

 

show? I mean may be one needs better suit for this, but is that really a different type of hand ?

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu