a lot of them

[wank]

[hv=pc=n&n=saha5dak976542c86&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2h2s3h4dp4s5c]133|200[/hv]

 

matchpoints

 

your go?

 

if you don't agree with 4♦, say what you would have done instead.

[Finch]

5♦. Haven't I got 8 of them?

 

Obviously my heart holding is a worry: if partner has KQJxxx xx x Axxx I can hardly accuse him of mis-bidding. And the bidding means a club lead, which is definitely not what I want. But if RHO is sane I doubt I'm getting rich out of 5 rounded. I guess I'm saying if trust RHO, bid; if you don't, double.

 

But I'd expect partner to have bid 4S with KQJxxx xxx Qx Axx as well and if we double really slowly I doubt he'll pull (I don't know what he would do over a forcing pass).

[Poky]

I don't agree with 4♦, obviously. You would see 4♦ passed out too often (no matter what your agreement is or you think it is). Not to say that mathematics of the board and people tendencies suggest strongly that playing 4m as a constructive NF hand is a much better option in this position. Especially if the scoring is MP.

 

Since there is no sensible way for bidding a slam, blasting 5♦ directly is my first option. But if I for some reason bid 4♦, double is the only reasonable option now. When somebody bids a NF bid on the 3rd level and thereafter a NF bid on the 5th level, you must always keep open the option to punish him (although this double is negative in my world).

[Fluffy]

If I play the pick a slam onvention I go for it

[wank]

jadno ponuda

 

sto?

[PhilKing]

Don't I have enough aces to double? There must be good chances of +800.

[Free]

I'll play the red card with a big 'X' on it, and I don't agree with 4♦.

[JLOGIC]

I believe this is the expert forum, it is safe to assume that our partner will not pass 4D lol. This 5C bid has owned me, can't really do anything other than 5D.

[Poky]

I believe this is the expert forum, it is safe to assume that our partner will not pass 4D lol. This 5C bid has owned me, can't really do anything other than 5D.

Yes, this is the expert forum; it is safe to assume correct ranges, frequencies and strategies then.

 

What does responder hold for 2♥-(2♠)-3♥? Most often he will have a hand with 3♥ strong enough to compete and rarely a pile of crap wanting to obstruct our game/slam bidding (I say rarely because with most obstructive hands he will have a hand good enough to blast a more obstructive 4♥ with it).

 

Against this range (which is most profitable for our opponents and that's why we should assume it) how on Earth is it even possible to think a forcing 4m is the best treatment to declare it - standard?!?

 

If you want to wait 100 hands to get a slammish minor suited hand in this spot - do it, but keep in mind you will be forced to many fishy bids and outcomes when you'll get some hand like:

♠xx

♥x

♦KQT9xxx

♣KJx

which will unfortunately happen quite often (at least in comparison to bombastic slammish hands which you think you can start to bid accurately on the 4th level) if opponents aren't absurd.

[PhilKing]

how on Earth is it even possible to think a forcing 4m is the best treatment to declare it - standard?!?

Because it's standard.

[cherdano]

4♦ is certainly forcing. LHO showed a preempt and partner an overcall at the 2-level over a preempt. This is not analogous to LHO opening and partner making a one-level overcall.

[Poky]

Because it's standard.

And what is the standard for 3♦ in: (1♥)-1♠-(2♥)-3♦?

[aguahombre]

4♦ is certainly forcing. LHO showed a preempt and partner an overcall at the 2-level over a preempt. This is not analogous to LHO opening and partner making a one-level overcall.

And what is the standard for 3♦ in: (1♥)-1♠-(2♥)-3♦?

Which part of "not analogous" was confusing?

[PhilKing]

And what is the standard for 3♦ in: (1♥)-1♠-(2♥)-3♦?

 

I think its split there. I play that one as non-forcing. There are two main reasons they are different:

 

1. Playing in partscore is a much larger target when we are aiming for nine or ten tricks. There are fewer hands where they make exactly nine tricks and we make ten, than hands where both sides make nine, so utility is lower.

 

2. At a lower level we can double for take-out and still get to show our suit below game when we are strong.

 

Playing 4♦ as non-forcing is trying to land on a pinhead.

[gnasher]

I think its split there. I play that one as non-forcing. There are two main reasons they are different:

 

1. Playing in partscore is a much larger target when we are aiming for nine or ten tricks. There are fewer hands where they make exactly nine tricks and we make ten, than hands where both sides make nine, so utility is lower.

 

2. At a lower level we can double for take-out and still get to show our suit below game when we are strong.

 

Playing 4♦ as non-forcing is trying to land on a pinhead.

 

You haven't mentioned what I think is the most important difference. After (2♥) 2♠ (3♥) opener has shown a weak hand, both opponents are limited, and the overcaller has shown roughly opening strength or better. After (1♥) 1♠ (2♥), opener has promised at least opening strength, opener is still unlimited, and the overcaller might have an 8-count. In the second case it's much less likely that advancer will have a hand that wants to force.

[Codo]

I agree with the forcing 4 ♦ - really funny that this needs to be discussed- and now I bid X, the safest plus, but maybe not the biggest....

[Poky]

You haven't mentioned what I think is the most important difference. After (2♥) 2♠ (3♥) opener has shown a weak hand, both opponents are limited, and the overcaller has shown roughly opening strength or better. After (1♥) 1♠ (2♥), opener has promised at least opening strength, opener is still unlimited, and the overcaller might have an 8-count. In the second case it's much less likely that advancer will have a hand that wants to force.

When partner overcalls 1♠ he may have as little as 8 HCP. Therefore, for bidding a new suit on the 3rd level (...and avoid an unnecessary disaster...) we should hold some constructive hand - say, 10 HCP with 6-carder suit. If partner has (minimum) 8, RHO (minimum) 6, we have 10, this leaves 16 for opener.

 

Saying that opener with the 11-16 range is unlimited is very strange, especially if we know that half of times he will be in the 12-13 range.

 

However, what really matters are not the constraints of some specific hand but the combined range of both opponents' hands which are pretty much well defined after two opponents' bids. If opponents are decent they cannot have any hand for raising 2♥-(2♠) to 3♥.

 

What will our advancing 4m bid mean should be a function of opponents' range and not of a nebulous believing that this sequence is analogous to

(2♥) 2♠ (pass) 3m, or

(3♥) 3♠ (pass) 4m

where it is obvious that playing 3m/4m as forcing is sound and probably the best option.

[cherdano]

Poky, I just don't think anyone agrees with your claim that responder's raise promises values.

I mean, you can argue that it should show values. Fine, I disagree, and probably anyone else who is posting here. But if you claim that it does show values for most of our opponents, then that's just empirically wrong. I don't know anyone who would pass most of the time with 3-4 card support, shortness, and no values.

[Poky]

Poky, I just don't think anyone agrees with your claim that responder's raise promises values.

I mean, you can argue that it should show values. Fine, I disagree, and probably anyone else who is posting here. But if you claim that it does show values for most of our opponents, then that's just empirically wrong. I don't know anyone who would pass most of the time with 3-4 card support, shortness, and no values.

Responder's raise doesn't promise values, I never said that, it promises a healthy bidding idea. Essentially there are two types of hands with whom you should raise to 3♥:

1) Competitive hands - you have enough fit/values to think it is possible our side could make 3♥ where they have 2♠;

2) Mediocre preemptive hands - your have enough fit/weakness to think you will obstruct them in their game/slem bidding without exposing yourself to a risk of a big loss.

 

Important thing to know is - the hands which are (mostly) not included in the simple raise are:

I) Weak fitting hands with high ODR - they raise to 4♥;

II) Mediocre passive hands with values - they pass, because we are not sure neither if 3♥ would make nor if they can make 2♠.

 

It is a matter of statistics that case 1) is much more frequent than case 2). This is why we should adjust our bidding methods. With a forcing 4♦ you won't achieve much anyway, because:

a) You will rarely have a decent slammish hand in this spot (and even if you will, you can find other methods to find a profitable sequence);

b) You can double if you have 2♠ and 6+♦ and you want to find the proper game.

 

I just wanted to point out that responder's range isn't continuous in this spot, because I've got a feeling many players overlooked this essential fact.

[gnasher]

Saying that opener with the 11-16 range is unlimited is very strange

Where did "11-16" come from? I was talking about the auction

(1

♥

) 1

♠

(2

♥

) 3

♦

So far as I can see, nobody said we were playing a strong club.

[cherdano]

I just wanted to point out that responder's range isn't continuous in this spot, because I've got a feeling many players overlooked this essential fact.

Indeed, I overlooked that fact. Now that I have looked at it, I still do not see this as a fact.