Bid On Or Not

[the hog]

I don't know any method in which it is standard for 1♠ to be forcing. I know there are some players who play that it is, and maybe there are some good players who do. I don't know any of the latter B-)

Well here we go again. I don't know of any good players who play it as non forcing. Nor can I see any logic for doing so unless you want to give the opponents a free run at balancing at a low level. Further you have to give up splimit bids if you play it as nf. Why would you want to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[diana_eva]

\\

 

In the same way that saying 3C is Patterning out"?

 

You're getting all worked up over terminology. If you look at the actual hand and assume eagles and his part are on the same wave length about what 3c means (regardless of what they call it), it's pretty clear that it's a natural, "showing" game try and not a " help asking" bid.

[kenberg]

The problem is that you're "patterning out" a 4=1=5=3 shape. If I actually held that hand, I'd bid that way too.

 

 

It has become apparent that opinions vary about the interpretation of 3♣. The range of views interests me. This one I am having trouble with,. I get dealt 4=1=5=3 hands and I get dealt 4=1=4=4 hands. I have to be able to make a call with each of them. You do what with the latter if you want to make a game try?

 

It's true that I don't have highly detailed agreements with anyone. I just don't play that much. I see 3♣ as encouraging partner to concentrate on where his high cards are, and while it matters some whether I am 4-4 or 5-3 in the minors I just see that as something that, as I bid, can't be helped. If I had a flatter hand and just wanted him to count his highs, I would bid 2NT as a game try. With five diamonds and with my values principally in diamonds and spades, I would use 3♦. But with 5-3 and values in both minors I would indeed probably choose 3♣.

 

It is, I know, a simple minded approach. I just do my best to bid where my values are. But it has its uses. If partner has, say, ♣A, ♦QJ like he haad, and ♠J withfour small hearts, he will like his hand and I will like the dummy. 4♠ might still go down, but it has a decent play.

[fromageGB]

Switch to precision, and now the 2♠ call has a higher minimum, since your hand is capped at 15, and partner wouldn't need to stretch to raise, and you'd have an easy game try, which partner should accept with his working cards.

Or switch to an unbalanced diamond. When responder hears you have spade support he knows you have an excellent 3-suiter fit, or a fit in 2 suits and a cross ruff. Then he can bid 3♠.

[whereagles]

Well here we go again. I don't know of any good players who play it as non forcing. (...)

 

Well, in many natural systems 1x-1y-1z is non-forcing (11-17 H); with 18+ you bid 2z (or 2NT if balanced).

 

It is like this in SEF (french standard), and since France won the 1997 Bermuda Bowl playing SEF (vs. meckwell on their primetime, mind you) I guess you can enlist 6 world champions playing it non-forcing :)

[the hog]

Well, in many natural systems 1x-1y-1z is non-forcing (11-17 H); with 18+ you bid 2z (or 2NT if balanced).

 

It is like this in SEF (french standard), and since France won the 1997 Bermuda Bowl playing SEF (vs. meckwell on their primetime, mind you) I guess you can enlist 6 world champions playing it non-forcing :)

 

I don't know them Nuno; I have never met them. :rolleyes:

 

However I have met a lot of world class players who treat it as forcing for the reasons I have described. Some people, not you, think the bridge world revolves around The US.

[mikeh]

I don't know them Nuno; I have never met them. :rolleyes:

 

However I have met a lot of world class players who treat it as forcing for the reasons I have described. Some people, not you, think the bridge world revolves around The US.

I sure don't, as you'd know if you had any clue :D And note that I said that some good players might play it as forcing, but I don't know any of them, and for some reason you took that as me saying that no good player anywhere would. I think you are a tad sensitive :P As it happens, I know a lot of good players, but most of them are Canadian, while most (but not all) of the rest are American. I do suspect that I have met and probably played with a few more WC players than you have, but I don't pretend to have discussed this with many of them, and I would frankly be surprised if you had...I'm not calling you a liar, btw...it's just that this sort of sequence isn't, in my experience, the sort of thing that is discussed in high-level back and forth. Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I'm guessing that you are exaggerating ;)

[the hog]

snipped

but I'm guessing that you are exaggerating ;)

 

No, I am not. Yes, sorry, I should have said Nth American rather than US.

[akwoo]

If my 1♠ bid promised an unbalanced hand, I pass.

 

If my 1♠ bid promised an unbalanced hand or 15+, I pass.

 

However, playing a form of standard american or 2/1 where 1♠ is non-forcing and could be 12-14 with 4243 or 4342 distribution, I bid 3♣.

 

This is because I expect partner to invite more aggressively in the first two cases, where both on average and in the worst case I must have a significantly better hand for my bidding so far.

[the hog]

If my 1♠ bid promised an unbalanced hand, I pass.

 

If my 1♠ bid promised an unbalanced hand or 15+, I pass.

 

However, playing a form of standard american or 2/1 where 1♠ is non-forcing and could be 12-14 with 4243 or 4342 distribution, I bid 3♣.

 

This is because I expect partner to invite more aggressively in the first two cases, where both on average and in the worst case I must have a significantly better hand for my bidding so far.

 

I am curios akwoo

1D 1H

1S

you would not raise to 2S on

xxxx

KJxx

Qx

Jxxx

 

I find that staggering!

[Endymion77]

The problem is that you're "patterning out" a 4=1=5=3 shape. If I actually held that hand, I'd bid that way too.

 

You can have 4153, or 4144, or 4054, or 4063. What's important is the heart shortness which you would like to show. I guess it's a language issue and it's not "patterning out", no problem.

 

BTW with responder's hand I wouldn't accept over 3♣ - very weak spades when we know we only have a 4-4 fit (so it can become rather ugly), too much in hearts, and it's MPs.

[mycroft]

1) I don't know if 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand. If it did, then I've probably shown my bit. I also don't know if 1♦...1♠ promises any strength (as Eagles knows, I play K/S, where it does; Acol somehow manages to survive with light minors and a weak NT).

2) I've never heard of anyone who plays 1x-1y; 1z as forcing in a natural context; with everyone I've played with, it's "you can pass this, but you'd better be right" - in 10 years of memory, that's happened 4 times (and I've been right every time). I would put the limit of the J/S a fair bit higher than the 17 mentioned above - more like a decent 19. But then again, I find that two-suiters suck when opening 2♣, especially when it's 4M-5+m; so my 1♦-1♥; 2♠ could be 24 or so, so it had better start at 20ish.

 

I'm sure that playing it 100% forcing (instead of say 99.5% like I do) has its advantages, too.

[ggwhiz]

As I said I would pass 2♠ even after the fact that OP said it makes 4 but...I am curious, if 3m is a trial bid, which I agree it is, then why everyone who made a move used ♣ suit as oppose to ♦ suit is unknown to me.

 

They had 2 suits to make trial, one of them being KT42 other KQ85.

 

We use a toy here where 2nt asks partner to bid suits they would accept a hsgt in up the line. If a 3♣ bid doesn't put you there yet 3♦/♥ is a further try and we can still bail out in 3♠.

[steve2005]

AQT3

9

KT42

KQ85

 

9875

AQT2

QJ5

T9

 

This is hardly a game to write home about---75%+ chance of

1 spade loser

25% chance of 2 spade losers

1 dia loser

1 club loser.

 

Any time the hand loses the 3 normal tricks you still need to

guess well in clubs to make it. The contract seems to be a

fair distance below 50% which is a reasonable cut off point at

MP.

 

and a diamond ruff is possible

yes so game made doesn't mean its a good game