What do continuations mean?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4ht9daqjt75cq92&n=saj763hkq65d984c5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp1sp2dp2hp2sp?]266|200[/hv]

In a recent event, I had the North hand, and bid 3D but my partner said that was forcing and we got too high. I asked him what I should have bid, and he said that I should have passed now or raised diamonds on the previous round. I thought we might then miss a 4-4 heart fit, opposite something like x AJxx AKxxxx xx, but then we had to move on to the next board and never returned to the subject. Are there any standard methods here, for something like a 5-4-(31) 10 count when partner opens 1m and rebids it showing 6, in a strong NT, 2/1 structure? All views appreciated!

[Cyberyeti]

This is why many people play 2♥ or 2♠ artificial here inv+.

 

I think I agree that 3♦ is forcing and that you pass 2♠ here bad though that is in this case without the above arrangement.

 

With those outside queens, I might have opened 2♦ at this position/vul playing standard.

[WesleyC]

I agree with your partner on this one - 2H then 3D should definitely be G/F. If you wanted to invite in diamonds/NT you could have bid 3D (or 2NT) directly over 2D.

 

It's common to use the 2H bid in this sequence (and even more commonly the 2D bid in the sequence 1C - 1M - 2C - 2D*) as a 'semi-natural' forcing bid which you will sometime be endplayed into making on a strong hand with out direction. Without that agreement there are strong hands that simply don't have a bid so giving up a little bit of precision on invitational hands is worthwhile sacrifice.

 

Nothing is perfect on your actual hand, but 2S should have chances.

[helene_t]

Can't you bid 3♣ with a forcing hand?

 

OTOH if 2♠ shows a minimum, you can always pass it. Althought it is likely to be a 5-2 fit, it is rarely much worse than 3♦.

 

It would be bad if the system forces you to raise diamonds directly. Fred once argued that 2♥ should be a GF but if that is not the case then either 2♠ or 3♦ in your auction has to be nonforcing.

[lamford]

Can't you bid 3♣ with a forcing hand?

 

OTOH if 2♠ shows a minimum, you can always pass it. Althought it is likely to be a 5-2 fit, it is rarely much worse than 3♦.

 

It would be bad if the system forces you to raise diamonds directly. Fred once argued that 2♥ should be a GF but if that is not the case then either 2♠ or 3♦ in your auction has to be nonforcing.

My view is that you should play transfers here, so that 2NT is fourth suit forcing, and 3C is a transfer to diamonds, either a sign-off or FG if you move on. Of course no good without discussion. It is unacceptable to have to play a 5-2 fit, which could be Txxxx opposite Jx in extreme cases, and unacceptable not to be able to look for 4-4 hearts, and then sign off in 3D, when game or even slam might be cold. After 1C-1S-2C-2H-2S-2NT is a transfer to clubs, either sign-off or FG and 3C is fourth-suit forcing. You lose 2NT in both cases as natural, but who ever wanted to play in that contract anyway? Without these agreements, I agree it is very awkward.

[Zelandakh]

My view is that you should play transfers here, so that 2NT is fourth suit forcing, and 3C is a transfer to diamonds, either a sign-off or FG if you move on.

Presumably you could also combine ideas, so that 2♥ is 4SF (3SF?), 2NT shows an invite with hearts and 3♣ shows diamonds but it is probably simpler just to play one of the well-known "off-the-shelf" methods involving an artificial 2♥ rebid.

[lamford]

Presumably you could also combine ideas, so that 2♥ is 4SF (3SF?), 2NT shows an invite with hearts and 3♣ shows diamonds but it is probably simpler just to play one of the well-known "off-the-shelf" methods involving an artificial 2♥ rebid.

Is there a link to those "well-known" methods?

[Zelandakh]

Is there a link to those "well-known" methods?

This is the one I usually give but there are many alternatives that other BBF posters regularly give out too. It is a common enough theme that it might even be found in gwnn's Hall of Fame list.

[Cyberyeti]

Is there a link to those "well-known" methods?

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/bourke_relay_martin_johnson.pages.pdf another example, we actually use a home hashed modification of this sort of thing, I first saw it in a Bourke article and know it as a Bourke relay.

[lamford]

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/bourke_relay_martin_johnson.pages.pdf another example, we actually use a home hashed modification of this sort of thing, I first saw it in a Bourke article and know it as a Bourke relay.

Many thanks, Cyber; home-hashed or not, it is a major improvement on our methods!

[Cyberyeti]

Many thanks, Cyber; home-hashed or not, it is a major improvement on our methods!

We actually use next suit up whether it's a new suit or not as the relay and use 2N to show the relay suit and minimum NF, as with a real inv 2N hand you use the relay.

[Cyberyeti]

deleted dup

[lamford]

2NT shows an invite with hearts

I don't think that is much good. I think 2H should be invite+ with hearts, possibly ART, but forcing for one round. Opener surely gives preference with two spades and three hearts, and this will often end the auction. If it doesn't, then it makes sense to have methods. By far the most common hands will have responder worth one move over 2m.

[Zelandakh]

I don't think that is much good. I think 2H should be invite+ with hearts, possibly ART, but forcing for one round.

You remove INV with hearts from the relay and add in some additional GF hands instead. I cannot see any reason why that would be intrinsically bad, although I would need to look at it in more detail to suggest it in earnest.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4ht9daqjt75cq92&n=saj763hkq65d984c5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp1sp2dp2hp2sp?]266|200[/hv]

In a recent event, I had the North hand, and bid 3D but my partner said that was forcing and we got too high. I asked him what I should have bid, and he said that I should have passed now or raised diamonds on the previous round. I thought we might then miss a 4-4 heart fit, opposite something like x AJxx AKxxxx xx, but then we had to move on to the next board and never returned to the subject. Are there any standard methods here, for something like a 5-4-(31) 10 count when partner opens 1m and rebids it showing 6, in a strong NT, 2/1 structure? All views appreciated!

 

common problem hand.

 

Many here on the forums play reverse flannery to show this north hand type.

 

1minor=2h=roughly 7-11 5s and 4h.

 

without that I think you need to play the 2s rebid by south as a minimum hand or open the south hand with a wk 2d bid.

[fourdad]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4ht9daqjt75cq92&n=saj763hkq65d984c5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp1sp2dp2hp2sp?]266|200[/hv]

In a recent event, I had the North hand, and bid 3D but my partner said that was forcing and we got too high. I asked him what I should have bid, and he said that I should have passed now or raised diamonds on the previous round. I thought we might then miss a 4-4 heart fit, opposite something like x AJxx AKxxxx xx, but then we had to move on to the next board and never returned to the subject. Are there any standard methods here, for something like a 5-4-(31) 10 count when partner opens 1m and rebids it showing 6, in a strong NT, 2/1 structure? All views appreciated!

 

What was your agreement on what constitutes an opening hand? A ratty 11 pts full of queens with a Qx and no 4 card major?

Seems to me all the rest of your problems never happen if your pard just opens 2♦!!!

[lamford]

What was your agreement on what constitutes an opening hand? A ratty 11 pts full of queens with a Qx and no 4 card major?

Seems to me all the rest of your problems never happen if your pard just opens 2♦!!!

In England, where this was played, some play constructive weak twos, but our style was 5-9, and this was just a tad too good. He could have passed.

[fourdad]

In England, where this was played, some play constructive weak twos, but our style was 5-9, and this was just a tad too good. He could have passed.

 

Vulnerable, you might consider constructive weak 2's, reserving the 5-9 for NV situations.

[lamford]

Vulnerable, you might consider constructive weak 2's, reserving the 5-9 for NV situations.

That is how I played with both Hallberg and Townsend, on the rare occasions that they had to put up with me as a partner.

[gedikk]

Indeed, South's hand does not qualify at all for a level 1 opening, even in green.

Re actual auction, North succession looks okay to me, as 3♦ forces South to bid 4♦, imho.

[Caitlynne]

This is a difficult problem.

 

Your partner is correct that 3D is (or at least should be) forcing. Bidding two suits before supporting without being forced to take a third bid when a playable suit contract has been found - partner's preference to your 5+ card spade suit is not forcing - is actually a somewhat slammish action!

 

Thus, bidding 2H was a bit of an overbid if you were planning to bid diamonds next. Had your xxx in diamonds been Kxx, you would easily have your bid.

 

At the same time, I think your partner contributed to the problems here. While none of your partner's bids are clearly wrong, I do not like the decision to open with 1D. Yes, the diamond suit is very good, but Qx and Qxx on the side with a 6322 pattern is not inspiring. I would have chosen a weak 2D opening if that were available; if not, I would have chosen to pass.

 

But again, the opening bid of 1D is far from awful. And once you do open 1D, the 2D rebid is automatic. But I don't think the 2S preference is best. I think 2NT is better. If responder happens to have a club card - especially if it is Ax or Axx, it is best for your partner's hand to be playing NoTrump. What's more, this is the one auction (i.e., 1D-1S, 2D-2H, 2N-3D) where your 3D bid could be played non-forcing ... a simple preference to play in diamonds rather than NoTrump (since opener sometimes may be compelled to bid 2NT with a tenuous club stopper).

 

So, you overbid. But, in my opinion, your partner did not bid as well as s/he might have either.

[phil_20686]

I think 2D is a pretty absurd choice. I think if you are going to preempt with a hand this good at least bid 3D. If partner bids 3N he will hardly be disappointed with your hand. I think you are about a Q strong for a 3d opening myself so i'd open 1d and expect it to be the majority action in good fields.

 

I would have bid 2N with lamford's hand, which is inv/nf, but I play that partner is 100% to bid 3d with any hand that refuses the invite and has 6d (which is every hand here). I have played other stuff here. So I would have played in 3D here.

[fromageGB]

If the South hand qualifies as an opening, then maybe North needs a stronger hand to warrant a reply? B-)

 

Seriously though, if S did miscount and opened 1♦, playing without agreements I think N is not good enough to make a 3♣ force. I would quite happily pass partner's preference to spades. (After that spade preference, yes, 3♦ is forcing.)

 

A partnership having bidding situations like this discovers the need to have agreements, and I don't like the idea of an ill-defined 2♥ being inv+ and wallowing around at the 3-level uncertain of fits, and uncertain of what bids may then be construed as forcing after that. You need comprehensively defined continuations. My own style is homegrown, but an inv+ hand is announced by a 1♠ bid where there is twice the room for exploration.

[thornbury]

two comments,#1 the 1d opener with 11 hcp is questionable

#2 in the above auction, I would have bid 3 spades (invitational) instead of 3 diamonds. Opener could just as easily have 3 spades and 13 hcp for their bidding and rebid their diamonds, rather than raise spades with only 3 card support. With their minimal opener, he would pass 3 spades which has a chance

[aguahombre]

The thread is about the continuations, not about the opening bid choice. However, the style of opening bids is a necessary part of the picture --- so we are not in hijack territory here.

 

1) We would open 1♦ even if 2♦ were available because there is no rebid problem and we dislike having two outside law subtractors (the stray Queens) in our 1/2 seat weak 2's. If, as seems to be the case with South here, these hands are opened 1m, then we learn that ten-counts with 3-card support for the minor are not enough to invite game.

 

2) The above affects how strong the 2♥ new-suit bid must be. We are willing to give up at 2♦ with that North hand, fully aware that a heart or spade partial might score better.

 

3) If North can bid 2♥ with this collection to look for the better scoring major in your style, then North must accept the possible 2-card preference, wait for dummy to come down, and get on with life.