one of those blames

[Fluffy]

[hv=d=n&v=e&w=s105hk632dqj107cqj7&e=saj9842hajda9654c]266|100|Scoring: IMP

N - E - S - W

ps-1♠-ps-1NT*

2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦

ps-3♠-ps-ps

ps[/hv]

 

 

1NT= 1RF

[Guest Jlall]

since i would interpret 3S as forcing, I'd have to go with west getting all the blame.

[mike777]

[hv=d=n&v=e&w=s105hk632dqj107cqj7&e=saj9842hajda9654c]266|100|Scoring: IMP

N - E - S - W

ps-1♠-ps-1NT*

2♣-2♦-3♣-3♦

ps-3♠-ps-ps

ps[/hv]

 

 

1NT= 1RF

100% to both players.

Over 3d bid 3h and not confuse partner, you have a slam try so make it.

3s must be 100% forcing, if not sure, the rule is always bid game, just in case.

[Walddk]

West gets it all. 3♠ is forcing, just showing a 6-card suit "en route" in case partner is interested. If opener had been weak, he would have passed 3♦.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

Over 3d bid 3h and not confuse partner, you have a slam try so make it.

3s must be 100% forcing, if not sure, the rule is always bid game, just in case.

I would be worried that 3♥ would be patterning out: what if partner were (as an example) 1=5=4=3? Would he not bid 3♦? Bidding 3♥ as west on that shape is an invitation to disaster.

 

Not only that, but I seriously doubt that west could logically infer a 6 card ♠ suit from 3♥, and yet the 6 card suit is the primary feature we wish to describe (in addition to the extra strength promised by taking a bid).

 

So 100% to west.

[mike777]

Over 3d bid 3h and not confuse partner, you have a slam try so make it.

3s must be 100% forcing, if not sure, the rule is always bid game, just in case.

I would be worried that 3♥ would be patterning out: what if partner were (as an example) 1=5=4=3? Would he not bid 3♦? Bidding 3♥ as west on that shape is an invitation to disaster.

 

Not only that, but I seriously doubt that west could logically infer a 6 card ♠ suit from 3♥, and yet the 6 card suit is the primary feature we wish to describe (in addition to the extra strength promised by taking a bid).

 

So 100% to west.

I have bid spades then D and then hearts....let partner assume I am patterning out, that is ok, in any case must be D slam try. I am playing this hand in D not spades.

Partner is an unpassed hand and made a free bid invite in D. He could have a really good invite hand.

[luis]

East, there's no need to bid 3♠, 4♣ is much better if west has 2 spades and bids 4♠ as choice of games east can then pass.

[Guest Jlall]

wow, if I bid 4C and partner bid 4S I'd be thinking about a grand! The need to bid 3S comes from desire to describe my hand and reach the best contract. To me a 4C bid, indicating short hearts and some club length, would not be a very good description.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I voted "the same", hopefully this means both.

 

But mainly I blame East most.

Even if 3S is forcing, which is far from clearcut, afterall East

made a non forcing 2D call, what does East want to achieve

with the 3S call, if he wants to play game he should 4S, partner

will correct, if he believes 5D has better chances.

1NT=RF, is not sufficient to explain the hand types contained, if it just

means 1 NT is 100% forcing, than 3D by East now showed a limited

hand around 9-12, i.e. slam is at best possible, if East holds magic cards.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

West gets it all. 3♠ is forcing, just showing a 6-card suit "en route" in case partner is interested. If opener had been weak, he would have passed 3♦.

 

Roland

3D is competitive, bidding it, does not promise

the world. It just shows fit, hopefully Law conform,

i.e. in case it is only a 4 card suit, shortage in clubs.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

why would east bid again if he didnt have extras? it doesnt make sense, if he was indeed a 6-4 min he should be passing 3D. He must have extras to bid again, I don't understand...I would have thought this was just a common sense forcing auction.

[mike777]

West gets it all. 3♠ is forcing, just showing a 6-card suit "en route" in case partner is interested. If opener had been weak, he would have passed 3♦.

 

Roland

3D is competitive, bidding it, does not promise

the world. It just shows fit, hopefully Law conform,

i.e. in case it is only a 4 card suit, shortage in clubs.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I see this all the time on bbo but The LAW says to not bid 3 over 3 with 8 trumps and a hand you are just competing on. I am not sure why people think the law says to bid on but Larry has numerous times said otherwise.

 

3d is a clear cut game try or promises 5D. Slam is very possible on this hand.

KX=KXXX=KXXXX=XX AND Partner could have more, feel free to add Q of D. that is still only 11 hcp.

[Fluffy]

Hi,

 

I voted "the same", hopefully this means both.

 

But mainly I blame East most.

Even if 3S is forcing, which is far from clearcut, afterall East

made a non forcing 2D call, what does East want to achieve

with the 3S call, if he wants to play game he should 4S, partner

will correct, if he believes 5D has better chances.

1NT=RF, is not sufficient to explain the hand types contained, if it just

means 1 NT is 100% forcing, than 3D by East now showed a limited

hand around 9-12, i.e. slam is at best possible, if East holds magic cards.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

The question was who had 'more' blame, so if you blame east mainly you should had voted for him

[mikeh]

I see this all the time on bbo but The LAW says to not bid 3 over 3 with 8 trumps and a hand you are just competing on. I am not sure why people think the law says to bid on but Larry has numerous times said otherwise.

 

3d is a clear cut game try or promises 5D. Slam is very possible on this hand.

KX=KXXX=KXXXX=XX AND Partner could have more, feel free to add Q of D. that is still only 11 hcp.

I like the Law of Total Tricks. I use it as a guide in some auctions, but it is not actually a LAW :huh: Anymore than an Ace has some magical inherent value of '4' points... whatever 'points' are.

 

In the auction as given, west will bid 3♦ on many, many hands with which he ought to pass 2♦, if South had also passed. To require that West hold 5 card support or game interest in order to bid 3♦ may comply with some Law (and I doubt very much that Mr. Cohen would approve) but it is not bridge.

 

After all: if west passes and the auction is passed back to east, is he supposed to bid 3♦ because he has 5? How does he know that West holds 4??

 

So you would have the Law require that EW cannot compete (they can make game tries, and slam tries, but cannot compete) even tho they may have a 9 card fit? Count me out.

 

No, West shows a competitive hand with 3♦ and hence 3♠ by east is showing significant values: a willingness to play 4♦ in the event that west lacks ♠ tolerance. East is NOT trying to improve the partscore. Therefore, using Justin's common sense, 3♠ is forcing.

 

Common sense is often a poor guide to wisdom, and I would prefer the phrase: bridge logic. This 3♠ is a bridge logic force.

[mike777]

I see this all the time on bbo but The LAW says to not bid 3 over 3 with 8 trumps and a hand you are just competing on. I am not sure why people think the law says to bid on but Larry has numerous times said otherwise.

 

3d is a clear cut game try or promises 5D. Slam is very possible on this hand.

KX=KXXX=KXXXX=XX AND Partner could have more, feel free to add Q of D. that is still only 11 hcp.

I like the Law of Total Tricks. I use it as a guide in some auctions, but it is not actually a LAW :huh: Anymore than an Ace has some magical inherent value of '4' points... whatever 'points' are.

 

In the auction as given, west will bid 3♦ on many, many hands with which he ought to pass 2♦, if South had also passed. To require that West hold 5 card support or game interest in order to bid 3♦ may comply with some Law (and I doubt very much that Mr. Cohen would approve) but it is not bridge.

 

After all: if west passes and the auction is passed back to east, is he supposed to bid 3♦ because he has 5? How does he know that West holds 4??

 

So you would have the Law require that EW cannot compete (they can make game tries, and slam tries, but cannot compete) even tho they may have a 9 card fit? Count me out.

 

No, West shows a competitive hand with 3♦ and hence 3♠ by east is showing significant values: a willingness to play 4♦ in the event that west lacks ♠ tolerance. East is NOT trying to improve the partscore. Therefore, using Justin's common sense, 3♠ is forcing.

 

Common sense is often a poor guide to wisdom, and I would prefer the phrase: bridge logic. This 3♠ is a bridge logic force.

See how I was referring to the post above mine. They misquoted the "the Law"

If in your judgement 3d is winning bridge, that is great, but let us not misquote Larry Cohen.

 

Well if we define a "Law" as some published piece of rules to live by then this is a Law.

 

Keep in mind a "Law" can be wrong, hurtful and sometimes deadly but it can still be a Law. See politics not science :).

 

Of course your very last sentence is a fine law :).

[jdeegan]

I think Marlowe has the better of this debate, so far. Over 3♦-PASS-??? there is certainly no game (or one round) force in place. Does a 3♠ bid invoke a game or even a one round force?? I can't see why it would unless you have discussed this particular auction in advance, something only a handful of pairs have done (I guess).

 

The 3♠ bid sounds to me like a suggestion to play in spades - say, a 6-4 or 6-5 hand. Nothing in the auction, so far, says 'forcing' to me. So, I would think pass is an option. However, opener does not want partner to pass under any circumstances (assuming his bidding up to now has been proper). Hence, all of the blame should fall on opener since he made the first, irrevokable mistake.

[mikeh]

Marlowe's post stated that if east wished to force, he should bid 4♠. With the greatest of respect, this is illogical. No-one here (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that 3♠ is a game force. It should, logically, be a one-round force. West is supposed to make an informed decision, choosing between 4♦ (minimum hand, stiff or unlikely ♠ void), 5♦ (good hand in context, likely max with 5♦ and short ♠) or 4♠... any hand with partial ♠ fit.

 

The alternative, suggested by Marlowe, is unplayable. How can east bid 4♠? If west has a minimum with no ♠ fit, he must bid 5♦. That is simply foolish.

 

No, a common sense and bridge logic guide is that one does not attempt to improve the part score. While mps makes that rule susceptible to departure, this is NOT an auction in which it can logically be ignored.

 

West was under pressure when he bid 3♦: he could have a wide range of hand types and strengths... including hands on which game is cold and those on which game has no play. East must be allowed to get out below game (while still exploring for a good game), and he cannot do that and explore 4♠ as a destination unless 3♠ is forcing to 4♦ or higher.

[P_Marlowe]

West gets it all. 3♠ is forcing, just showing a 6-card suit "en route" in case partner is interested. If opener had been weak, he would have passed 3♦.

 

Roland

3D is competitive, bidding it, does not promise

the world. It just shows fit, hopefully Law conform,

i.e. in case it is only a 4 card suit, shortage in clubs.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I see this all the time on bbo but The LAW says to not bid 3 over 3 with 8 trumps and a hand you are just competing on. I am not sure why people think the law says to bid on but Larry has numerous times said otherwise.

 

3d is a clear cut game try or promises 5D. Slam is very possible on this hand.

KX=KXXX=KXXXX=XX AND Partner could have more, feel free to add Q of D. that is still only 11 hcp.

Hi,

 

did you see, that I wrote "shortage in clubs"?

 

At least according to the book written by Cohen,

that I have read, this is a positive adjustement, and

if the list of positive adjustements is greater than the

neg. list of adjustments, you can compete further on,

even if you happen to have only a 8 card fit.

 

Slam is out of the picture, both sides bid, both sides made

nonforcing calls / limited calls, maybe we will reach game,

but Slam ??? No way.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Marlowe's post stated that if east wished to force, he should bid 4♠. With the greatest of respect, this is illogical. No-one here (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that 3♠ is a game force. It should, logically, be a one-round force.

It is a one round force, committing us to the 4 level

and not a game force?

 

I dont play on the 4 level, with no chance off winning

some money. And there is no money to earn playing

4D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

why would east bid again if he didnt have extras? it doesnt make sense, if he was indeed a 6-4 min he should be passing 3D. He must have extras to bid again, I don't understand...I would have thought this was just a common sense forcing auction.

Hi,

 

For me 3S shows extras, but it is only invitational

to 4S, i.e. non forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[flytoox]

I agree 3S as invitational but not forcing. Pd can pass but are encouraged to go on.

[mgtusi]

I agree 3S as invitational but not forcing. Pd can pass but are encouraged to go on.

Hi all,

 

 

Completely agree : 3 ♠ is invitational, showing a good 6-4.

So if I have to hang somebody, I should choose West, because he have to accept the game with a near maximum hand (I imagine 1Nt is 6-10), a support in spades (the 10 !) and good diamonds.

[mike777]

I agree 3S as invitational but not forcing. Pd can pass but are encouraged to go on.

Hi all,

 

 

Completely agree : 3 ♠ is invitational, showing a good 6-4.

So if I have to hang somebody, I should choose West, because he have to accept the game with a near maximum hand (I imagine 1Nt is 6-10), a support in spades (the 10 !) and good diamonds.

Cute! Some bid 3s invite with this hand while I make an advanced cuebid slam try with 3H!.

[flytoox]

I agree 3S as invitational but not forcing. Pd can pass but are encouraged to go on.

Hi all,

 

 

Completely agree : 3 ♠ is invitational, showing a good 6-4.

So if I have to hang somebody, I should choose West, because he have to accept the game with a near maximum hand (I imagine 1Nt is 6-10), a support in spades (the 10 !) and good diamonds.

Cute! Some bid 3s invite with this hand while I make an advanced cuebid slam try with 3H!.

Guess you misunderstood it. What we meant(at least me) is that 3S is invitational, not that this hand should bid 3S to invite.