Bidding Advice Please
Martin Taylor
IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
You hold as dealer:
S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
You Pd
1h 2c
2d 2s*
?
* Fourth suit forcing.
What is your choice now?
I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
Partner's hand:
S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
Is there any sensible route to 6c?
Martin Taylor
David desJardins
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
> What is your choice now?
Show your club support, of course.
> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
> Partner's hand:
> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
When you have support for partner's suit, you should show it, instead of
pretending you have a balanced hand without support.
When partner has an unbalanced hand with a long club suit, partner
should bid and rebid clubs, instead of pretending he has a balanced hand
with only moderate club length.
David desJardins
Sid
wrote:
§
§ IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
§
§ You hold as dealer:
§
§ S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
§
§ No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
§
§ You Pd
§ 1h 2c
§ 2d 2s*
§ ?
§
§ * Fourth suit forcing.
§
§ What is your choice now?
§
§ I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
§
§ Partner's hand:
§
§ S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
§
§ Is there any sensible route to 6c?
§
§ Martin Taylor
You should have bid 3C, not 2NT, over the 2S FSF. :))
Should partner want to probe a NT game thereafter, he
can always 3S again - now you can 3NT.
Partner gets excited when you bid 3C, and hid 3D cue now
starts the ball rolling.....
Share little secrets with partner.
====================
Sid Ismail The colder the x-ray table, more
http://fly.to/elsid of your body is required on it.
====================
DavJFlower
>§ IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>§
>§ You hold as dealer:
>§
>§ S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>§
>§ No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>§
>§ You Pd
>§ 1h 2c
>§ 2d 2s*
>§ ?
>§
>§ * Fourth suit forcing.
>§
>§ What is your choice now?
>§
>§ I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>§
>§ Partner's hand:
>§
>§ S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>§
>§ Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>§
>§ Martin Taylor
Certainly you should have bid 3C (second choice 4C), and you should be aware
that 3C is an underbid,
Dave Flower
Thomas Dehn
"Martin Taylor" <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>
> You hold as dealer:
>
> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
> You Pd
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
>
> What is your choice now?
3c. Should be forcing.
Thomas
DavJFlower
>> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>>
>> You hold as dealer:
>>
>> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>>
>> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>>
>> You Pd
>> 1h 2c
>> 2d 2s*
>> ?
>>
>> * Fourth suit forcing.
>>
>> What is your choice now?
>
>3c. Should be forcing.
>
>
>Thomas
Dave Flower
Robert Lipton
Martin Taylor wrote:
>
> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>
> You hold as dealer:
>
> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
> You Pd
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
>
> What is your choice now?
I'd bid 3 Clubs, intending to rebid 3NT at my next opportunity.
>
> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>
> Partner's hand:
>
> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
Probably not.
Bob
>
Gordon Rainsford
> >>
> >> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
> >>
> >> You hold as dealer:
> >>
> >> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> >>
> >> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
> >>
> >> You Pd
> >> 1h 2c
> >> 2d 2s*
> >> ?
> >>
> >> * Fourth suit forcing.
> >>
> >> What is your choice now?
> >
> >3c. Should be forcing.
> >
> Surely it is only forcing if 2C were a game force.
Surely it depends on what your agreements are about FSF: some play it as
forcing to game, others only one round, some allow the bidding to stop
below game only in 2NT. My partner and I play it as forcing to 2NT if
the FSF bid was 2H or below, and forcing to game if it was 2S or higher.
So for us 3C would be forcing since 2S would have been forcing to game.
Incidentally, if 2C were forcing to game there would be no need to use
FSF - bidding could proceed on natural lines, in this instance by
responder rebidding 3C.
--
Gordon Rainsford
London, UK
Alex Martelli
news:svTXhBA+$B94...@dmatters.demon.co.uk...
>
> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>
> You hold as dealer:
>
> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
> You Pd
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
>
> What is your choice now?
3C; keep bidding my shape out. I do have
nice support for Pd's clubs, why not show it?
2NT is not absurd, although the hand is not
all that NT-oriented; it does have a S stopper.
But 3C seems more descriptive.
> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
No!!! that would be a serious violation of
partnership discipline. Partner has taken
an artificial/relay bid of 2S, and now has
said that, in the light of your S stopper,
3NT is where you're going to play the hand.
You know very little about his hand, and it
would be presumptuous in the extreme to
override his judgment.
> Partner's hand:
>
> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
Yes, but it doesn't run through partner's
*peculiar* 3NT sign-off bid.
If opener chooses the preferable 3C rebid,
responder should now get excited -- his suit
grows in power even in front of very limited
support, such as Qx; it's only a matter of
checking that opener has S control (not two
small spades -- he MIGHT have had to choose
3C with some difficult hand such as, say,
xx-AQxxx-KQxx-QJ) and at least one Ace. If
the partnership lacks the means to check on
both things, responder might gamble on the
S situation (it IS, after all, LIKELY that
opener has a S singleton) and just check on
Aces with 4NT right over 3C.
If opener chooses 2NT, responder should still
be sniffing around, not closing the bidding
abruptly with 3NT -- a 3C rebid on 2NT seems
best. If opener has just one spade stopper
and no Club help, e.g. Ax-AKxxx-Kxxxx-x,
3NT is VERY iffy indeed, and 5C likelier;
or, make that club singleton into the Q,
and 6C is already attractive.
After the possible start:
1H 2C
2D 2S
2NT 3C
?
opener should of course get ENTHUSIASTIC
in support of clubs, since he's got such
an incredibly good hand for the purpose,
given his previous bids. A pretty unusual
4S splinter on 3C might serve -- having
shown a S stopper, and now a S singleton,
opener would be clearly identifying his
bare Spade Ace!-) As well, of course, as
3 useful clubs and a slam-oriented hand.
Again responder would Blackwood, this
time with the purpose of staying OUT of
the GRAND slam in the possible case that
opener has neither red King -- as it
happens to be the case here (if opener's
Diamond QJ were the K instead, it would
be a pretty 7C; as it is, it's too
pushy to bid it, alas -- you need far
better chances, particularly since your
counterparts at the other table might
miss even the SMALL slam...:-).
Alex
Gordon Rainsford
> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>
> You hold as dealer:
>
> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
> You Pd
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
>
> What is your choice now?
>
> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>
> Partner's hand:
>
> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
Well you've had lots of sensible advice from others, but no-one has
actually suggested a bidding sequence, so I'll have a go.
1H - 2C
2D - 2S*
3C - 3D
3H - 4C
4S - 6C
After 4C a cue by partner of 4D, 4H or 4S should be enough to make 6C a
good bet, since the 1-5-4-3 (or better) shape was shown by the 3C bid.
The only real problem is if partner construes FSF followed by 3D as a
forcing diamond raise, but I think the 4C bid clarifies that.
Thomas Dehn
"DavJFlower" <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
> >>
> >> You hold as dealer:
> >>
> >> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> >>
> >> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
> >>
> >> You Pd
> >> 1h 2c
> >> 2d 2s*
> >> ?
> >>
> >> * Fourth suit forcing.
> >>
> >> What is your choice now?
> >
> >
> Surely it is only forcing if 2C were a game force.
The 2S forth suit forcing should be a game force opposite
every bid except 2NT, and possibly 3H. With
a minimum hand with long clubs, responder would
bid 3C, not 2S. With a minimum hand and some heart
support, responder would bid 2H, not 2S.
With a minimum hand and 4 diamonds, responder would
bid 3D, not 2S.
Thomas
Alex Martelli
news:svTXhBA+$B94...@dmatters.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> You hold as dealer:
>
> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
> You Pd
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
>
> What is your choice now?
3C; keep bidding my shape out. I do have
nice support for Pd's clubs, why not show it?
2NT is not absurd, although the hand is not
all that NT-oriented; it does have a S stopper.
But 3C seems more descriptive.
> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
No!!! that would be a serious violation of
partnership discipline. Partner has taken
an artificial/relay bid of 2S, and now has
said that, in the light of your S stopper,
3NT is where you're going to play the hand.
You know very little about his hand, and it
would be presumptuous in the extreme to
override his judgment.
> Partner's hand:
>
> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
Yes, but it doesn't run through partner's
David Burn
David desJardins wrote:
> Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> >
> > You Pd
> > 1h 2c
> > 2d 2s*
> > ?
> >
> > * Fourth suit forcing.
> > What is your choice now?
>
> Show your club support, of course.
>
> > I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
> > Partner's hand:
> > S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
> > Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>
> When you have support for partner's suit, you should show it, instead of
> pretending you have a balanced hand without support.
This is cetainly true, but this may not be...
>
>
> When partner has an unbalanced hand with a long club suit, partner
> should bid and rebid clubs, instead of pretending he has a balanced hand
> with only moderate club length.
>
>
When partner is playing a method in which 1H-2C-2D-3C is not forcing (the
post came from the UK, so this is not unlikely to be the case), it is
possible that rebidding clubs is not an option available to him.
David Burn
London, England
Jan Lagerman
Rainsford) wrote:
>Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>>
>> You hold as dealer:
>>
>> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>>
>> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>>
>> You Pd
>> 1h 2c
>> 2d 2s*
>> ?
>>
>> * Fourth suit forcing.
>>
>> What is your choice now?
>>
>> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>>
>> Partner's hand:
>>
>> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>>
>> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>
>Well you've had lots of sensible advice from others, but no-one has
>actually suggested a bidding sequence, so I'll have a go.
>
>1H - 2C
>2D - 2S*
>3C - 3D
>3H - 4C
>4S - 6C
>
>After 4C a cue by partner of 4D, 4H or 4S should be enough to make 6C a
>good bet, since the 1-5-4-3 (or better) shape was shown by the 3C bid.
What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
I would bid 3C myself. Why does that promise 1543?
Jan
Arnaud Kok
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:54:46 +0100, gor...@dircon.co.uk (Gordon
> Rainsford) wrote:
>>Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>>>
>>> You hold as dealer:
>>>
>>> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>>>
>>> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>>>
>>> You Pd
>>> 1h 2c
>>> 2d 2s*
>>> ?
>>>
>>> * Fourth suit forcing.
>>>
>>> Partner's hand:
>>>
>>> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>>>
>>> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>>
>>After 4C a cue by partner of 4D, 4H or 4S should be enough to make 6C a
>>good bet, since the 1-5-4-3 (or better) shape was shown by the 3C bid.
> What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
> I would bid 3C myself. Why does that promise 1543?
I would bid 3H, the only bid that tells pd that I do not have a spade
stopper and do not have a 3 card support in his suit and do not have a 5 card
diamond suit or a 4 card spade suit. (In my system it does not imply that I
do have a 6 card hart suit). This hand qualifies. The problem, imho,
with bidding 3C is that you're lying, where in our system there is a
reasonable alternative.
---
Grt,
Arnaud.
David Wetzel
>Subject: Bidding Advice Please
>From: Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk>
>IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>You hold as dealer:
>
>S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
>No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
>You Pd
>1h 2c
>2d 2s*
>?
>
>* Fourth suit forcing.
>
>What is your choice now?
3C seems quite obvious. Partner has not promised anything in spades. The
stiff ace, while it is a stopper, isn't the sort of thing you WANT to declare
notrump on, MORE so at IMPs because 5C (should partner head off that way)
should be safe enough and perhaps cost you a couple of IMPS against 3NT making
overtricks.
You should get another chance at 3NT if partner isn't thrilled with your club
raise.
>I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
Nope. If I thought 2NT was the right bid, 3NT does nothing to change my mind
now.
>Partner's hand:
>
>S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
>Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>
>Martin Taylor
After 1H-2C-2D-2S*-3C, I would think that a sensible cuebidding sequence
(depends on agreements) would get you to 6C. Partner can reasonably play you
for spade shortness after this (he'll be pleasantly surprised it's the ace, of
course!), and once you show the heart ace amongst your goodies, partner can
reasonably play you for some other useful card and just up and bid the slam.
-Dave
DWetz...@aol.com
"Black holes: the place where God divided by zero."
Gordon Rainsford
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:54:46 +0100, gor...@dircon.co.uk (Gordon
> Rainsford) wrote:
>
> >Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
> >>
> >> You hold as dealer:
> >>
> >> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> >>
> >> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
> >>
> >> You Pd
> >> 1h 2c
> >> 2d 2s*
> >> ?
> >>
> >> * Fourth suit forcing.
> >>
> >> What is your choice now?
> >>
> >> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
> >>
> >> Partner's hand:
> >>
> >> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
> >>
> >> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
> >
> >Well you've had lots of sensible advice from others, but no-one has
> >actually suggested a bidding sequence, so I'll have a go.
> >
> >1H - 2C
> >2D - 2S*
> >3C - 3D
> >3H - 4C
> >4S - 6C
> >
> >After 4C a cue by partner of 4D, 4H or 4S should be enough to make 6C a
> >good bet, since the 1-5-4-3 (or better) shape was shown by the 3C bid.
>
> What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
>
> I would bid 3C myself. Why does that promise 1543?
I would bid 3H with that, because 3C would show 3 card support :-)
2C only promises four, so giving secondary support on Qx seems a bit
risky. Insisting on 3 card support in the aucion helps you describe your
hand shape to partner, in particular highlight the spade shortage. There
is no downside since 3H is the "nothing more to say" bid.
Eric Leong
: IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
: You hold as dealer:
: S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
: No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
: You Pd
: 1h 2c
: 2d 2s*
: ?
: * Fourth suit forcing.
: What is your choice now?
: I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
: Partner's hand:
: S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
: Is there any sensible route to 6c?
: Martin Taylor
1H 2C
2D 2S
3C 3D
4S(1) 4NT
5S(2) 5NT(3)
6C(4) Pass
(1) Splinter
(2) 2 key cards + queen of trumps
(3) Lowest specific king?
(4) None
Eric Leong
jan kamras
Eric Leong wrote:
>
> 1H 2C
> 2D 2S
> 3C 3D
> 4S(1) 4NT
> 5S(2) 5NT(3)
> 6C(4) Pass
>
> (1) Splinter
> (2) 2 key cards + queen of trumps
> (3) Lowest specific king?
> (4) None
Just using EL's post as the lead-off.
Everyone seems so certain that 3D is a cuebid of a control with clubs
agreed. If I read correctly, 1H-2C; 2D-3D is only *invitational* in
SAYC, so would responder not need to go via 4SF then 3D to show a GF
diamond-raise that does not want to bypass 3NT?
Btw, I dislike splinters on singleton Aces. Here it's particularly
unnecessary (and wasteful of bidding-space) since opener already
strongly implied short spades.
Considering the SAYC-implications mentioned, maybe the bidding could
proceed:
1H 2C
2D 2S
3C 4C(1)
4H 4NT(2)
6C(3)
(1) Making sure to set trumps first, in ambiguous auctions.
(2) DI style. Still slammish hand but no convenient control i.e. no
spade-control
but diamond-control and very good trumps by implication.
(3) No further help than the spade-control so grand is out.
As so often, it is just an illusion that the 4C bid wastes space. It
brings clarity to the following auction, and will thus often save both
space and agony. Of course, If 2/1=GF responder will just rebid 3C
rather than the ambiguous 2S. It is interesting to note though that this
actually does *not* save any space:
1H 2C
2D 3C
4C etc.
This does not surprise me, since I have long felt the constructive
advantages of 2/1 being totally GF - though not insignificant by any
means - are often exaggerated.
DavJFlower
>
>: You hold as dealer:
>
>: S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
>: No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
>: You Pd
>: 1h 2c
>: 2d 2s*
>: ?
>
>: * Fourth suit forcing.
>
>: What is your choice now?
>
>: I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>
>: Partner's hand:
>
>: S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
>: Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>
>: Martin Taylor
>
>
>2D 2S
>3C 3D
>4S(1) 4NT
>5S(2) 5NT(3)
>6C(4) Pass
>
>
>(1) Splinter
>(2) 2 key cards + queen of trumps
>(3) Lowest specific king?
>(4) None
>
>
This is a typical example of inventing a bidding sequence having seen both
hands.
Opening bidder's bid over 3D is a near automatic 3NT. With a spade stop, and
only two clubs, the bid over 2S would have been 2NT, so opener must hold a
1-5-4-3 hand, with a singleton spade ace.
Incidently, 3D looks like a suit to me - how would responder bid:
x x x
Q x
A K x x
A K x x
Its easy enough to understand bids when you can see the hand making the bid.
My sequence:
1H 2C
2D 2S
3C 3D
3NT 6C
Dave Flower
Micha Keijzers
Martin Taylor wrote:
> IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>
> You hold as dealer:
>
> S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>
> No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>
> You Pd
> 1h 2c
> 2d 2s*
> ?
>
> * Fourth suit forcing.
>
> What is your choice now?
Certainly not 2NT with the ace singleton, I'd bid 3C showing my 3-crd
club support. Partner now knows I have a 1-5-4-3 pattern and if he
really thinks that 3N is a possibility to play, he can ask again (at
least in my system) for an honour in spades, so with my honour we stop
the spade suit.
>
>
> I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>
> Partner's hand:
>
> S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>
> Is there any sensible route to 6c?
With 3C over 2S it's much easier
Greets, Micha Keijzers
>
>
> Martin Taylor
Bob Silverman
> >
> > 1h 2c
> > 2d 2s*
> > ?
> >
> > * Fourth suit forcing.
> > What is your choice now?
>
Yes!!! This is really a non-issue. I don't understand why the
question was asked in the first place. 3C is the ONLY bid here.
>
> > I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
2NT shows a BALANCED hand. You don't have it. Do you always lie
to your partner? Do you always fail to support partner's 2/1 call
when holding honor third?
I would have raised clubs immediately over 2C, rather than bidding
the Q high diamond suit. (a raise to 3C shows extras; either
extra strength or extra shape -- we have the latter here)
> > Partner's hand:
> > S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
Exactly what objection did partner have to rebidding his 7 card club
suit.?
> > Is there any sensible route to 6c?
Sure. But it assumes that the parties involved are sensible bidders.
This is clearly not the case here. We have two hogs here.
Both want to get to notrump ASAP.
>
> When you have support for partner's suit, you should show it, instead
of
> pretending you have a balanced hand without support.
>
> When partner has an unbalanced hand with a long club suit, partner
> should bid and rebid clubs, instead of pretending he has a balanced
hand
> with only moderate club length.
>
> David desJardins
Amen! Absolutely!
How refreshing! Common sense! So rare in this group! Even on
*simple* hands.
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob Silverman
David Burn <db...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> > >
> > > You Pd
> > > 1h 2c
> > > 2d 2s*
> > > ?
> > >
> > > * Fourth suit forcing.
> > > What is your choice now?
> >
> > Show your club support, of course.
>
> When partner is playing a method in which 1H-2C-2D-3C is not forcing
(the
> post came from the UK, so this is not unlikely to be the case), it is
> possible that rebidding clubs is not an option available to him.
Why? Responder has only 11 HCP, and a MISFIT with declarer.
(1 card in hearts, 2 in diamonds). Exactly why would he WANT
to force???? If opener can not bid again over 3C, then it is almost
certainly the right spot.
Let me also suggest the following. Suppose responder is slightly
stronger so that he/she has a force. A system that requires one to
suppress a re-biddable 7 card suit in order to make a nebulous 4th
suit forcing call has a major hole in it.
Bob Silverman
> >>
> >> 1h 2c
> >> 2d 2s*
> >> ?
> >> * Fourth suit forcing.
> >> What is your choice now?
> >
> >
> Surely it is only forcing if 2C were a game force.
I sometimes wonder if people know how to READ.
If 2c were GF, then 2S would not be "4th suit forcing".
Another poster suggested that 3C over 2S only "should be forcing".
It HAS to be forcing after the 2S call.
Bob Silverman
Adam Beneschan
Bob Silverman <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38F48A90...@btinternet.com>,
> David Burn <db...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > >
> > > > 1h 2c
> > > > 2d 2s*
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > * Fourth suit forcing.
> > > > What is your choice now?
> > >
>
> >
> > When partner is playing a method in which 1H-2C-2D-3C is not forcing
> (the
> > post came from the UK, so this is not unlikely to be the case), it
is
> > possible that rebidding clubs is not an option available to him.
>
> Why? Responder has only 11 HCP, and a MISFIT with declarer.
> (1 card in hearts, 2 in diamonds). Exactly why would he WANT
> to force???? If opener can not bid again over 3C, then it is almost
> certainly the right spot.
No, responder had 12 HCP: his hand was xxx J AT AKT9xx. Two aces, a
king, and a jack add up to 12. Yes, you say that a singleton jack isn't
really worth a point; but I say that if you're going to be a Walrus, you
might as well do it right and count all your points the way Walter the
Walrus would.
If you're not going to be a Walrus, then surely you must realize that
this is a much better than average hand for an 11 count. The 11 is two
aces and a king, and everyone knows that the Work point count
undervalues aces and kings. Plus, the king is in the same suit as an
ace, and the A-K is in a 6-card suit, both pluses for hand evaluation.
You even have that lovely 10-9 behind the A-K. Your other ace is in one
of partner's suits, making it worth more than if it were in spades,
e.g., and you even have a ten in that suit, which may well be helpful.
If the hand were a misfit and partner had to stop in 3NT, I would be
very surprised if he didn't make it. On the other hand, after partner's
rebid, I'm already thinking about how I'm planning to bid to (yet
another) 28-HCP slam. I can't imagine stopping short of game on
this---this is a beautiful hand, not an 11-point ho-hum hand.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Bob Silverman <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38F48A90...@btinternet.com>,
> David Burn <db...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> > > >
> > > > You Pd
> > > > 1h 2c
> > > > 2d 2s*
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > * Fourth suit forcing.
> > > > What is your choice now?
> > >
> > > Show your club support, of course.
>
> >
> > When partner is playing a method in which 1H-2C-2D-3C is not forcing
> (the
> > post came from the UK, so this is not unlikely to be the case), it
is
> > possible that rebidding clubs is not an option available to him.
>
> Why? Responder has only 11 HCP, and a MISFIT with declarer.
> (1 card in hearts, 2 in diamonds). Exactly why would he WANT
> to force???? If opener can not bid again over 3C, then it is almost
> certainly the right spot.
No, responder had 12 HCP: his hand was xxx J AT AKT9xxx. Two aces, a
king, and a jack add up to 12. Yes, you say that a singleton jack isn't
really worth a point; but I say that if you're going to be a Walrus, you
might as well do it right and count all your points the way Walter the
Walrus would.
If you're not going to be a Walrus, then surely you must realize that
this is a much better than average hand for an 11 count. The 11 is two
aces and a king, and everyone knows that the Work point count
undervalues aces and kings. Plus, the king is in the same suit as an
ace, and the A-K is in a 7-card suit, both pluses for hand evaluation.
You even have that lovely 10-9 behind the A-K. Your other ace is in one
of partner's suits, making it worth more than if it were in spades,
e.g., and you even have a ten in that suit, which may well be helpful.
If the hand were a misfit and partner had to stop in 3NT, I would be
very surprised if he didn't make it. On the other hand, after partner's
rebid, I'm already thinking about how I'm planning to bid to (yet
another) 28-HCP slam. I can't imagine stopping short of game on
this---this is a beautiful hand, not an 11-point ho-hum hand.
-- Adam
(previous mis-post cancelled --- sorry)
jan kamras
Bob Silverman wrote:
>
> I sometimes wonder if people know how to READ.
> If 2c were GF, then 2S would not be "4th suit forcing".
This cannot be right. Of course there are many hands where you respond
2C GF but still needs to have 4SF.
What I assume you mean is that *on the responding hand in question* you
wouldn't bid 2S if 2C then 3C was forcing.
If I'm wrong, how do 2/1 GFers bid:
Axx xx Qxx AQJxx or
Jxx xx Axx AKJxx etc
after 1H-2C-2D??
Eric Leong
:>: IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
:>
:>: You hold as dealer:
:>: S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
:>
:>: No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
:>
:>: You Pd
:>: 1h 2c
:>: 2d 2s*
:>: ?
:>
:>: * Fourth suit forcing.
:>
:>: What is your choice now?
:>: I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
:>
:>: Partner's hand:
:>
:>: S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
:>: Is there any sensible route to 6c?
:>
:>: Martin Taylor
:>
:>
:>1H 2C
:>2D 2S
:>3C 3D
:>4S(1) 4NT
:>5S(2) 5NT(3)
:>6C(4) Pass
:>
:>
:>(1) Splinter
:>(2) 2 key cards + queen of trumps
:>(3) Lowest specific king?
:>(4) None
:>
:>
:>Eric Leong
: This is a typical example of inventing a bidding sequence having seen both
: hands.
: Opening bidder's bid over 3D is a near automatic 3NT.
You have to be joking. Partner bids 2S to show extra's. When you show
support partner shows something in diamonds. Partner doesn't bid notrump
at any time so you know that partner is expecting to be in game in at
least five of some minor. To be thinking to be in at least five of a minor
has to have some sort of shapely distribution. When partner has a
singleton just where do you think the stiff has to be given that partner
didn't bid 3H? The stiff is most likely in hearts of course.
Now look at your hand. None of your values are wasted. Your heart ace is
more than likely opposite a stiff. Your spade ace is probably little if
no duplication as partner could bid 3NT opposite 3C with spades. Partner
has shown a diamond honor which solidifies your previously doubtful
secondard diamond honors. Finally, both your trump queen and jack are
obvious gold nuggets. With a starting minimum range hand your hand
has improved sharply. There is little more that partner could conceivably
want. Instead of coming alive you choose to play dead and make the most
discouraging bid now available -3NT. If there was a medal for pessimist
of the year I would award it to you now and not bother to look for
another candidate for the next 8 months.
: With a spade stop, and
: only two clubs, the bid over 2S would have been 2NT, so opener must hold a
: 1-5-4-3 hand, with a singleton spade ace.
Not quite, perhaps opener has been endplayed into bidding 3NT. What do you
expect partner to bid if he has something like: S x H KQxxx D KQxx C QJx
or S xx H KQxxx D KQJx C Qx and he is forced to bid? Your 2S bid could
have been a real suit.showing something like: S QJxx H x D Ax C AKxxxx
: Incidently, 3D looks like a suit to me - how would responder bid:
: x x x
: Q x
: A K x x
: A K x x
So what? You would have difficulty placing the hand
in 6D instead?
: Its easy enough to understand bids when you can see the hand making the bid.
: My sequence:
: 1H 2C
: 2D 2S
: 3C 3D
: 3NT 6C
Talk about accusing me of inventing a bidding sequence after looking at
two hands!. You don't even ask for aces. In this sequence, how do you know
you aren't off two aces? Perhaps, you just might be missing the top two
spades. Also note that opener's diamonds could have been D Kxxx instead
and now you miss a simple grand. But clearly, when you can see both hands
why go through the formality of asking for aces and kings?
Eric Leong
: Dave Flower
Coup
Bob Silverman wrote lots, but this is the worst:
>This is clearly not the case here. We have two hogs here.
Hi.
Why call everyone not so expirienced "hogs"?
You seem to spend some time on RGB, and you of course have
good contributions (as far as I understand), but you must realise
that issues of all play levels will arise at RGB. Answer the
questions in a decent way or leave them alone, is my suggestion.
Coup
Bob Silverman
"Coup" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> Bob Silverman wrote lots, but this is the worst:
> >> Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> > Is there any sensible route to 6c?
> >
> >Sure. But it assumes that the parties involved are sensible bidders.
> >This is clearly not the case here. We have two hogs here.
>
> Hi.
> Why call everyone not so expirienced "hogs"?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence.
Bridge players who strive to always bid NoTrump at any excuse
and at the earliest possible time, rather than bid their hand are
routinely called hogs (After the Hideous Hog, a Victor Mollo
character).
It has *nothing* to do with being inexperienced.
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Bob Silverman
jan kamras <jka...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bob Silverman wrote:
>
> >
> > I sometimes wonder if people know how to READ.
> > If 2c were GF, then 2S would not be "4th suit forcing".
>
> This cannot be right. Of course there are many hands where you respond
> 2C GF but still needs to have 4SF.
No. There is no such thing as 4SF in an auction that is
already forced to game. Since all calls below game are
forcing, there is no need to make an artificial forcing call to force
to game because no other forcing call is available (which is what
4SF is about)
>
> What I assume you mean is that *on the responding hand in question* you
> wouldn't bid 2S if 2C then 3C was forcing.
>
> If I'm wrong, how do 2/1 GFers bid:
>
> Axx xx Qxx AQJxx or
> Jxx xx Axx AKJxx etc
>
> after 1H-2C-2D??
>
On the first I bid 2NT showing 12-14 balanced with spades stopped.
WTP?
On the second I bid 3C showing good clubs. This is more problematic.
Some might bid 2S, showing the spade FRAGMENT, but this is
NOT artificial 4SF.
Martin Sinot
Bob Silverman <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8d71f2$3f7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38F62A07...@home.com>,
> jan kamras <jka...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bob Silverman wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I sometimes wonder if people know how to READ.
> > > If 2c were GF, then 2S would not be "4th suit forcing".
> >
> > This cannot be right. Of course there are many hands where you respond
> > 2C GF but still needs to have 4SF.
>
> No. There is no such thing as 4SF in an auction that is
> already forced to game. Since all calls below game are
> forcing, there is no need to make an artificial forcing call to force
> to game because no other forcing call is available (which is what
> 4SF is about)
Where is it written that the only purpose of the 4SF is to make the
situation GF? The purpose of the 4SF is to have a bid available if
you don't have a suitable bid ready, under the assumption that it is
rarely necessary to show the fourth suit if three suits have already
been mentioned. One use of the 4SF is indeed to make the situation GF,
but that is by no means the only possible use.
> >
> > What I assume you mean is that *on the responding hand in question* you
> > wouldn't bid 2S if 2C then 3C was forcing.
> >
> > If I'm wrong, how do 2/1 GFers bid:
> >
> > Axx xx Qxx AQJxx or
> > Jxx xx Axx AKJxx etc
> >
> > after 1H-2C-2D??
> >
> On the first I bid 2NT showing 12-14 balanced with spades stopped.
> WTP?
Agreed. You don't need the 4SF here, because you have a good alternative
here.
> On the second I bid 3C showing good clubs. This is more problematic.
> Some might bid 2S, showing the spade FRAGMENT, but this is
> NOT artificial 4SF.
Yes, it is. And nothing else. And it is also what I would bid on
the second hand. 3C would show 6 clubs, 2NT would promise a full
spade stopper, so you have a bit of a rebid problem. That is
exactly the kind of situation the 4SF has been developed for.
--
Martin Sinot
Nijmegen, Netherlands
mar...@spase.nl
Bob Silverman
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > David Burn <db...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > Martin Taylor <Mar...@dmatters.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1h 2c
> > > > > 2d 2s*
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > * Fourth suit forcing.
> > > > > What is your choice now?
> > > >
> >
<snip>
> > Why? Responder has only 11 HCP, and a MISFIT with declarer.
> > (1 card in hearts, 2 in diamonds). Exactly why would he WANT
> > to force???? If opener can not bid again over 3C, then it is almost
> > certainly the right spot.
>
> No, responder had 12 HCP: his hand was xxx J AT AKT9xx. Two aces, a
> king, and a jack add up to 12. Yes, you say that a singleton jack
isn't
> really worth a point; but I say that if you're going to be a Walrus,
you
> might as well do it right and count all your points the way Walter the
> Walrus would.
The last thing I am is a Walrus. I used to play Roman regularly...
A singleton J is not particularly valuable and this hand has gotten
WORSE as the bidding progressed. Stiff J in partner's first suit and
AT in the second add up to a misfit.
>
> If you're not going to be a Walrus, then surely you must realize that
> this is a much better than average hand for an 11 count.
No. It is worse than an average 11 count because it is a misfit
(unless partner can raise clubs, but if that is the case partner will
not be passing a 3C rebid)
The 11 is two
> aces and a king, and everyone knows that the Work point count
> undervalues aces and kings. Plus, the king is in the same suit as an
> ace, and the A-K is in a 6-card suit
Try 7-card. Perhaps you need to learn to count.
jan kamras
Bob Silverman wrote:
>
> No. There is no such thing as 4SF in an auction that is
> already forced to game. Since all calls below game are
> forcing, there is no need to make an artificial forcing call to force
> to game because no other forcing call is available (which is what
> 4SF is about)
I am willing to give you 100 to 1 odds that a majority of any group of
10+ experts from the 2nd half of the 20th century will disagree with you
on this. You name the amount.
Andy Bowles
>> >1H - 2C
>> >2D - 2S*
>I would bid 3H with that, because 3C would show 3 card support :-)
>2C only promises four, so giving secondary support on Qx seems a bit
>risky. Insisting on 3 card support in the aucion helps you describe
your
>hand shape to partner, in particular highlight the spade shortage.
There
>is no downside since 3H is the "nothing more to say" bid.
You seem to have fitted two downsides into your last eight words.
First, 3H is useful as a natural bid, to show a sixth heart. If 3H
doesn't show six hearts, does that mean opener is supposed to bid 4H
with Qx KJ10xxx AKJx x after 1H-2C; 2D-2S; 3H-3NT ?
Second, the hands where opener has no clear cut action are also those
which are likely to require most investigation about the best game.
When it is possible that you belong in any of four strains, it seems
particularly unwise to make a bid which prevents responder from
expressing interest in three of them without bypassing game.
Without any special methods, I think that bidding responder's suit
should include the awkward hands, so I'd bid 3C on the hand given. The
news that opener has at least tertiary club support will sometimes be of
interest to responder, whereas the fact that he has five hearts is not
news at all.
Of course, in other auctions, responder's suit will not be very
economical. The answer, IMO, is always to use the first step (apart
from notrumps) to deny the ability to do anything else, and to use a
raise of the fourth suit to show whatever the first step would normally
mean. Thus
1H-2C; 2D-2S; 3S
shows 1543, and
1D-1H; 2C-2S; 3S
shows 5-5 in hearts and clubs.
DavJFlower
>>> >1H - 2C
>>> >2D - 2S*
>>> What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
Count me for 3C, on the general principle that any other bid is even worse.
You have two more quite good clubs than your bidding has shown to date - can
you say that about any other suit ?
Dave Flower
Eric Leong
: Bob Silverman wrote:
Talk about arrogance. Having the confidence to bet at 100 to 1 doesn't
make or prove you right. Maybe you won't pay off when you lose. Easier,
cheaper, and more logical is to produce one single counter example of a
specific bidding example with specific hands where an artificial fourth
suit bid is absolutely necessary in a 2/1 Game forcing auction. But
intellectually it may be too strenuous for you. It is far easier for you to
bluster.
But okay I bet 20 cents for Bob. Bob picks these experts from the last
half of the 20th century:
1. Edgar Kaplan
2. Howard Schenken
3. Terence Resse
4. Lew Mathe
5. Charles Goren
6. Rixi Markus
7. Peter Pender
8. Sam Stayman
9. Victor Mitchell
10. Jeremy Flint
At minimum, they are in no position to disagree since they all died in the
last half of the 20th Century. You lose.
Bob please email Jan where he send the $20 to.:)
That is if Jan is going to pay off :)))))
Eric Leong
jan kamras
Eric Leong wrote:
> Easier,
> cheaper, and more logical is to produce one single counter example of a
> specific bidding example with specific hands where an artificial fourth
> suit bid is absolutely necessary in a 2/1 Game forcing auction.
If you weren't so busy generating purely personally insulting posts,
you'd have noticed that I already provided examples.
Furthermore, I gave Bob credit for possibly having mis-written his
statement since I assume he is well aware that creating a forcing
situation is but one of the uses for "4SF". The other main one is to
have an artificial bid available when any natural bid would be
misleading.
You just made it as the 2nd person on my list of people I'll not respond
to in the future (and that includes your silly posting where someone
with a similar name to mine got psyched out of a slam). It's a shame,
since the potential was there for sensible discussions abt differing
methods.
I have no problem with very agressive, even rude, comments against my
opinions. I'm aware I sometimes do that myself abt *the opinions* of
others. What I'm fed up with is snide remarks directed at my person,
deliberate and repetitive misspellings of my name, deliberately
misinterpreting and taking things out of context, and insulting
insinuations abt my character.
Good bye Mr. Leong.
Eric Leong
: No. There is no such thing as 4SF in an auction that is
: already forced to game. Since all calls below game are
: forcing, there is no need to make an artificial forcing call to force
: to game because no other forcing call is available (which is what
: 4SF is about)
I am not so sure about that. After the 2/1 forcing to game auction:
1H 2C
2D ?
You have: S xxx H Qx D Axx C AQJxx
The following bids:
2H systemically shows three card support
2NT is out since you don't have a spade stopper
and you may wrong side the notrump contract.
3C systemically shows a longer suit
3D systemically shows four card support or better
If the above bids are well defined agreements then a temporizing 2S
bid on nothing is your only out.
Eric Leong
Chris Ryall
>But okay I bet 20 cents for Bob. Bob picks these experts from the last
>half of the 20th century:
>6. Rixi Markus
Rixi was a brilliant player, but I don't recall
anyone ever extolling her as a bidding theorist
(Unless it was herself :))
--
Chris Ryall Birkenhead UK
Eric Leong
Organization:
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Eric Leong <ele...@netcom6.netcom.com> wrote -
:>6. Rixi Markus
Rixi Markus was well known enough to be considered an expert. Usefully
she's dead. (for the sake of the bet) Being a bidding theorist was
irrelevant to be on the list. Still one cannot be successful by ignoring
bidding fundamentals as bidding has to be at least half of the game. Some
experts such as Grant Baze and Peter Pender have told me they considered
bidding to be 80% of the game. My sense of her was she was a very
practical player with a relatively uncomplicated bidding style who would
know how to get the best out of a variety of players - particularily with
weaker ones and had a good table feel of what the opponents were up to. If
you think about it, there are very few experts who have consistently won a
variety of events with different partners - even different expert
partners.
Eric Leong
Tommy Larsson
Bob Silverman wrote <8d71f2$3f7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <38F62A07...@home.com>,
>> > If 2c were GF, then 2S would not be "4th suit forcing".
>>
>> This cannot be right. Of course there are many hands where you respond
>> 2C GF but still needs to have 4SF.
>
>already forced to game. Since all calls below game are
>forcing, there is no need to make an artificial forcing call to force
>to game because no other forcing call is available (which is what
>4SF is about)
9 out of 10 times I bid 4SF it's about stopper inquiry and since
the bid is not game forcing in (Swedish) Modern Standard, game
forcing is definetly not what it's about.
Since I've never played 2/1 GF and AFAIK never seen it in practice
I won't comment any further on it. However I frequently use 4SF
in game forced actions after a strong/2-way club, or a strong
diamond.
1C - 1H
2D - 2S
3C
is a typical 4SF asking responder to show some kind of club-stopper.
(1H is GF opposite strong club. If two-way club GF opposite strong
handtype. 2D then shows the strong handtype) Strong diamond action:
(Magic Diamond)
1D(1) - 1NT(2)
2C - 2D
2S
(1) 17+
(2) GF, 5+Hearts
Tommy Larsson,
Sweden
DavJFlower
>>> > If 2c were GF, then 2S would not be "4th suit forcing".
I think most of the problem is the difference in the use of the bid of the 4th
suit.
West of the Atlantic, where every bid seems to be forcing to at least game, the
4th suit is usually forcing to game.
East of the Atlantic, where every bid seems to be non-forcing, the bid is
usually a one-round force.
In both cases, the 'pitiful crutch' is used in cases where the bidder has no
idea of the strain in which the hand has been played, and any bid would be
likely to unduly influence partner.
Perhaps the answer is to rename the bid in cases where the partnership is
already in a game forcing situation, but 4th suit forcing is a good desciption,
why change it,
Dave Flower
Ian Payn
Eric Leong <ele...@netcom6.netcom.com> wrote > But okay I bet 20 cents for
Bob. Bob picks these experts from the last
> half of the 20th century:
>
> 2. Howard Schenken
> 3. Terence Resse
> 4. Lew Mathe
> 5. Charles Goren
> 6. Rixi Markus
> 7. Peter Pender
> 8. Sam Stayman
> 9. Victor Mitchell
> 10. Jeremy Flint
>
> last half of the 20th Century. You lose.
>
> Bob please email Jan where he send the $20 to.:)
> That is if Jan is going to pay off :)))))
>
> Eric Leong
While you're communing with the other side, could you have a word with my
mother and ask her where she hid the insurance policies?
David Burn
> DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
> :>: IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
> :>
> :>: You hold as dealer:
> :>
> :>: S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
> :>
> :>: No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
> :>
> :>: You Pd
> :>: 1h 2c
> :>: 2d 2s*
> :>: ?
> :>
> :>: * Fourth suit forcing.
> :>
> :>: What is your choice now?
> :>
> :>: I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
> :>
> :>: Partner's hand:
> :>
> :>: S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
> :>
> :>: Is there any sensible route to 6c?
> :>
> :>: Martin Taylor
> :>
> :>
> :>1H 2C
> :>2D 2S
> :>3C 3D
> :>4S(1) 4NT
> :>5S(2) 5NT(3)
> :>6C(4) Pass
> :>
> :>
> :>(1) Splinter
> :>(2) 2 key cards + queen of trumps
> :>(3) Lowest specific king?
> :>(4) None
> :>
> :>
> :>Eric Leong
>
> : This is a typical example of inventing a bidding sequence having seen both
> : hands.
> : Opening bidder's bid over 3D is a near automatic 3NT.
>
> You have to be joking. Partner bids 2S to show extras...
One step at a time. 2S does not, initially, show extra values over and above those
promised by the 2C response. It would be bid on such as xx Ax Axx KJxxx, for
example.
> When you show support...
3C does not show primary club support. If one had such as xx AKxxx AJxx Jx, then
one would bid 3C after 1H-2C-2D-2S (or at least I would). A suggestion made by
Andy Bowles that over fourth suit, the first step is neutral while a raise shows
whatever primary meaning the first step would have is an interesting idea. Another
possibility, in the context of systems where a 2/1 response is forcing beyond two
of opener's first suit, is to interchange bids where expedient to save space. So
that, for example, after 1H-2C-2D, it might be possible to play 2H as "fourth
suit" and 2S as "primary heart support" with increase of efficiency.
> ...partner shows something in diamonds.
3D shows primary support for diamonds; it is not an advance cue bid for clubs (as
in your example sequence).
> Partner doesn't bid notrump at any time so you know that partner is expecting to
> be in game in at
> least five of some minor.
The rason partner has not bid notrump at any time is that he does not have a spade
guard. You do have a spade guard, and (as Dave Flower says) it is possible that
you should at some point show it. It's not "virtually automatic" to bid 3NT by any
means, but it's not out of the question (since you did not bid 2NT at your
previous turn).
> To be thinking to be in at least five of a minor
> has to have some sort of shapely distribution. When partner has a
> singleton just where do you think the stiff has to be given that partner
> didn't bid 3H? The stiff is most likely in hearts of course.
You have (once again) created an elaborate web of inference based on a wholly
false premise. In the auction 1H-2C-2D-2S-3C-3D, nobody is necessarily "thinking
to be in at least five of a minor". 3NT has not been ruled out by either partner
at this stage. It is still possible that 3NT is the right contract, and if it is,
the holder of the partnership's spade stop must at some point bid notrump.
> Now look at your hand. None of your values are wasted. Your heart ace is
> more than likely opposite a stiff. Your spade ace is probably little if
> no duplication as partner could bid 3NT opposite 3C with spades. Partner
> has shown a diamond honor which solidifies your previously doubtful
> secondard diamond honors. Finally, both your trump queen and jack are
> obvious gold nuggets. With a starting minimum range hand your hand
> has improved sharply. There is little more that partner could conceivably
> want. Instead of coming alive you choose to play dead and make the most
> discouraging bid now available -3NT. If there was a medal for pessimist
> of the year I would award it to you now and not bother to look for
> another candidate for the next 8 months.
3NT is neither optimitic nor pessimistic. It is merely descriptive. Indeed, one
could argue with Dave that in the auction as it has gone, it must show precisely
the singleton ace (since opener is marked with a 1-5-4-3 shape and is promising a
full stop). As has been pointed out (by me and by others), you have a tendency to
construct your auctions by reasoning backwards from the final contract. But this
is not how the game of bridge is played.
> : With a spade stop, and
> : only two clubs, the bid over 2S would have been 2NT, so opener must hold a
> : 1-5-4-3 hand, with a singleton spade ace.
>
> Not quite, perhaps opener has been endplayed into bidding 3NT. What do you
> expect partner to bid if he has something like: S x H KQxxx D KQxx C QJx
> or S xx H KQxxx D KQJx C Qx and he is forced to bid? Your 2S bid could
> have been a real suit.showing something like: S QJxx H x D Ax C AKxxxx
But that hand would bid 3NT over 3C. It is utter nonsense to suggest that opener
might have been "endplayed into bidding 3NT" with a small singleton spade on an
auction where the partnership's primary concern is a spade stopper. Opener can, of
course, bid 3S as a temporising move, but this is almost always avoidable; his
primary duty is to show to what extent his club "support" was genuine. Thus, with
x KQxxx KQxx QJx one would bid 4C; with xx KQxxx KQJx Qx one would bid 4D
(to emphasise the diamond quality); with x KQJxx Qxxx Axx one would bid 3H (to
emphasise the heart quality); with Jx Kxxxx AJxx Ax one would bid the amorphous
3S. Bidding is actually easier than you think, Eric, provided you do the most
natural thing you can whenever it's your turn.
> : Incidently, 3D looks like a suit to me - how would responder bid:
> : x x x
> : Q x
> : A K x x
> : A K x x
>
> So what? You would have difficulty placing the hand
> in 6D instead?
Probably not, but this does not mean that you can treat 3D as "natural or an
advance cue bid for clubs". It is one thing or the other, and in the methods most
frequently employed by those who play a system you do not understand and
(therefore) hold in unjustified contempt, it shows at least four diamonds. Thus,
one cannot bid it after 1H-2C-2D-2S-3C on xxx J A10 AK109xxx, whereupon your
carefully constructed edifice falls to the ground.
> : Its easy enough to understand bids when you can see the hand making the bid.
>
> : My sequence:
> : 1H 2C
> : 2D 2S
> : 3C 3D
> : 3NT 6C
This (which for the benefit of anyone who might be slightly confused at this
point, is Mr Flower's sequence) is equally flawed, and to be honest I am rather
surprised by it. Having correctly pointed out that in the auction above 3D is
natural, Mr Flower appears to use it in the same way as Mr Leong - that is, as
some kind of advance cue for clubs (which it is not). The hand is actually not
straightforward in the methods being employed; one might tentatively suggest:
A xxx
A10xxx J
QJxx A10
QJx AK109xxx
1H 2C
2D 2S
3C 3S (1)
3NT (2) 4C
4H 4NT (3)
5H/5S 5NT (4)
6C Pass
(1) "fifth suit forcing" - initially asking for a spade guard
(2) I have one; now responder knows that 3C is based on genuine support because
opener did not bid 2NT over 2S
(3) Blackwood (in whatever form you play it)
(4) Asking for additional controls
but I would be happy indeed actually to produce this sequence at the table.
> Talk about accusing me of inventing a bidding sequence after looking at
> two hands!. You don't even ask for aces. In this sequence, how do you know
> you aren't off two aces? Perhaps, you just might be missing the top two
> spades. Also note that opener's diamonds could have been D Kxxx instead
> and now you miss a simple grand. But clearly, when you can see both hands
> why go through the formality of asking for aces and kings?
This is actually pretty fair comment.
David Burn
London, England
DavJFlower
>> :>
>> :>: You hold as dealer:
>> :>
>> :>: S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>> :>
>> :>: No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>> :>
>> :>: You Pd
>> :>: 1h 2c
>> :>: 2d 2s*
>> :>: ?
>> :>
>> :>: * Fourth suit forcing.
>> :>
>> :>: What is your choice now?
>> :>
>> :>: I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>> :>
>> :>: Partner's hand:
>> :>
>> :>: S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>> :>
>> :>: Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>> :>
>> :>: Martin Taylor
>> : 1H 2C
>> : 2D 2S
>> : 3C 3D
>> : 3NT 6C
>
>This (which for the benefit of anyone who might be slightly confused at this
>point, is Mr Flower's sequence) is equally flawed, and to be honest I am
>rather
>surprised by it. Having correctly pointed out that in the auction above 3D is
>natural, Mr Flower appears to use it in the same way as Mr Leong - that is,
>as
>some kind of advance cue for clubs (which it is not).
In defence of the sequence, I did not say that 3D was not an advanced cue bid,
merely that I was uncertain what it meant. If the 3D bid were made in error,
then I believe the rest of the auction to be logical.
Incidently, I agree with everything else you say,
Dave Flower
Gordon Rainsford
> Gordon Rainsford wrote:
> >> >1H - 2C
> >> >2D - 2S*
> >> What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
>
>
> >I would bid 3H with that, because 3C would show 3 card support :-)
> >2C only promises four, so giving secondary support on Qx seems a bit
> >risky. Insisting on 3 card support in the aucion helps you describe
> your
> >hand shape to partner, in particular highlight the spade shortage.
> There
> >is no downside since 3H is the "nothing more to say" bid.
>
> You seem to have fitted two downsides into your last eight words.
>
> First, 3H is useful as a natural bid, to show a sixth heart. If 3H
> doesn't show six hearts, does that mean opener is supposed to bid 4H
> with Qx KJ10xxx AKJx x after 1H-2C; 2D-2S; 3H-3NT ?
You are suggesting that the knowledge of the sixth card in opener's
first suit is always going to be more important information than the
third card in responder's suit. I would have expected them to be
important information with similar frequency.
>
> Second, the hands where opener has no clear cut action are also those
> which are likely to require most investigation about the best game.
> When it is possible that you belong in any of four strains, it seems
> particularly unwise to make a bid which prevents responder from
> expressing interest in three of them without bypassing game.
Would you therefore adopt different principles if the sequence began
1H-1S-2C-2D ?
>
>
> Without any special methods, I think that bidding responder's suit
> should include the awkward hands, so I'd bid 3C on the hand given. The
> news that opener has at least tertiary club support will sometimes be of
> interest to responder, whereas the fact that he has five hearts is not
> news at all.
But the fact that he has at least five hearts _and nothing else to say_
IS news, albeit not welcome news. Knowing partner has tertiary OR
secondary support may be news, but not very precise news.
>
> Of course, in other auctions, responder's suit will not be very
> economical. The answer, IMO, is always to use the first step (apart
> from notrumps) to deny the ability to do anything else, and to use a
> raise of the fourth suit to show whatever the first step would normally
> mean. Thus
> 1H-2C; 2D-2S; 3S
> shows 1543, and
> 1D-1H; 2C-2S; 3S
> shows 5-5 in hearts and clubs.
This sounds interesting, but raises a few questions.
How does it work after a FSF bid at the 3-level?
Does it mean you must play FSF as always GF?
How would you bid to 4H with a weak 0-4-5-4 opener and a strong 5-4-2-2
responder?
Thanks, Andy
--
Gordon Rainsford
London, UK
Alex Martelli
news:1e98nf5.1eggnubbf3rtN%gordonr...@btinternet.com...
> Andy Bowles <andy....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > Gordon Rainsford wrote:
> > >> >1H - 2C
> > >> >2D - 2S*
> > >> What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
> > particularly unwise to make a bid which prevents responder from
> > expressing interest in three of them without bypassing game.
>
> Would you therefore adopt different principles if the sequence began
>
> 1H-1S-2C-2D ?
I would use the same key principle in both cases: the CHEAP available
rebid must be the one to use if the hand isn't really suited to other,
higher ones (inside a generally-natural framework of rebids).
On the second sequence, 2H is cheapest, and would thus be most
appropriate for hands that cannot happily raise spades, bid NT,
rebid clubs, etc; on the first sequence, 3C is cheapest (2NT
*must* be reserved to show a spade stopper -- rightsiding can
be just too important in that case -- and thus can't be used
as the "unsuited for anything else" bid).
On the first sequence, 3H bypasses both 3C and 3D and thus I
would take it to deny C fit or semi-fit and rebiddable diamonds.
With C Qx, I would prefer the cheaper 3C; with xx-AKJxx-KQxx-xx,
I would prefer 3H -- xx is just too little, and I'm not ashamed
to call those hearts equivalent to a 6-carder.
Switch the minors, and I'd happily rebid 2H on both, reserving
2S for a real fit, and most likely D shortness (also extras,
because with a minimum 3=5=1=4 I think one should raise to 2S
at once -- debatable, I understand).
Alex
jan kamras
David Burn wrote:
> A xxx
> A10xxx J
> QJxx A10
> QJx AK109xxx
>
> 1H 2C
> 2D 2S
> 3C 3S (1)
> 3NT (2) 4C
> 4H 4NT (3)
> 5H/5S 5NT (4)
> 6C Pass
David - since you yourself mentioned bidding what seems the most natural
whenever possible, what's wrong with my earlier suggestion of simply
bidding 4C over 3C? It clarifies any ambiguity over the 2S bid while at
the same time impying the *lack* of a spade-control (which I'd take your
above sequence to virtually promise).
Eric Leong
: Eric Leong wrote:
In Standard American (SAYC) you would have a perfectly acceptable and
clearer 2H call.assuming you actually mean't xxx Ax Axx KJxxx. Standard
American 2/1's even without playing 2/1 GF still requires a stronger hand
in hcps about 11+ since you are generally required to make one other bid
after opener bids below game. Further, a reverse by responder in Standard
American forces the partnership to game.
:> When you show support...
: 3C does not show primary club support. If one had such as xx AKxxx AJxx Jx, then
: one would bid 3C after 1H-2C-2D-2S (or at least I would). A suggestion made by
: Andy Bowles that over fourth suit, the first step is neutral while a raise shows
: whatever primary meaning the first step would have is an interesting idea. Another
: possibility, in the context of systems where a 2/1 response is forcing beyond two
: of opener's first suit, is to interchange bids where expedient to save space. So
: that, for example, after 1H-2C-2D, it might be possible to play 2H as "fourth
: suit" and 2S as "primary heart support" with increase of efficiency.
I would not bid 3C with C Jx. I would probably bid a less imperfect 2NT.
Most of the time in Standard American 2/1 auctions responder does not
have to manufacture a phony bid so his spades are more likely to be real.
The only major exception would occur if his 3C rebid was not forcing and
he wanted to be able to make a 3C forcing bid. After, the 2NT bid,
partner would now bid 3C to show this hand.
:> ...partner shows something in diamonds.
: 3D shows primary support for diamonds; it is not an advance cue bid for clubs (as
: in your example sequence).
If partner had something like: S xxx H Kx D Axx C AKxxx his proper bid
would be 3H not 3D. Certainly, if you are searching for a game when
notrump is out then you would want to put a heart game into the picture.
Perhaps, making a ten trick contract is often easier then making an eleven
trick contract. So if responder can't have this type of hand then he must
have long clubs or four card diamond support and a good raise. But even if
responder had a hand like the above you still have an excellent shot at
6C.
:> Partner doesn't bid notrump at any time so you know that partner is expecting to
:> be in game in at
:> least five of some minor.
: The rason partner has not bid notrump at any time is that he does not have a spade
: guard. You do have a spade guard, and (as Dave Flower says) it is possible that
: you should at some point show it. It's not "virtually automatic" to bid 3NT by any
: means, but it's not out of the question (since you did not bid 2NT at your
: previous turn).
Perhaps, if you don't like to bid 2NT with a 2-5-4-2 hand and no spade
stopper then might a 3NT show a hand with a partial stopper such as: S Qx
H Axxxx D KQxx C QJ since you denied a spade stopper by not bidding 3NT
earlier? Might 3NT be reasonably passed by partner with S Jxx H x D A10 C
AK109xxx and a cold slam missed? When you bid 3NT you are trying to
discourage slam not encourage it.
:> To be thinking to be in at least five of a minor
:> has to have some sort of shapely distribution. When partner has a
:> singleton just where do you think the stiff has to be given that partner
:> didn't bid 3H? The stiff is most likely in hearts of course.
: You have (once again) created an elaborate web of inference based on a
wholly : false premise. In the auction 1H-2C-2D-2S-3C-3D, nobody is
necessarily "thinking
: to be in at least five of a minor". 3NT has not been ruled out by either partner
: at this stage.
The premise begins just how strong a 2S reverse should be.
Bidding 2S with S xxx H Ax D Axx C KJxxx just isn't strong enough.
: It is still possible that 3NT is the right contract, and if it is,
: the holder of the partnership's spade stop must at some point bid notrump.
If partner has a hand strong enough to reverse to force the hand to game
and he has no spade guard but diamond help and doesn't want to suggest a
heart game then your hand is terrific for slam.as he is obviously
prepared to play five of some minor.
:> Now look at your hand. None of your values are wasted. Your heart ace is
:> more than likely opposite a stiff. Your spade ace is probably little if
:> no duplication as partner could bid 3NT opposite 3C with spades. Partner
:> has shown a diamond honor which solidifies your previously doubtful
:> secondard diamond honors. Finally, both your trump queen and jack are
:> obvious gold nuggets. With a starting minimum range hand your hand
:> has improved sharply. There is little more that partner could conceivably
:> want. Instead of coming alive you choose to play dead and make the most
:> discouraging bid now available -3NT. If there was a medal for pessimist
:> of the year I would award it to you now and not bother to look for
:> another candidate for the next 8 months.
: 3NT is neither optimitic nor pessimistic. It is merely descriptive. Indeed, one
: could argue with Dave that in the auction as it has gone, it must show precisely
: the singleton ace (since opener is marked with a 1-5-4-3 shape and is promising a
: full stop). As has been pointed out (by me and by others), you have a tendency to
: construct your auctions by reasoning backwards from the final contract. But this
: is not how the game of bridge is played.
I would not take the inference that 3NT guarantees the stiff ace. He could
have a partial stopper as in my example earlier. In either case, there is
no reasoning backwards for the final contract. Opener had more than ample
justification to bid a 4S splinter. Responder had more than adequate
reason to ask for aces once a stiff spade and a good hand was revealed.
If you think I was reasoning backwards you can easily have tested me
by giving me two sets of hands where slam is on one of the hands but not
the other and see if I can produce a plausible auction with reasons to
get to slam on one but stay out in the other. As it stands, your comment
is without foundation.
:> : With a spade stop, and
:> : only two clubs, the bid over 2S would have been 2NT, so opener must hold a
:> : 1-5-4-3 hand, with a singleton spade ace.
:>
:> Not quite, perhaps opener has been endplayed into bidding 3NT. What do you
:> expect partner to bid if he has something like: S x H KQxxx D KQxx C QJx
:> or S xx H KQxxx D KQJx C Qx and he is forced to bid? Your 2S bid could
:> have been a real suit.showing something like: S QJxx H x D Ax C AKxxxx
: But that hand would bid 3NT over 3C.
Why can't opener have something like: S x H Axxxx D KQJx C QJx?
What do you expect him to bid over 3NT? If responder bids 3D the
partnership has a much better shot to get to 6C.
: It is utter nonsense to suggest that opener
: might have been "endplayed into bidding 3NT" with a small singleton spade on an
: auction where the partnership's primary concern is a spade stopper. Opener can, of
: course, bid 3S as a temporising move, but this is almost always avoidable; his
: primary duty is to show to what extent his club "support" was genuine. Thus, with
: x KQxxx KQxx QJx one would bid 4C;
Perhaps, you bid 3S as an alternative if you don't like 3NT and then bid 4C.
: with xx KQxxx KQJx Qx one would bid 4D
: (to emphasise the diamond quality); with x KQJxx Qxxx Axx one would bid 3H (to
: emphasise the heart quality); with Jx Kxxxx AJxx Ax one would bid the amorphous
: 3S. Bidding is actually easier than you think, Eric, provided you do the most
: natural thing you can whenever it's your turn.
:> : Incidently, 3D looks like a suit to me - how would responder bid:
:> : x x x
:> : Q x
:> : A K x x
:> : A K x x
:>
:> So what? You would have difficulty placing the hand
:> in 6D instead?
: Probably not, but this does not mean that you can treat 3D as "natural
or an : advance cue bid for clubs". It is one thing or the other, and in
the methods most
: frequently employed by those who play a system you do not understand and
: (therefore) hold in unjustified contempt,
To justifiably point out systemic problems doesn't lead to the inference
that I hold a system in contempt. If I give reasons for an opinion it
certainly doesn't mean I haven't tried to justify the opinion. Nor does
it mean my opinion has not been justified.
:it shows at least four
diamonds. Thus, : one cannot bid it after 1H-2C-2D-2S-3C on xxx J A10
AK109xxx, whereupon your : carefully constructed edifice falls to the
ground.
If you are playing 2/1, three diamonds would probably not show
four diamonds as you could have shown that more clearly by bidding 3D
forcing earlier. If you are playing SAYC then 3D would be ambiguous
which could be showing a good forcing to game four card raise or a good
hand with a long club suit and a diamond feature.
Even if you want to define the 3D bid as explicitly showing at least four
card diamond support the opening hand is still even more terrific. I would
still make a 4S splinter bid. I leave it to partner to decide where to
play the contract.
If you think I don't understand a Standard American auction why don't
you challenge me with some specific hands for me to bid? Show me how my
carefully edifice comes crashing to the ground.
Eric Leong
:> : Its easy enough to understand bids when you can see the hand making the bid.
Andy Bowles
>Andy Bowles <andy....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Rainsford wrote:
>> >> >1H - 2C
>> >> >2D - 2S*
>> >> What would opener bid with xx AKxxx KQxx Qx after the 2S bid?
>>
>>
>> >2C only promises four, so giving secondary support on Qx seems a bit
>> >risky. Insisting on 3 card support in the aucion helps you describe
>> your
>> >hand shape to partner, in particular highlight the spade shortage.
>> There
>> >is no downside since 3H is the "nothing more to say" bid.
>>
>> You seem to have fitted two downsides into your last eight words.
>>
>> First, 3H is useful as a natural bid, to show a sixth heart. If 3H
>> doesn't show six hearts, does that mean opener is supposed to bid 4H
>> with Qx KJ10xxx AKJx x after 1H-2C; 2D-2S; 3H-3NT ?
>
>You are suggesting that the knowledge of the sixth card in opener's
>first suit is always going to be more important information than the
>third card in responder's suit. I would have expected them to be
>important information with similar frequency.
I only intended to suggest that it was important, and thus that not
being able to show it was a disadvantage. In fact, I expect that three
card club support will often be of more importance to responder than a
sixth heart, though I also think it will occur somewhat less frequently.
>> Second, the hands where opener has no clear cut action are also those
>> which are likely to require most investigation about the best game.
>> When it is possible that you belong in any of four strains, it seems
>> particularly unwise to make a bid which prevents responder from
>> expressing interest in three of them without bypassing game.
>
>Would you therefore adopt different principles if the sequence began
>
>1H-1S-2C-2D ?
In this auction there is rather more room for manoeveure, so anything is
more or less playable.
A worse auction would be 1D-1H; 2C-2S, where giving preference to hearts
eats up almost all of the available bidding space. Because of this, I
play the methods I suggested at the end of my previous posting, where
the first step in reply to fourth suit is artificial and denies any
obvious feature.
>> Without any special methods, I think that bidding responder's suit
>> should include the awkward hands, so I'd bid 3C on the hand given.
The
>> news that opener has at least tertiary club support will sometimes be
of
>> interest to responder, whereas the fact that he has five hearts is
not
>> news at all.
>
>But the fact that he has at least five hearts _and nothing else to say_
>IS news, albeit not welcome news. Knowing partner has tertiary OR
>secondary support may be news, but not very precise news.
>>
>> Of course, in other auctions, responder's suit will not be very
>> economical. The answer, IMO, is always to use the first step (apart
>> from notrumps) to deny the ability to do anything else, and to use a
>> raise of the fourth suit to show whatever the first step would
normally
>> mean. Thus
>> 1H-2C; 2D-2S; 3S
>> shows 1543, and
>> 1D-1H; 2C-2S; 3S
>> shows 5-5 in hearts and clubs.
>
>This sounds interesting, but raises a few questions.
>
>How does it work after a FSF bid at the 3-level?
Not very well - there need to be at least four steps available below
3NT. I think it is only playable after two-level fourth suit forcing.
>Does it mean you must play FSF as always GF?
It almost certainly means that you have to play opener's three level
replies as game-forcing.
>How would you bid to 4H with a weak 0-4-5-4 opener and a strong 5-4-2-2
>responder?
I wouldn't - I'd bid to 3NT, which is what I always seem to reach when a
game is available in the fourth suit. Using one of a limited number of
useful sequences to cater for opener having a 5440 shape _and_ responder
having four cards in the fourth suit seems uneconomical to me.
Gordon Rainsford
<much snipped>
> Perhaps, if you don't like to bid 2NT with a 2-5-4-2 hand and no spade
> stopper then might a 3NT show a hand with a partial stopper such as: S Qx
> H Axxxx D KQxx C QJ since you denied a spade stopper by not bidding 3NT
> earlier? Might 3NT be reasonably passed by partner with S Jxx H x D A10 C
> AK109xxx and a cold slam missed?
I wonder what slam would be cold, with a spade holding of Qx opposite
Jxx?
Eric Leong
Organization:
Gordon Rainsford <gordonr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
: Eric Leong <ele...@netcom6.netcom.com> wrote:
: <much snipped>
:> Perhaps, if you don't like to bid 2NT with a 2-5-4-2 hand and no spade
:> stopper then might a 3NT show a hand with a partial stopper such as: S Qx
:> H Axxxx D KQxx C QJ since you denied a spade stopper by not bidding 3NT
:> earlier? Might 3NT be reasonably passed by partner with S Jxx H x D A10 C
:> AK109xxx and a cold slam missed?
: I wonder what slam would be cold, with a spade holding of Qx opposite
: Jxx?
Obviously, none. Let me clarify. If you only just bid 3NT with S A H Axxxx
D QJxx C QJx partner might just pass 3NT with S Jxx H x D A10 C AK109xxx
thinking you might have something like: S Qx H Axxxx D KQxx C QJ instead.
Thus, a cold slam could be missed.if you only just bid 3NT.
Eric Leong
: --
: Gordon Rainsford
: London, UK
David Burn
> : promised by the 2C response. It would be bid on such as xxx Ax Axx KJxxx, for
> : example.
>
> In Standard American (SAYC) you would have a perfectly acceptable and
> clearer 2H call.assuming you actually mean't xxx Ax Axx KJxxx.
Sorry - 12-card hand duly amended. But what on earth is "acceptable" about 2H, and why
is it "clearer"? When partner opens 1H and you have xxx Ax Axx KJxxx, you have roughly
the values for a natural 2NT, but you don't have a spade stop and you do have a club
suit. So you start with your club suit. Why, when partner rebids diamonds, do you then
give preference to a suit you don't prefer, instead of using "fourth suit forcing" in
the way in which it was originally designed - to show, as a minimum, the values for 2NT
without a stop in the unbid suit?
> Standard
> American 2/1's even without playing 2/1 GF still requires a stronger hand
> in hcps about 11+ since you are generally required to make one other bid
> after opener bids below game. Further, a reverse by responder in Standard
> American forces the partnership to game.
2S isn't a reverse. It's a conventional fourth suit call, showing either: the values for
2NT without a spade stop; or some game force without a descriptive bid available at this
point. Surely, even in Standard American (assuming 2/1 not GF, which is very far from
"standard"), this is the "normal" meaning of the fourth suit?
> :> When you show support...
>
> : 3C does not show primary club support. If one had such as xx AKxxx AJxx Jx, then
> : one would bid 3C after 1H-2C-2D-2S (or at least I would). A suggestion made by
> : Andy Bowles that over fourth suit, the first step is neutral while a raise shows
> : whatever primary meaning the first step would have is an interesting idea. Another
> : possibility, in the context of systems where a 2/1 response is forcing beyond two
> : of opener's first suit, is to interchange bids where expedient to save space. So
> : that, for example, after 1H-2C-2D, it might be possible to play 2H as "fourth
> : suit" and 2S as "primary heart support" with increase of efficiency.
>
> I would not bid 3C with C Jx. I would probably bid a less imperfect 2NT
Oh, don't be absurd. Most of the time, when partner uses the fourth suit, it is because
he has the values for some number of notrump but does not have a guard in the fourth
suit. Bidding 2NT when you don't have one either is not "less imperfect", it's
completely ridiculous. If you're going to support partner's hearts with two cards as
your first option when you have an eminently sensible alternative, why shouldn't I
support partner's clubs with two cards as my least bad option when I have no remotely
sensible alternative?
> Most of the time in Standard American 2/1 auctions responder does not
> have to manufacture a phony bid so his spades are more likely to be real.
If in order to bid spades when he has four of them, he has to:
(a) support hearts on Ax; or
(b) bid 2NT without a spade guard; or
(c) do any of the daft things you have suggested in other posts
then "most of the time" he will be making a bid which you would describe as "clear" but
which anyone else would describe as "phony", since they're all contrived beyond belief.
Responder's spades are vanishingly unlikely to be real.
> The only major exception would occur if his 3C rebid was not forcing and
> he wanted to be able to make a 3C forcing bid. After, the 2NT bid,
> partner would now bid 3C to show this hand.
By far the most common reason for bidding the fourth suit is that you don't have a
sensible alternative. This will not very often be the case when you have a one-suiter
worth a game force, because you might have jump-shifted. Nor will it very often be the
case when you have primary support for one of partner's suits, because you may have
another way to show this. Since in auctions starting 1H-2C-2D the partnership belongs in
spades a tiny fraction of 1% of the time, 2S is very, very often bid without spades; it
is very frequently bid in an effort to find out whether the partnership has a spade
guard for 3NT.
> :> ...partner shows something in diamonds.
>
> : 3D shows primary support for diamonds; it is not an advance cue bid for clubs (as
> : in your example sequence).
>
> If partner had something like: S xxx H Kx D Axx C AKxxx his proper bid
> would be 3H not 3D.
Perfectly true. So what?
> Certainly, if you are searching for a game when
> notrump is out then you would want to put a heart game into the picture.
> Perhaps, making a ten trick contract is often easier then making an eleven
> trick contract. So if responder can't have this type of hand then he must
> have long clubs or four card diamond support and a good raise. But even if
> responder had a hand like the above you still have an excellent shot at
> 6C.
Yes, Eric, but that does not mean that you can use 3D as "either diamonds or an advance
cue bid", because partner will not always have a hand that can make six clubs opposite
either of those. As usual, you are making up bidding principles in order to fit a single
example hand. Three diamonds does not show "long clubs, or four-card diamond support and
a good raise". Three diamonds shows four-card diamond support and a good raise. So you
cannot bid it with xxx J A10 AK109xxx after 1H-2C-2D-2S-3C, because you do not have
four-card diamond support and a good raise.
> :> Partner doesn't bid notrump at any time so you know that partner is expecting to
> :> be in game in at
> :> least five of some minor.
>
> : The reason partner has not bid notrump at any time is that he does not have a spade
> : guard. You do have a spade guard, and (as Dave Flower says) it is possible that
> : you should at some point show it. It's not "virtually automatic" to bid 3NT by any
> : means, but it's not out of the question (since you did not bid 2NT at your
> : previous turn).
>
> Perhaps, if you don't like to bid 2NT with a 2-5-4-2 hand and no spade
> stopper
I would indeed not bid 2NT with 2-5-4-2 and no spade stop (e.g. xx A10xxx AKxx Jx); I
would (as I have already said) bid 3C. But...
> then might a 3NT show a hand with a partial stopper such as: S Qx
> H Axxxx D KQxx C QJ since you denied a spade stopper by not bidding 3NT
> earlier?
I would bid 2NT with Qx A10xxx AKxx xx because I have enough of a spade stopper that 2NT
seems to me more descriptive than 3C. Of course, there are fine lines here - with Jx
A10xxx AKxx Jx I imagine I would toss a coin between 2NT and 3C.
> Might 3NT be reasonably passed by partner with S Jxx H x D A10 C
> AK109xxx and a cold slam missed?
Finding a combined stopper (typically Jx facing Qxx, but sometimes xxx facing xxx - not
really a "stopper" but a holding on which you want to play 3NT) is always more difficult
than finding one partner with a full stopper. There is no guaranteed solution to the
problem. If I had these two hands to bid with myself:
Qx xx
A10xxx J
KQxx A10x
xx AK109xxx
it's possible that we might foolishly bid:
1H 2C
2D 2S
2NT 3NT
Pass
thus playing in an inferior spot, though I like to think we might manage:
1H 2C
2D 2S
2NT 3C
3S [1] 5C
Pass
[1] Worried about spades (just as 2S was)
thus playing in a thin but not hopeless game.
> When you bid 3NT you are trying to
> discourage slam not encourage it.
When I bid anything at all, I am trying to convey some information about my hand to my
partner. I do not care about whether this "encourages" or "discourages" anything; that
is up to him. I am trying to make the most descriptive call I can think of in the
circumstances, bearing in mind what I know about partner's hand.
> The premise begins just how strong a 2S reverse should be.
> Bidding 2S with S xxx H Ax D Axx C KJxxx just isn't strong enough.
For (I hope) the last time, the minimum requirement for 2S is the values for 2NT without
a spade stop. That is true in Standard American, Standard English, Standard Chinese and
Standard Martian. 2S is not a reverse, it is a convention. It is not (in the "standard"
form of the convention which was being played by the poster of the original hand) a
force to game.
> If partner has a hand strong enough to reverse to force the hand to game
> and he has no spade guard but diamond help and doesn't want to suggest a
> heart game then your hand is terrific for slam. as he is obviously
> prepared to play five of some minor.
Of course, *if* partner has a good hand with clubs, then A A10xxx QJxx QJx is a good
hand in support of clubs. But at the point he bids 2S, you do not know that he has a
good hand with clubs. You have somehow got to try to learn not to put the
generalisations you make about the meaning of bids into the context of what you would
like them to mean in respect of the single hand on which you are commenting.
> I would not take the inference that 3NT guarantees the stiff ace. He could
> have a partial stopper as in my example earlier. In either case, there is
> no reasoning backwards for the final contract. Opener had more than ample
> justification to bid a 4S splinter.
Yes, but you had him bidding a 4S splinter (on the singleton ace, which is not always
done in the best circles) over a 3D bid that you (wrongly) thought was an advance cue
for clubs.
> Responder had more than adequate
> reason to ask for aces once a stiff spade and a good hand was revealed.
> If you think I was reasoning backwards you can easily have tested me
> by giving me two sets of hands where slam is on one of the hands but not
> the other and see if I can produce a plausible auction with reasons to
> get to slam on one but stay out in the other. As it stands, your comment
> is without foundation.
Eric, there is no one whom I would rather see than you produce auctions when you can see
both hands. But I have never yet encountered a post of yours containing an auction I
would recognise as possible, let alone plausible. I am not here to test your powers of
retrograde reasoning; you have already demonstrated those to my complete satisfaction.
It should suffice even for you to be told that the auction you constructed was not only
implausible but impossible, because it had responder showing a game-forcing diamond
raise on a 3-1-2-7 shape.
> Why can't opener have something like: S x H Axxxx D KQJx C QJx?
> What do you expect him to bid over 3NT? If responder bids 3D the
> partnership has a much better shot to get to 6C.
There is some doubt as to whether this sequence:
1H-2C-2D-2S-3C-3NT
shows a hand too good to bid 3NT immediately over 2D, or a hand with only the values for
3NT and only a partial spade stop. If in the partnership method it shows the former, I
would expect x Axxxx KQJx QJx to bid on over it, though this might not happen; if it
shows the latter, then obviously that opening hand would bid on.
> : It is utter nonsense to suggest that opener
> : might have been "endplayed into bidding 3NT" with a small singleton spade on an
> : auction where the partnership's primary concern is a spade stopper. Opener can, of
> : course, bid 3S as a temporising move, but this is almost always avoidable; his
> : primary duty is to show to what extent his club "support" was genuine. Thus, with
> : x KQxxx KQxx QJx one would bid 4C;
>
> Perhaps, you bid 3S as an alternative if you don't like 3NT and then bid 4C.
Why on earth would I do that? How would I know that I would be given the chance to bid
4C?
> To justifiably point out systemic problems doesn't lead to the inference
> that I hold a system in contempt. If I give reasons for an opinion it
> certainly doesn't mean I haven't tried to justify the opinion. Nor does
> it mean my opinion has not been justified.
Well, I suppose you have tried your best.
> If you are playing 2/1, three diamonds would probably not show
> four diamonds as you could have shown that more clearly by bidding 3D
> forcing earlier.
And if my aunt had whiskers, she would be my uncle.
> If you are playing SAYC then 3D would be ambiguous
> which could be showing a good forcing to game four card raise or a good
> hand with a long club suit and a diamond feature.
You will have to show me the part of the yellow card where it says that. It sounds a
great deal more like Standard Leong to me.
> If you think I don't understand a Standard American auction why don't
> you challenge me with some specific hands for me to bid? Show me how my
> carefully edifice comes crashing to the ground.
I'll tell you what. I will show you one hand only. I will bid the other one in
accordance with SAYC as I have been taught it by your good self (of course, you will
have a chance afterwards to confirm that this is the case).
Your hand is:
A10963
K4
Q3
AJ65
I, your partner, open one diamond. Over to you.
David Burn
London, England
Eric Leong
: Eric Leong wrote:
First, we have to distinguish SAYC from Standard American 2/1. In SAYC,
2/1 is weaker then 2/1 GF but certain much stronger than Acol light 2/1.
In particular, in SAYC, when you make a 2/1 you have enough strength
(11+hcp) to promise another bid.unless of course partner bids a game.
Thus, to bid 2H on xxx Ax Axx KJxxx would be a text book bid. Certainly,
if partner has something like: S Ax H KQxxx D QJxx C xx he will appreciate
the opportunity to play in a partscore. If you bid 2S in Standard American
you show extras and create a game force.which at face value could be
spades but could be a bid of convenience if you have:
1. xxx Ax Axx AQxxx
2. xxx x Axx AK109xxx
3. xxx x AKxx AKJxx
In the first hand, you would be too strong to just bid 2H so you would
improvise or lie by bidding 2S. In the second hand, bidding 3C would be
non-forcing so you improvise or lie by bidding 2S. In the third hand, 3D
would be not forcing so you improvise or lie by bidding 2S.
Playing 2/1 GF you would probably bid the first two hands the same
assuming a bid and rebid of the same suit by responder when opener shows
no extras can be passed. On the third hand, I would either bid 3D or if we
had an agreement to make an ABCD splinter bid 3S to show a heart
splinter.As to whether I bid 2C or not with xxx Ax Axx KJxxx would be a
matter of judgement depending upon the type of partner I had. With a more
aggressive opening partner I probably would bid one notrump forcing or
semi-forcing.
:> Standard
:> American 2/1's even without playing 2/1 GF still requires a stronger hand
:> in hcps about 11+ since you are generally required to make one other bid
:> after opener bids below game. Further, a reverse by responder in Standard
:> American forces the partnership to game.
: 2S isn't a reverse. It's a conventional fourth suit call, showing
either: the values for : 2NT without a spade stop; or some game force
without a descriptive bid available at this : point. Surely, even in
Standard American (assuming 2/1 not GF, which is very far from :
"standard"), this is the "normal" meaning of the fourth suit?
2S would never be made to possibly include a hand that could bid an
invitational 2NT without a spade stopper. Further, since there are few
calls after a Standard American 2/1 that is not forcing there is less
need to play the bid of the fourth suit as artificial and conventional in
the same sense as the auction say 1D-1H;1S-2D? because one doesn't need
bids to distinguish the ranges 6-10, 11-12, 13-15, 16+ hcp.with various
length suit holdings. In Standard American, there is less need to resort
to bidding the fourth suit as a convention when so many other bids are
forcing. In particular, 2S would probably considered natural to most
Standard American user except for experts who realize that on a rare
occassion they might have to make a white lie.
:> :> When you show support...
:>
:> : 3C does not show primary club support. If one had such as xx AKxxx AJxx Jx, then
:> : one would bid 3C after 1H-2C-2D-2S (or at least I would). A suggestion made by
:> : Andy Bowles that over fourth suit, the first step is neutral while a raise shows
:> : whatever primary meaning the first step would have is an interesting idea. Another
:> : possibility, in the context of systems where a 2/1 response is forcing beyond two
:> : of opener's first suit, is to interchange bids where expedient to save space. So
:> : that, for example, after 1H-2C-2D, it might be possible to play 2H as "fourth
:> : suit" and 2S as "primary heart support" with increase of efficiency.
:>
:> I would not bid 3C with C Jx. I would probably bid a less imperfect 2NT
: Oh, don't be absurd. Most of the time, when partner uses the fourth suit, it is because
: he has the values for some number of notrump but does not have a guard in the fourth
: suit. Bidding 2NT when you don't have one either is not "less imperfect", it's
: completely ridiculous. If you're going to support partner's hearts with two cards as
: your first option when you have an eminently sensible alternative, why shouldn't I
: support partner's clubs with two cards as my least bad option when I have no remotely
: sensible alternative?
If spades or more or less supposed to be real bidding 2NT is not as bad
as bidding 3C on Jx. If partner is interested in a club slam he is
probably going to be disappointed with the support.when dummy tables.
:> Most of the time in Standard American 2/1 auctions responder does not
:> have to manufacture a phony bid so his spades are more likely to be real.
: If in order to bid spades when he has four of them, he has to:
: (a) support hearts on Ax; or
: (b) bid 2NT without a spade guard; or
: (c) do any of the daft things you have suggested in other posts
He would also bid them on a three card suit e.g.
S Axx H x D Kx C AK109xxx
: then "most of the time" he will be making a bid which you would describe as "clear" but
: which anyone else would describe as "phony", since they're all contrived beyond belief.
: Responder's spades are vanishingly unlikely to be real.
:> The only major exception would occur if his 3C rebid was not forcing and
:> he wanted to be able to make a 3C forcing bid. After, the 2NT bid,
:> partner would now bid 3C to show this hand.
: By far the most common reason for bidding the fourth suit is that you
don't have a : sensible alternative. This will not very often be the case
when you have a one-suiter : worth a game force, because you might have
jump-shifted. Nor will it very often be the : case when you have primary
support for one of partner's suits, because you may have : another way to
show this. Since in auctions starting 1H-2C-2D the partnership belongs in
: spades a tiny fraction of 1% of the time, 2S is very, very often bid
without spades; it : is very frequently bid in an effort to find out
whether the partnership has a spade : guard for 3NT.
Not quite so often.
Two spades could be a natural descriptive bid.
S KQxx H x D Axx C AKxxx
It could also be done because 3C or 3D directly would be not forcing.
It is possible but much rarer done with a balanced game hand with no spade
stopper.
:> :> ...partner shows something in diamonds.
:>
:> : 3D shows primary support for diamonds; it is not an advance cue bid for clubs (as
:> : in your example sequence).
:>
:> If partner had something like: S xxx H Kx D Axx C AKxxx his proper bid
:> would be 3H not 3D.
: Perfectly true. So what?
The implication that partner could not bid 3NT nor bid 3H suggests
partner is looking for better things. Further, his inability to bid 3H or
3NT suggests he has no spade stopper and heart shortness.which means your
hand fits rather well with partner's 2/1.
:> Certainly, if you are searching for a game when
:> notrump is out then you would want to put a heart game into the picture.
:> Perhaps, making a ten trick contract is often easier then making an eleven
:> trick contract. So if responder can't have this type of hand then he must
:> have long clubs or four card diamond support and a good raise. But even if
:> responder had a hand like the above you still have an excellent shot at
:> 6C.
: Yes, Eric, but that does not mean that you can use 3D as "either
diamonds or an advance : cue bid", because partner will not always have a
hand that can make six clubs opposite : either of those. As usual, you are
making up bidding principles in order to fit a single : example hand.
Three diamonds does not show "long clubs, or four-card diamond support and
: a good raise". Three diamonds shows four-card diamond support and a good
raise. So you : cannot bid it with xxx J A10 AK109xxx after
1H-2C-2D-2S-3C, because you do not have : four-card diamond support and a
good raise.
Why not? Your partner agreed clubs. Now you start cuebidding. This is
standard operating procedure. Instead of 3D what do you want to bid?
:> :> Partner doesn't bid notrump at any time so you know that partner is expecting to
:> :> be in game in at
:> :> least five of some minor.
:>
:> : The reason partner has not bid notrump at any time is that he does not have a spade
:> : guard. You do have a spade guard, and (as Dave Flower says) it is possible that
:> : you should at some point show it. It's not "virtually automatic" to bid 3NT by any
:> : means, but it's not out of the question (since you did not bid 2NT at your
:> : previous turn).
:>
If that is the case then you have a great hand for partner. Why not show it?
Bidding 3NT doesn't begin to show how much I like this hand.
:> Perhaps, if you don't like to bid 2NT with a 2-5-4-2 hand and no spade
:> stopper
: I would indeed not bid 2NT with 2-5-4-2 and no spade stop (e.g. xx A10xxx AKxx Jx); I
: would (as I have already said) bid 3C. But...
:> then might a 3NT show a hand with a partial stopper such as: S Qx
:> H Axxxx D KQxx C QJ since you denied a spade stopper by not bidding 3NT
:> earlier?
: I would bid 2NT with Qx A10xxx AKxx xx because I have enough of a spade stopper that 2NT
: seems to me more descriptive than 3C. Of course, there are fine lines here - with Jx
: A10xxx AKxx Jx I imagine I would toss a coin between 2NT and 3C.
But I put enough doubt that 3NT doesn't guarantee a stiff ace of spades.
so perhaps ...
:> Might 3NT be reasonably passed by partner with S Jxx H x D A10 C
:> AK109xxx and a cold slam missed?
: Finding a combined stopper (typically Jx facing Qxx, but sometimes xxx facing xxx - not
: really a "stopper" but a holding on which you want to play 3NT) is always more difficult
: than finding one partner with a full stopper. There is no guaranteed solution to the
: problem. If I had these two hands to bid with myself:
: Qx xx
: A10xxx J
: KQxx A10x
: xx AK109xxx
: it's possible that we might foolishly bid:
: 1H 2C
: 2D 2S
: 2NT 3NT
: Pass
: thus playing in an inferior spot,
In SA the opening 1H bid would be suspect.
And the proper bid over 2NT would be 3C forcing.
Give partner: S Ax H AKxxx D QJxx C xx
why do you not want to try to find 6C?
though I like to think we might manage:
: 1H 2C
: 2D 2S
: 2NT 3C
: 3S [1] 5C
: Pass
: [1] Worried about spades (just as 2S was)
: thus playing in a thin but not hopeless game.
Give partner: S Ax H AKxxx D QJxx C xx wouldn't he bid the hand the same?
Thus, you would miss a good 6C contract.
:> When you bid 3NT you are trying to :> discourage slam not encourage it.
: When I bid anything at all, I am trying to convey some information about my hand to my
: partner. I do not care about whether this "encourages" or "discourages" anything; that
: is up to him. I am trying to make the most descriptive call I can think of in the
: circumstances, bearing in mind what I know about partner's hand.
Of course, but sometimes you have no clear cut descriptive call. Given
that you know some auctions are more encouraging then others.3NT is just
about the most discouraging bid opener can make.
:> The premise begins just how strong a 2S reverse should be.
:> Bidding 2S with S xxx H Ax D Axx C KJxxx just isn't strong enough.
: For (I hope) the last time, the minimum requirement for 2S is the values
for 2NT without : a spade stop. That is true in Standard American,
Standard English, Standard Chinese and : Standard Martian. 2S is not a
reverse, it is a convention. It is not (in the "standard" : form of the
convention which was being played by the poster of the original hand) a :
force to game.
That's where the problem lies. 2S shows at least game values. With
stronger 2/1, 2S is most likely to be natural given the wider range of
forcing bids available over Acol. In rare cases, responder has to make a
white lie. Standard American does not elevate 2S to the
status of a "convention."
:> If partner has a hand strong enough to reverse to force the hand to game
:> and he has no spade guard but diamond help and doesn't want to suggest a
:> heart game then your hand is terrific for slam. as he is obviously
:> prepared to play five of some minor.
: Of course, *if* partner has a good hand with clubs, then A A10xxx QJxx
QJx is a good : hand in support of clubs. But at the point he bids 2S, you
do not know that he has a : good hand with clubs. You have somehow got to
try to learn not to put the : generalisations you make about the meaning
of bids into the context of what you would : like them to mean in respect
of the single hand on which you are commenting.
But after 3D there is more than ample reason to get excited.
:> I would not take the inference that 3NT guarantees the stiff ace. He could
:> have a partial stopper as in my example earlier. In either case, there is
:> no reasoning backwards for the final contract. Opener had more than ample
:> justification to bid a 4S splinter.
: Yes, but you had him bidding a 4S splinter (on the singleton ace, which
is not always : done in the best circles) over a 3D bid that you (wrongly)
thought was an advance cue : for clubs.
One presumes after a suit has been supported that subsequent bids express
interest around the suit that has been supported. It is true, that
responder may have four diamonds but much more often he is going to be
showing a diamond feature and interest in better things. But even if I am
wrong and responder has four diamonds and a good raise then we will get to
6D an even better spot. To get to 6C, opener just has to show some life
when his hand has obviously improved in the subsequent bidding. To get to
6C after opener bids 3NT is much less plausible.
:> Responder had more than adequate
:> reason to ask for aces once a stiff spade and a good hand was revealed.
:> If you think I was reasoning backwards you can easily have tested me
:> by giving me two sets of hands where slam is on one of the hands but not
:> the other and see if I can produce a plausible auction with reasons to
:> get to slam on one but stay out in the other. As it stands, your comment
:> is without foundation.
: Eric, there is no one whom I would rather see than you produce auctions
when you can see : both hands. But I have never yet encountered a post of
yours containing an auction I : would recognise as possible, let alone
plausible. I am not here to test your powers of : retrograde reasoning;
you have already demonstrated those to my complete satisfaction. : It
should suffice even for you to be told that the auction you constructed
was not only : implausible but impossible, because it had responder
showing a game-forcing diamond : raise on a 3-1-2-7 shape.
A 3D bid by responder does not mean he has exactly four diamonds. Repeating
yourself just won't make it so.
:> Why can't opener have something like: S x H Axxxx D KQJx C QJx?
:> What do you expect him to bid over 3NT? If responder bids 3D the
:> partnership has a much better shot to get to 6C.
: There is some doubt as to whether this sequence:
: 1H-2C-2D-2S-3C-3NT
: shows a hand too good to bid 3NT immediately over 2D, or a hand with
only the values for : 3NT and only a partial spade stop. If in the
partnership method it shows the former, I : would expect x Axxxx KQJx QJx
to bid on over it, though this might not happen; if it : shows the latter,
then obviously that opening hand would bid on.
:> : It is utter nonsense to suggest that opener
:> : might have been "endplayed into bidding 3NT" with a small singleton spade on an
:> : auction where the partnership's primary concern is a spade stopper. Opener can, of
:> : course, bid 3S as a temporising move, but this is almost always avoidable; his
:> : primary duty is to show to what extent his club "support" was genuine. Thus, with
:> : x KQxxx KQxx QJx one would bid 4C;
Again we differ. 2S shows something in spades - not a mindless puppet bid
to extract more information from partner. There is much less reason not
to bid naturally with so many forcing bids available.
:>
:> Perhaps, you bid 3S as an alternative if you don't like 3NT and then bid 4C.
: Why on earth would I do that? How would I know that I would be given the
chance to bid : 4C?
Why repeat yourself? You already bid 3C.
:> To justifiably point out systemic problems doesn't lead to the inference
:> that I hold a system in contempt. If I give reasons for an opinion it
:> certainly doesn't mean I haven't tried to justify the opinion. Nor does
:> it mean my opinion has not been justified.
: Well, I suppose you have tried your best.
:> If you are playing 2/1, three diamonds would probably not show
:> four diamonds as you could have shown that more clearly by bidding 3D
:> forcing earlier.
: And if my aunt had whiskers, she would be my uncle.
Certainly, if your aunt had a sex change operation she or he would have
whiskers and be your uncle.
1H 2C
2D 3D?
In Standard American 2/1 FG, 3D is truly forcing.
What on earth would it take to convince you otherwise?
:> If you are playing SAYC then 3D would be ambiguous
:> which could be showing a good forcing to game four card raise or a good
:> hand with a long club suit and a diamond feature.
: You will have to show me the part of the yellow card where it says that.
It sounds a : great deal more like Standard Leong to me.
Standard Leong is much closer to SAYC than Standard Burn.
I really don't think there is anything more that I can say to convince you
otherwise. All I can say is if you think my bidding 4S splinter is so inept
using a SAYC or a Standard American 2/1 context take the hands to Zia or
(Michael Rosenberg) next time you see him if he is still in town.and ask
him what he thinks.of my bidding and your proposed bidding.
Eric Leong
:> If you think I don't understand a Standard American auction why don't
:> you challenge me with some specific hands for me to bid? Show me how my
:> carefully edifice comes crashing to the ground.
: I'll tell you what. I will show you one hand only. I will bid the other one in
: accordance with SAYC as I have been taught it by your good self (of course, you will
: have a chance afterwards to confirm that this is the case).
: Your hand is:
: A10963
: K4
: Q3
: AJ65
: I, your partner, open one diamond. Over to you.
I don't think your hand is relevant considering we were talking about
bids after a 2/1 context. But I will play with you and respond 1S.
and trust you don't keep changing opener's hand as the bidding progresses.
Eric Leong
: David Burn
: London, England
Chris Ryall
>: And if my aunt had whiskers, she would be my uncle.
>
>Certainly, if your aunt had a sex change operation she or he would have
>whiskers and be your uncle.
Not in Acol! UK law still does not recognise sex changes, although
socially things are moving on. I still have to pluck up courage to
ask 'Georgina' Faux for a dance. ('Faux' her birth name btw)
So she is still your aunt. Whiskers and all.
Ian Payn
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote
<SNIP>UK law still does not recognise sex changes, although
> socially things are moving on
Are you sure? I gather you're a doctor, so I'm willing to take your word for
it, but I thought that it was the church that doesn't recognise sex-changes,
not the law. Is the respected travel writer Jan Morris (who lives in Wales)
really still legally a man after all these years?
Gordon Rainsford
Yes she is.
There was an interesting (legal) marriage in England this year between
two women, one of whom had started life as a man and therefore is still
legally a man. The registrar was powerless to prevent the marriage.
A. L. Edwards
I "know" that this is the case in the UK. As anyone who is a Coronation
Street (a UK soap) fan knows, one of the storylines involves Hayley (formerly
Harold) and Roy Cropper, a very proper, heterosexual and inhibited
man. They were "married".
To bring this back to bridge: has anyone ever seen bridge discussed/
played on any of the major UK soaps? Is there no club in East London
(EastEnders) or near Manchester (Coronation Street)?
Tony (aka ac342)
Chris Ryall
>
>Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
><SNIP>UK law still does not recognise sex changes, although
>> socially things are moving on
>
>Are you sure? I gather you're a doctor, so I'm willing to take your word for
>it, but I thought that it was the church that doesn't recognise sex-changes,
>not the law. Is the respected travel writer Jan Morris (who lives in Wales)
>really still legally a man after all these years?
Haven't see many of these things, but not too convincing 'medically'
It's all about self image it seems. The law as I understand it
recognises only birth gender, and the church has yet to positively
recognise sex in any form other than as a barrier to priesthood.
--
Chris Ryall Birkenhead UK (male)
Ian Payn
A. L. Edwards <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
>
> I "know" that this is the case in the UK. As anyone who is a Coronation
> Street (a UK soap) fan knows, one of the storylines involves Hayley
(formerly
> Harold) and Roy Cropper, a very proper, heterosexual and inhibited
> man. They were "married".
> To bring this back to bridge: has anyone ever seen bridge discussed/
> played on any of the major UK soaps? Is there no club in East London
> (EastEnders) or near Manchester (Coronation Street)?
>
Bridge has been mentioned once in EastEnders: Rachel Kominsky (Michelle's
then landlady) refered to her (unseen) mother as a bridge player, in a
none-too complimentary manner. This was about ten years ago. Nothing on
Coronation Street (to my knowledge). On Crossroads there was a 'humorous'
bridge evening at someone's house, 'Tish' Hope's, I think. There has been no
bridge on Emmerdale, the characters are all too busy shearing sheep.
Peter Clinch
"Ian Payn" <Ian....@DGA.co.uk> wrote in message
news:956656145.17150.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Bridge has been mentioned once in EastEnders: Rachel Kominsky (Michelle's
> then landlady) refered to her (unseen) mother as a bridge player, in a
> none-too complimentary manner. This was about ten years ago. Nothing on
> Coronation Street (to my knowledge). On Crossroads there was a 'humorous'
> bridge evening at someone's house, 'Tish' Hope's, I think. There has been
no
> bridge on Emmerdale, the characters are all too busy shearing sheep.
>
>
Brookside, when Max Farnham was chastised by Susannah for playing poker with
the boys when he should have been trying to conceive their next
(replacement) baby, according to lovely wife Susannah. As she irritatedly
cast his winning full house into the fire, he exclaimed "if you'd just let
me hold onto that, my sperm count would have gone through the roof". The
clip didn't survive to the omnibus edition...
Peter Clinch
Bridgepot
>From: Eric Leong ele...@netcom6.netcom.com
>Date: 04/18/2000 2:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8dikeu$amj$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
It might even be better if your bid was 3NT instead of 2NT. If you confidently
place the contract partner has no problem in getting to the right contract.
George Yorg, "popocat"
brid...@aol.com Los Angeles, CA.
Christopher J. Monsour
Bridgepot wrote in message <20000428010821...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>>:> DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>:> :>: IMPS playing 15-17 NT 5 card major (essentially simple SAYC)
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: You hold as dealer:
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: S A H A10xxx D QJxx C QJ8
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: No intervening bidding from the opponents, the bidding proceeds:-
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: You Pd
>>:> :>: 1h 2c
>>:> :>: 2d 2s*
>>:> :>: ?
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: * Fourth suit forcing.
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: What is your choice now?
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: I chose 2N, partner bids 3N, do you bid on?
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: Partner's hand:
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: S xxx H J D A10 C AK109xxx
>>:> :>
>>:> :>: Is there any sensible route to 6c?
>It might even be better if your bid was 3NT instead of 2NT. If you
confidently
>place the contract partner has no problem in getting to the right contract.
3NT over 2S would suggest a more notrumpish stopper than the singleton ace!
(2NT shows a stopper but suggests less certainty about NT being right.) In
particular, 3NT over 2S denies three card club support, and strongly
suggests not even having honor-doubleton. How was this supposed to help you
get to 6C?
Myself, I think 3C is clear over 2S. There will be room enough to bid NT on
the singleton ace next time. For that matter, I think the hand is very
close to simply raising 2C to 3 in the first place. Not showing the club
support given a second chance would be criminal. A jump to 3NT, criminally
insane.
Christopher J. Monsour