BBO Discussion Forums: Three great cards - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Three great cards

Poll: Three great cards (24 member(s) have cast votes)

Your bid

  1. Pass (22 votes [91.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 91.67%

  2. 4C (1 votes [4.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.17%

  3. Other (1 votes [4.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.17%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-July-30, 13:08

Yes, I also thought pass was clear but wanted to double-check. For all I knew I may have been anti-resulting ;) (Partner's hand was AKx - KJxx AKQxxx.)

P.S.: Of course we had the 2H vs 3C debate before. I can see the merits of 3C but I thought 2H would work fairly well in terms of choice of games, e.g.:
- 4C over 2S.
- 3C (forcing and natural) over 2N.
- 3S over a (non-forcing) 3C.

Of course it's a matter of chicken-and-egg, but I wouldn't expect partner to bid 3H over 3C with only two hearts.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#22 User is offline   sathyab 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 2006-November-07

Posted 2013-July-30, 13:39

View Postcherdano, on 2013-July-30, 13:08, said:

Yes, I also thought pass was clear but wanted to double-check. For all I knew I may have been anti-resulting ;) (Partner's hand was AKx - KJxx AKQxxx.)

P.S.: Of course we had the 2H vs 3C debate before. I can see the merits of 3C but I thought 2H would work fairly well in terms of choice of games, e.g.:
- 4C over 2S.
- 3C (forcing and natural) over 2N.
- 3S over a (non-forcing) 3C.

Of course it's a matter of chicken-and-egg, but I wouldn't expect partner to bid 3H over 3C with only two hearts.


Is 3 over 2nt forcing ? A lot of people play it non-forcing to make a distinction between a direct 3 versus getting there after a non-forcing bid, such as 2 here.

4 over 2 ? Would 3 be non-forcing ?
Seeking input from anyone who doesn't frequently "wtp", "Lol" or post to merely "Agree with ..."
0

#23 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-July-30, 14:14

Yes, 3C would have been forcing with this partner.
I would hate to bid 3C over 2S - you have real support, not a preference, and if partner doesn't want to bid NT, I don't want to play NT.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#24 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,818
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-July-30, 14:50

opener had a decision to make 3nt or 2s after 2h.
0

#25 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,830
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2013-August-05, 00:51

Has anyone experimented with using a 2 rebid as non-forcing and channeling the GF hands with 5 hearts through 2? It would be possible to arrange it so that 2 always showed 5 hearts, for example (using transfers):-

1 - 1 - 2
============
2 = to play
2 = 5 hearts, GF
2N = clubs
3 = diamonds
3 = 6+ hearts
3 = agrees hearts

There is just so much space over 2. It seems to me that we should either include extra hand types here or (if the reverse remains pure) use the extra space to allow Responder to describe more clearly.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#26 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-August-05, 01:45

Natural 2N seems pretty important to me in these (3 suits bid) auction
0

#27 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,830
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2013-August-05, 06:11

Did you notice it was a reverse Justin?
(-: Zel :-)
0

#28 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-August-05, 12:35

Yes. I am just generally skeptical about systems where a NT bid is artificial and not showing a stopper when 3 suits have been bid, they are likely to lead the 4th suit so I think rightsiding NT is important. I wouldn't like bidding 2N with nothing in spades.
0

#29 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,830
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2013-August-06, 01:30

Do you also play a natural 2NT in 1m - 1; 2 auctions? The arguments are similar there but space is now so short that it seems like a bad idea. Also, after 1 - 1; 2, for us not to have a fit we must either have 5+ hearts or be 4=4=3=2. Perhaps it is not ideal to bid 2NT followed by 3 (to deny a stopper) with that hand but we should at least end up in a playable spot. You could use a direct 3 (over 2) for that too without wrong-siding (a la Rubensohl) although I quite like the idea of using that as a void splinter.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#30 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-August-06, 10:34

Yeah I prefer to just play 2S weak over 2H reverses, with 5 spades and a spade stopper I would bid 2N and with 5 spades and no spade stopper and no fit I would bid the 4th suit. I don't play that much natural anymore but my last 3 natural partners all played this so maybe it's catching on :P

While that is obviously non standard I did think it was pretty standard to play 4th suit as weak over 2D reverses and use 2N as nat.
0

#31 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2013-August-07, 05:09

After 1-1M-2, as long as one does away with the obsession about majors, you can do the lot:

2 = artificial, showing invitational values (usually 7-8, but can be GF with hands that don't want to get pard excited). Over this, opener bids 2(art) or 2NT (nat), with minimum reverses, and everything at the three level is GF.

2 = artificial, very weak response (max bad 6). Opener can bid 2NT or 3 unless super-strong

2NT = nat, weak, but promises five cards in the major

3+, GF

The main thing you get is the extra layer (weak, inv and GF) as opposed to the usual weak/GF arrangement. This allows a slightly more relaxed approach to reversing with decent 4-6 hands with 15 points. But you also get more natural 2NT bids for your money - we don't always have a fit or game after reversing.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users