[miamijd]

 Joe_Old, on 2017-January-26, 09:27, said:

Since this is 2/1, don't ever, ever, ever rebid 3♦ as that is an invitational, non-forcing bid.

My bid is 3♠, a splinter and slam invitational. It confirms a heart fit and implies ♦ values. Partner is invited to show first round ♦ control at the 4 level (100% forcing).

I have sympathy for 3♣, a cue bid, as partner can now show a ♦ stopper with 3♦ (forcing, because once responder starts a cue bidding sequence, all bids are forcing below game). 3♣ cannot be a second suit or game try in this sequence, except by prior agreement, because once an 8+ fit is found modern practice requires responder to bid game with an unappealing minimum (a flat 12-13 HCP) or investigate slam. Here, 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♠ would guarantee the A♣, A♦ or K♦, and second round control in spades.

Not so at all. Yeesh the dreadful info on here. 3D is a FORCING game try in h. But it can also be the prelude to a slam try. Partner will bid 3h with a minimum; 4h with most maximums;; and 3S 4C or 4D if he thinks he has a "perfecto" in case you have a slam try. The best thing you could hear from partner is 4c or 4d.

Any of 3c 3D or 3s (splinter) is fine. I probably bid 3s too

[johnu]

 msjennifer, on 2017-January-26, 09:30, said:

I agree with you.With 2 suits wide open it is stupid to open 1NT if a silly Jack is added to the hand given.An international did open 1NT on suc a hand against me when he was red VS white .It went all pass,The fist 9 tricks were taken by the opponents.Minus 300 when opponents could have made only 9 Tricks in a spade contract which is what happened at all the remaining tables.Some 1NT (!!!) opening with Jxx-AKxx-AKxx-xx.just done " to preempt opponents".

I don't design my bidding systems based on anecdotal stories.

[miamijd]

 el mister, on 2017-January-26, 07:41, said:

Thks for the replies, v helpful. It was MPs strong NT [pard is also a beginner, so advanced treatments were not available at the table].
What actually happened was that I played in 6♥ through a rudimentary bidding sequence that I won't detain you with, making on a spade lead. Partner showed up with ♠AKT ♥T43 ♦AK54 ♣986

The heart slam could be defeated had W led their singleton diamond, as E has the ♥A and can give them a ruff, whereas the diamond slam is cold.

So I was wondering if a well-oiled 2/1 partnership should find 6♦ by showing the double fit, or if we're always going to get locked into hearts through cue-bidding.

You don't want to be in any slam with these cards. Partners proper rebus is 1NT not 2h. You only raise on 3 when you have a stiff and there is no logical alternative. Let's say partner was 1345 and opened 1c. Now 2h is the only good choice, as 1Nt with a stiff is not attractive, 2c should show 6, and 2d is a reverse

[Kaitlyn S]

 Phil, on 2017-January-27, 21:25, said:

What tripe. When I read threads like this I am concerned about the quality of the forums.

Gerber.
3D being NF.
A jump meaning ANYTHING but a splinter.

Cant believe my eyes. Ugh.

Rhm is correct (and anyone else that agreed with him).

Back to bidding school for the rest of ya.

Phil, if I was playing with you or Rhm I would play the bids as you intended them undiscussed. However, (a) there was talk of playing with a random partner and (b) the OP said he was playing with another beginner so in his shoes I would not be at all surprised that the "forcing" 3D got passed or that 3S would be misunderstood or that 4C would be taken as Gerber (if his partner even knew Gerber - otherwise it would be taken as a huge hand with clubs.)

Fortunately you don't have to play with beginners, but when I play, it doesn't matter if I know what the bids are supposed to mean, it matters if I know what partner means or how partner is going to take my bid. And if I bid my "forcing" 3D and my partner passes, it's not his fault, it's my fault because I know (or should know) that's a possibility with that partner. Of course I also know it's a possibility with a random expert in the BBO Main Bridge Club. I am guessing that if it happened to you, you would tell the table that your partner needed bidding lessons and then leave. I'd prefer to avoid the -11 IMPs in the first place by not assuming that my random partner knew such nuances about bidding, because it's just so likely that he doesn't.

[Kaitlyn S]

 msjennifer, on 2017-January-26, 09:30, said:

I agree with you.With 2 suits wide open it is stupid to open 1NT if a silly Jack is added to the hand given.An international did open 1NT on suc a hand against me when he was red VS white .It went all pass,The fist 9 tricks were taken by the opponents.Minus 300 when opponents could have made only 9 Tricks in a spade contract which is what happened at all the remaining tables.Some 1NT (!!!) opening with Jxx-AKxx-AKxx-xx.just done " to preempt opponents".

Preempt opponents? How about opening 1NT to show a balanced hand with 15-17 points, which you can't show if you don't open 1NT? What do you do when you open 1D and partner bids 2C? Bid 2NT showing 12-14? Bid 3NT showing 18-19? Bid 2H after which you will never convince your partner that you have a balanced 15-count? I open 1NT (15-17) because it's the best description of my hand. If I go down 300, stuff happens. Next time partner will hold QTx, xxxxx, xx, Jxx and I'll be in 2H and you'll be in 1D.

[Phil]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-27, 23:28, said:

Phil, if I was playing with you or Rhm I would play the bids as you intended them undiscussed. However, (a) there was talk of playing with a random partner and (b) the OP said he was playing with another beginner so in his shoes I would not be at all surprised that the "forcing" 3D got passed (snip)

And yet, you bid 3D anyway.

I dont think any bidding problem is particularly interesting or educational if we try to dumb down the game. Sure, we all make practical calls but on the forums we should try to assume partner has enough brain power to light a 40 watt bulb.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Phil, on 2017-January-28, 00:44, said:

And yet, you bid 3D anyway.

I dont think any bidding problem is particularly interesting or educational if we try to dumb down the game. Sure, we all make practical calls but on the forums we should try to assume partner has enough brain power to light a 40 watt bulb.

Actually I would bid 3S playing with a known partner.I bid 4H playing with a random - take the stretching rather than risk a misunderstanding.

[Zelandakh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-27, 20:42, said:

Less than 1 in a thousand play that non-forcing? Surely you jest.

Not at all, and I am even pretty confident about it too.

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-27, 20:42, said:

If I asked the 70 players in my intermediate class, I'd bet at least 10 of them would say non-forcing. (This would be true even if I had taught it as forcing last week ) And any one of them could potentially be the random partner you speak of.

Your classes may be like that. When I was teaching beginners I found them to get somewhat more from the lessons. I would suggest that you either have one of the worst intermediate classes in the English speaking world or one of the poorest teachers if >14% would give such an illogical answer a week after being taught the opposite.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-January-28, 14:27, said:

Not at all, and I am even pretty confident about it too.


Your classes may be like that. When I was teaching beginners I found them to get somewhat more from the lessons. I would suggest that you either have one of the worst intermediate classes in the English speaking world or one of the poorest teachers if >14% would give such an illogical answer a week after being taught the opposite.

We may have a different definition of intermediate. Yours might have 200 masterpoints. Mine are either fresh out of beginners' class or played 50 years ago in college and come to me thinking that all weak hands respond 1NT and that leading the queen from Qxx opposite Axx is a perfectly normal finesse, and that you always lead top in partner's suit and fourth best from KQJ9. And yes, the random the OP was playing with could have been one of those; I have seen many such players on BBO and some of them call themselves experts.

[johnu]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-28, 23:09, said:

I have seen many such players on BBO and some of them call themselves experts.

They must have been very modest players. Those types of player usually classify themselves as world class.

[nullve]

Please explain why it's stupid to play 3♦ over 1♦-1♥; 2♥ as NF.

[gordontd]

 nullve, on 2017-January-29, 05:51, said:

Please explain why it's stupid to play 3♦ over 1♦-1♥; 2♥ as NF.

It's not if it fits in with the rest of your structure. It's recommended in "Better Bidding with Bergen".

[Zelandakh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-28, 23:09, said:

We may have a different definition of intermediate. Yours might have 200 masterpoints.

Masterpoints are an indicator of player ability?!?

 gordontd, on 2017-January-29, 06:06, said:

It's not if it fits in with the rest of your structure. It's recommended in "Better Bidding with Bergen".

Does Bergen's structure include a 2♠ or 2NT relay perchance? If you have an alternative auction to handle the natural 3♦ rebid hands then it is no problem but that is obviously not the case for the OP.

[mycroft]

It's not stupid. But in a standard, wide-ranging everything system, the number of times you want to show a double fit and either "game try based on the double fit" or "more than game", and the rewards when that works and other calls do not, outweigh the number of times you want to play 3♦.

I do think that there are many in this thread who can't remember how flight C (or D, or bracket 10) play; and who have forgotten that for every tournament player, there are 5 who only play in the "safe" clubs, or only play rubber (in the bar where even okay non-rubber players can make money), or only play in the kitchen. Kaitlyn knows a lot more of those, and they are there. One of the perennial questions is "how do we turn these people on to duplicate bridge?" And the answer is frequently either "you can't any more, because they were so badly treated last time" or "you can't, because bridge is just the Tuesday reason to get together to chat".

I showed up to my church's "bridge night" a few times when it started to try to build it up. I was hoping I could start teaching them real bridge, but they clearly weren't there. I gave up not because of the play (partner opens a *22-24* 2NT. You hold a flat 10, and partner has shown himself to be the best player in the room. What do you do? 3NT, of course, and when he pulls off the squeeze for 7, wonder if you should have invited) but because of the speed - even with me at the table, hands took an average of 10 minutes to play. And they weren't really wasting time, not the way we all think about it. That's 11000 of your "good players" right there, and I'm sure we're not the only church basement or senior centre with a non-sanctioned bridge game.

This applies even at the duplicate level; which is why we have a 20-table Monday night team game full of sub-1000 (and frequently super-1000) MP players I never see anywhere else, and why we have 25 tables playing their regular Friday afternoon game opposite our local sectional. And there are people with 994.78 MPs who are playing in the 0-1000 game, and there are people with 2200 who gripe about not being in X, and...

[helene_t]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-27, 23:28, said:

Phil, if I was playing with you or Rhm I would play the bids as you intended them undiscussed. However, (a) there was talk of playing with a random partner and (b) the OP said he was playing with another beginner so in his shoes I would not be at all surprised that the "forcing" 3D got passed or that 3S would be misunderstood or that 4C would be taken as Gerber (if his partner even knew Gerber - otherwise it would be taken as a huge hand with clubs.)

You are of course right. But unless OP is asking for advice on how to game a high-stake indy tourney with beginners I think it is not so helpful to try to cater to partner being capable of passing a bid that is forcing to everybody who has listened to the improvers' lessons.

This could lead to the advice to blast game in lots of auctions in which we may belong in a different strain, just because every other bid could be misunderstood. Which is of course true. But if OP asks in order to learn something that can help him and his (semi)regular partner improve their understanding of bridge, it is better to make the advice on the basis of the assumption that partner can be trusted. Not that we trust partner to be a genious or a clairvoyant. But for the purpose of this discussion I believe we should trust partner not to make basic mistakes. Even if that trust may not always be deserved.

We may lose this particular board if our trust is undeserved but at least we learned something about good bridge. I'd rather teach good bridge even if bad bridge may sometimes be more profitable in the short term.

[Kaitlyn S]

 helene_t, on 2017-January-31, 05:15, said:

You are of course right. But unless OP is asking for advice on how to game a high-stake indy tourney with beginners I think it is not so helpful to try to cater to partner being capable of passing a bid that is forcing to everybody who has listened to the improvers' lessons.

You make a good point. That being said, (say) if Timo presented the problem, I would presume a world class partner. When someone doesn't specify anything about his partner's ability, or even imply that it is with his regular partner, I feel somewhat justified in giving a practical response based on playing with a "random expert" in the BBO Main Bridge Club. An example should illustrate the value of being practical, rather than making the technically correct bid and explaining to partner later why she should have done something different:

First board of a pairs event I overcalled 3D with 3NT and partner bid 4H. Our agreement was that 4C was a prelude to a signoff and everything else was encouraging, but it had never come up. I had AKQxx (!) of hearts and thought that I should accept the encouragement and bid 6H. Partner had jack-sixth of hearts and out and started screaming at me for making such a "stupid" bid. When I explained what our agreement was, partner was unmoved and played the rest of the game as if I was an idiot. Clearly there was a good chance that partner forgot the convention (my heart holding might have been a clue) and would totally ruin the game if that happened so it was probably right to pass and admit to forgetting the convention myself if it turned out that partner remembered, since partner would have been less upset had that happened and might have played the rest of the event reasonably (clearly partner's temperament matters in these decisions.)

If others would prefer that I keep my "practical" views to myself and only answer as if the partnership is going to be a rapidly advancing one with on temperament issues if they score a bad board, I can try to answer the questions in that way (although why should I answer at all when there are clearly better bidders on the site?) But I believe that the practical side of bidding is important and few, if any, others are addressing practical bidding with a human being who might have flawed bidding ideas.

People can see the context in which I am replying, and if the question was in the context of a serious partnership with much talent, they can choose to ignore my answer which clearly won't apply to them. Should I put a disclosure on my posts like "Assuming that partner has limited or unknown bidding skills"?

[el mister]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-January-31, 12:52, said:

If others would prefer that I keep my "practical" views to myself and only answer as if the partnership is going to be a rapidly advancing one with on temperament issues if they score a bad board, I can try to answer the questions in that way (although why should I answer at all when there are clearly better bidders on the site?) But I believe that the practical side of bidding is important and few, if any, others are addressing practical bidding with a human being who might have flawed bidding ideas.

People can see the context in which I am replying, and if the question was in the context of a serious partnership with much talent, they can choose to ignore my answer which clearly won't apply to them. Should I put a disclosure on my posts like "Assuming that partner has limited or unknown bidding skills"?

As the OP I can only say that I appreciate anyone taking the time to post an answer, but yours was surprisingly worthless. Like it stood out. This is quite unusual for this site IME, which is almost all signal, no noise. Disrupting this extremely rare internet phenomenon with 'practical' bridge advice would be a tragedy.

[helene_t]

I don't think Kaitlyn deserves such a harsh response. She gave a well articulated and well meant opinion. We can disagree about where the line goes between the good advice not to be the unlucky expert who burdens his partner with unnecessary obscurity and the not so good advice to treat partner as the neanderthal he probably is. But in any case let's keep a friendly tone.

[el mister]

I don't know abar that Helene. She didn't read the thread, stated the obvious, and started waffling on about posting in the beginner's forum where someone can tell me what a splinter is If that's well-articulated and well meant, I'd hate to see clumsy and patronising.
Nonetheless, your advice to keep a friendly tone is well-taken and I apologise for any tin-eared comments from me - we can of course disagree on a friendly basis.

[mike777]

 el mister, on 2017-January-25, 09:57, said:

Picked this one up last night at the club and was uncertain on the best way of proceeding. Vanilla 2/1 system.

---

This is possibly very routine, but I'd appreciate advice as I wasn't sure on the definition of 3♦ here. It seems miles too weak for my hand, but I want to show the double fit, and need some space to hear about diamond controls, and I'm not sure how you go about that here.

I like 3d whatever it means, 3s splinter would be second choice. May be tough to stop short of slam with what looks like an adjusted 4 loser hand (double fit).