BBO Discussion Forums: Forcing continuations... - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

Forcing continuations... ...after 1c-1d-1h (xfer walsh)

#21 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2010-October-14, 02:50

At the start we used some complex 1 relay, but now we jus tuse 2 way checkback wich simplifies things. We always bypass the transfer with 18-19 balanced, but not with anything else.


1 over 1 is any hand with 4 spades, forcing 1 round. Partner has 2 ways on raising spades with minimum hands: 2and 2 one showing balanced and the other unbalanced.

1NT is to play

2 as transfer to 2, it is better than nat, because it also lets you play a 2m contract, but also show many invites.

2 is GF with bal/semibal distribution

2 over 1 is a weak 5-4 althou I bet something ore useful is avaible if we explore.

2 over 1 is invitational in hearts with a shortness

2NT is invitational with 4 cards in partner's minor

3 is to play

3 other suit is natural forcing (or splinter)
0

#22 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,666
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2010-October-16, 07:40

I've been thinking about this and it seems to ne that Josh's method is excellent but perhaps not for everyone. Whereas 2WC is simple but definitely sub-optimal (you cannot play in 2C and your forcing heart raise is at 3 level). A very simple solution is to play 2WC but with your Checkback bids as 1S and 2C. For example

1C - 1D - 1H

1S = natural 1N/2C bids, weak; or any INV hand without club support
1N = 4 hearts, 4 spades, weak
2C = puppet to 2D, any GF hand
2D = 4 hearts, 6+ diamonds, weak
2H = 5 hearts, weak
2S = 5+ clubs, 0-1 spades, INV
2N = 5+ clubs, 0-1 diamonds, INV
3C = 2=4=2=5, INV

After 1S, 2C would be any GF hand and 1N anything else. Then

2C (after 1N by Opener) = 5+ clubs, weak
2D = 5+ diamonds, INV
2H = 5+ hearts, INV
2S = 4 hearts, 4 spades, INV
2N = nat, INV
3C (after 2C by Opener) = 5+ clubs, weak
3D (after 2C by Opener) = 4 hearts, 5 diamonds, weak
3N (after 2C by Opener) = bal, weak

To make best use of the extra space from your forcing heart raise being at the 2 level you could adapt your Jacoby structure. Or some relay scheme is probably even better. Perhaps

1C - 1D - 1H - 2C - 2D - 2H

2S = unbal, min (2N = relay with same responses as for max)
2N = bal (3C as range ask, good to find out trump length too if 3=4=3=3 is allowed for 1H)
3C = side void, max
3D = 1 diamond, max
3H = no shortage (2=3=2=6 or bare honour)
3S = 1 spade, max
3N = spade cue, super-max
4m = cue, super-max
4H = junk (no shortage, no keycard, no more than 1 king)

I have not gone through it in detail or tested it but this seems to provide all of the advantages of 2WC without the corresponding disadvantages.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#23 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2010-October-16, 13:11

I think I've lost the plot here. What's all this about checkback, what are we checking for?

Anyway, back to the question Nick raised. If responder is investigating slam, the way we do it is to start with a transfer to the 5+ card major (completed with 2 or 3 support) then make a non-specified GF bid of 2. Opener clarifies his hand, bidding is natural, and if a major is agreed it will be at the 2 or 3 level and we proceed exactly as we do over say a 2 over 1 then suit agreement, or shortages after J2N ; in our case this involves the use or otherwise of the non-serious 3NT and one level of cue bids to see if anything is wide open before ace asking.

If we have no major and just a minor GF we start with a transfer to 1NT, and rebid 3m.
0

#24 User is offline   hanp 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,987
  • Joined: 2009-February-15

Posted 2010-October-16, 13:51

We play 2C as a relay, at least light invitational. 1S is natural and forcing.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
0

#25 User is offline   NickRW 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,951
  • Joined: 2008-April-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sussex, England

Posted 2010-October-16, 16:43

fromageGB, on Oct 16 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

Anyway, back to the question Nick raised. If responder is investigating slam,...

Well, hmm, I haven't had the chance to give this thread a lot of thought yet - even though I started it. Something has to give in my previously simplistic scheme if responder is to be able to find a forcing sequence - so I guess I wasn't expecting people to be saying "checkback" at me - but - like I say - something has to shift.

Nick
"Pass is your friend" - my brother in law - who likes to bid a lot.
0

#26 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,666
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2010-October-16, 18:30

fromageGB, on Oct 16 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

I think I've lost the plot here. What's all this about checkback, what are we checking for?

The reason checkback came into it is because people have been talking about using XYZ which is a form of 2-way checkback. Your 2C unspecified game force could also be said to fall into this family - it is identical to the 2C bid I described in the previous post. I think the point here is that if you play everything natural you have some issues creating forces, so ideally it is good to have that is artificial and game-forcing. You can then take the argument a stage further and have a bid that is artificial and invitational. Like it or not that is the way 2-way checkback works - the name might sound silly here but I think most readers understand what it means.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#27 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2010-October-17, 05:59

Thanks, Zel, I agree. You definitely need an artificial bid to set the scene, and you definitely need invitational bids. If you can fit all these into one initial bid then good luck to you. I find using stayman and transfers as invitational, and having separately defined bids as a GF, makes things easy.
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