[glen]

Playing in the ACBL BBO tournament today, we had this auction:

1C-1H(overcall by me)-3C-Pass-?

As the opener thought and thought I clicked on 3C for a description, since had been considering to reopen if it was passed.

The 3C bidder wrote “nat”.

I clicked again, and when no reply was forth coming, I called the TD.

At this point as the TD was arriving the 3C bidder wrote “10+”.

I privately wrote to the TD:

me said:

3C was first said to be natural, and now it is "10+", so is 10-12, or 10+ forcing or what?

TD said I had enough info and to continue bidding. We played out the hand and there was no damage on the board.

In follow-up discussion with the TD, I indicated that most play the 3C bid as either weak or game invite, so I was trying to find out what it was in this case (the opponents were using a sayc cc). The TD indicated that this applied for IN AN UNCONTESTED AUCTION! (TD caps and exclamation mark) but not for contested auction.

I wrote back to say:

me said:

In std, after 1C-1H-?, the two most common raise structures are:

a ) 2C 6-10, 3C invite, 2H(cuebid) Game Force, or
b ) 2C 6-10, 3C weak, 2H(cuebid) invite or better

So I was trying to find out what the 3C bid was in this case.

The TD replied that they had been playing for 30+ years, read all the books, and never say anybody play that as ‘standard’. Do I have a confused viewpoint of standard here, and if so what does the TD and many others play in this situation?

Thanks in advance!

[DJNeill]

Hi Glen,
I was watching that board. Once a caliper sensitive enough to measure the level of TD-skill many of the ACBL TD's have on BBO, I think an answer will be obtained.

Thanks,
Dan

[Fluffy]

The 2 structures you post are the most used. But when he alerted 10+ I guesss you already ruled out one of them and you ahd all the info, right?

[glen]

Fluffy, on Nov 6 2005, 01:11 PM, said:

The 2 structures you post are the most used. But when he alerted 10+ I guesss you already ruled out one of them and you ahd all the info, right?

Yup, I was able to rule out the weak option once I knew 10+. However I did not have "all the info" as I didn't know if 3C was forcing or not, so when opener bid 3NT I could not tell if he was accepting an invite, or just bidding with any hand and a ♥ stopper. However as I noted I didn't think we were damaged even without all the info.

The three primary things one needs to know about a bid are:
1) Range
2) Suit/suits lengths promised/suggested
3) Forcing or not.

The third is important to reveal. For example if the opponents played 1NT as 12-14, balanced, and forcing, one would play a different defence than if it was non-forcing.

Sometimes new partnerships or new players don't know the answers to these questions - they should describe as best they can.

[muggle]

"10+" seems fine to me

It implies natural bid, usually 5+♣, and non-forcing without so many words. Of course it's not forcing when facing opener who can have a flat 12 count. They wheren't playing strong club right?

I don't see the problem. It's just std bidding.

And this thread has recalling what the TD told an intermediate pair who kept badgering opponents with these sort of questions: "Opponents aren't obliged to teach you the game of bridge."

[ArcLight]

>And this thread has recalling what the TD told an intermediate pair who kept badgering opponents with these sort of questions: "Opponents aren't obliged to teach you the game of bridge."

When I ask about bids I frequently get cryptic replies.
If the opponents had said "Nat, 10+" up front maybe that would have been sufficient. When opponents are evasive, it naturally upsets the person asking the question, and this invites additional questions. Whats obvious to the person making the bid may not be obvious to the person asking the question.

Why shouldn't you have the right to ask what the partnership agreements are?
If there arent any, then thats ok too. But its quite annoying to play against partnerships that do have agreements and they wont explain them whan asked.


>Sometimes new partnerships or new players don't know the answers to these questions - they should describe as best they can.

If there is no agreement or they don't know, then I dont think they are required to say anything. "No agreement"

[Limey_p]

I am frequent player in ACBL f2f games. The convention card establishes a de facto standard for agreements that are alertable, and also for the type of information that people expect when they ask questions. The area for jump raises in competition has boxes to indicate your agreements - Force, Inv, or Weak. So I would guess that this was the first piece of information Officeglen expected, and he never really received it.

And there's no indication on the conv. card about which agreement is "standard", and my experience agrees with that. I play Weak, like most pairs I meet these days. Some people play invitational, while forcing is very rare.

I, for one, do tend to carry my expectations with me as I move from f2f to online bridge. Is that right or wrong?

Here's a link to the (blank) ACBL card ... ACBL card (pdf format)

Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece.
"Worth the paper it is printed on"

[mike777]

muggle, on Nov 6 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

"10+" seems fine to me

It implies natural bid, usually 5+♣, and non-forcing without so many words.  Of course it's not forcing when facing opener who can have a flat 12 count.  They wheren't playing strong club right?

I don't see the problem.  It's just std bidding.

And this thread has recalling what the TD told an intermediate pair who kept badgering opponents with these sort of questions: "Opponents aren't obliged to teach you the game of bridge."

OK teach me!

How can a 10+ bid be nonforcing? 10+ means partner can have 20 hcp. How the heck can partner pass with flat 12 when partner can have 20 or 25 hcp? 10+ does not mean 10-12.

[luke warm]

agree 100% with mike, if you play 3C here as 10+ it has to be forcing.. if opener passes that it would make me wonder whether they have some sort of inferential agreement

[muggle]

That's nonsense bidding system, unless 1c is strong, 16+. And Strong Club is not "standard".

No viable system would force bidding beyond the 3 level with as few as 23 points.

I recommend you look up Fred Gitelman's excellent free "Learn to Play Bridge, Volume 2" bridge tutorial software, section on "Bidding in Competative Auctions", which defines 1C-(1H)-3C as limit raise.

Or Bill Root's excellent book, "Commonsense Bidding", where I learned standard.

[luke warm]

either 3C here is forcing or it isn't... if it isn't, then it needs 10-12 points as a *max*, it can't say "10+"... that's exactly what i have against inverted minors when played as "10+ game force"

below you use the words "...usually 5+♣, and non-forcing without so many words."

what the hell does, "without so many words" mean?... if someone asks you whether or not it's forcing, what do you say? "no agreement?" ... "10+ not forcing?" ... what? whatever you say, it's *with* "so many words"

i think you hurt your case when you refer to fred saying 3c is a "limit raise"... see, a limit raise is *not* 10+, and a limit raise is not forcing... as mike says, if 10+ can be 10-20 it isn't quite the same as a limit raise

[han]

muggle, on Nov 6 2005, 04:17 PM, said:

That's nonsense bidding system, unless 1c is strong, 16+. And Strong Club is not "standard".

No viable system would force bidding beyond the 3 level with as few as 23 points.

I recommend you look up Fred Gitelman's excellent free "Learn to Play Bridge, Volume 2" bridge tutorial software, section on "Bidding in Competative Auctions", which defines 1C-(1H)-3C as limit raise.

Or Bill Root's excellent book, "Commonsense Bidding", where I learned standard.

Mike said it all. (and Jimmy too)

Playing 3C as 10+ is not commonsense bidding, no viable system would play 3C as 10+. And if it really is 10+ then it is forcing, of course.