[cherdano]

Here I was a little surprised that my understanding (I won't say which) apparently might not be universal.

When voting, please don't just vote for the agreement you would prefer in your most regular partnership. Instead, think what you would expect to be the agreement when playing "2/1" with a good but unknown partner, or what you would prefer the agreement to be in that situation.

Thanks,
Arend

[Walddk]

Game forcing (19-21), at least 5-4.

Roland

[Miron]

If not passed by partner then game forsing.
(it can be passed with unsuitable bellow respons hands - minimalizing damage)

[Walddk]

I don't know what bellow respons hands are, but I do know that it's a major crime to pass a forcing bid when you know it's forcing.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Mar 7 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

Game forcing (19-21), at least 5-4.

Roland

Would 4441 and a singleton in responder's suit be an exception to that? (Say in 1♦-1♥-2♠.)

Arend

[Gerben42]

GF and necessarily unbalanced.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Mar 7 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

Walddk, on Mar 7 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

Game forcing (19-21), at least 5-4.

Roland

Would 4441 and a singleton in responder's suit be an exception to that? (Say in 1♦-1♥-2♠.)

Arend

4441 hands can't always be bid accurately. You will have to lie no matter what you decide. If my singleton is king or ace, I might open 2NT on 20-21, if it's not an honour I would rebid 2♠ in order to create a game force.

So yes, in the rare instance that I am 4144, my minor could be 4 cards only. As an aside, I do not open a hand like this 1♦. I open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors unless my pattern is 1444.

Roland

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Mar 7 2006, 12:33 PM, said:

Game forcing (19-21), at least 5-4.

Roland

Yeah.. that seems about right.

[hrothgar]

Just to make sure, could you provide an example auction?

It should like we're talikng about auctions like

1♣ - 1♦
2[♥

or


1♦ - 1♥
2♠

[cherdano]

Exactly, Richard.

[hrothgar]

OK, this might be quaint, but...

lets assume that the auction started

1♣ - 1♠
2♥

We can contrast this auction with

1♣ - 1♥
2♠

Both auctions are "reverses". What distinquishes the second auction is that opener had the opportunity to rebid 1♠ and chose not to. Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that a 1♠ rebid in this auction should be used as a forcing bid. Accordingly, I think that traditional picture bidding principles should apply. 2♠ - the bid that uses the most bidding space - should be used to describe a fairly narrow set of hands. The 1S rebid is used as a garbage bid to offload a lot of random crap.

Personally, I think that the 2♠ should promise a good reverse
5+ Clubs and 4+ Spades (Clubs longer than Spades).

I would never make this bid with a 4144 hand, preferring to either open 2NT, rebid 2NT, or rebid 1S.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Mar 7 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

Personally, I think that the 2♠ should promise a good reverse
5+ Clubs and 4+ Spades (Clubs longer than Spades).

I would never make this bid with a 4144 hand, preferreing to either open 2NT, rebid 2NT, or rebid 1S.

Fair enough, but since a jump shift in my book shows (roughly) 19-21, a 1♠ rebid (11-18) is non-forcing.

1♣ - 1♥
1♠

is passable. I can't be sure, but I think this is the trend in most places and is consistent with the fact that a hand which is limited to 18 hcp can't force opposite a response that doesn't promise more than 6 hcp.

Roland

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Mar 7 2006, 04:34 PM, said:

OK, this might be quaint, but...

lets assume that the auction started

1♣ - 1♠
2♥

(...)

Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that a 1♠ rebid in this auction should be used as a forcing bid.

Does this statement apply only to your favourite partnership agreements, or would you think/hope this holds when playing 2/1 with a pickup expert partner?

[FrancesHinden]

I'm not sure what the difference between the a 'huge game force' and a 'game force' is. Either it's game forcing or it isn't.

I think it is game forcing, and responder should treat is as showing at least 5 cards in the first bid suit and 4 in the second.

p.s. in the partnership where I play 1S as forcing (which is not a treatment I like, but that partner does) we play 2S as artificial.

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 7 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

I'm not sure what the difference between the a 'huge game force' and a 'game force' is. Either it's game forcing or it isn't.

I have seen people playing:
1♠ 100% forcing, up to 21 points.
2♠ a huge hand that would have been opened 2♣ if it wasn't for the rebid etc. problems opening 2♣, often a 6-5 hand, 3-4 losers etc.

I suspect many of the votes in that category just intended to mean "game forcing, unbalanced", however.

Arend

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Mar 7 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

Does this statement apply only to your favourite partnership agreements, or would you think/hope this holds when playing 2/1 with a pickup expert partner?

I think that this topic is open to debate

Some players believe that 1♠ should be forcing
Other players disagree

In an ideal world, partner and would have discussed this sequence

In practice, I play a fiar amount of pickup bridge where I ave no idea whether or not partner would treat this as forcing. Accordingly, when I am responder, I treat the bid as forcing because I think that the downside from passing a forcing bid is greater than that associated with streaching over a non-foricng bid. Equally significiant, when I am opener I try to avoid making 1♠ rebids with hands that can't stand to be passed.

Anyone who has watched me play in pickup games has doubtless noticed lots of "weird" actions. I open lots of off-shape NTs and make equally offshape NT rebids. Trust when I say that I am not trying to ensure that I win boards by ensuring that I get to use my "stellar" card play.

Rather, I am typically trying to side step of lot of these types of issues.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Mar 7 2006, 04:01 PM, said:

Anyone who has watched me play in pickup games has doubtless noticed lots of "weird" actions. I open lots of off-shape NTs and make equally offshape NT rebids. Trust when I say that I am not trying to ensure that I win boards by ensuring that I get to use my "stellar" card play.

Rather, I am typically trying to side step of lot of these types of issues.

You have touched a sore spot, and not all will agree with you. Having said that, however, this is exactly one of the reasons why I never play online with pick-up partners.

I insist on having the basics and gadgets discussed before I sit down to play. Right, I am not a social player; I take it seriously no matter what the occasion is, and I can't see anything wrong with that.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Mar 7 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

Having said that, however, this is exactly one of the reasons why I never play online with pick-up partners.

I insist on having the basics and gadgets discussed before I sit down to play. Right, I am not a social player; I take it seriously no matter what the occasion is, and I can't see anything wrong with that.

Well, one hope of creating good standard FD files is that you could play with a (good) pickup partner, agree on one of the standard FD files, and thus at least avoid simple misunderstandings: no uncertainty about which gadgets are agreed, or whether second round bids are forcing etc. (I don't think it can help you knowing partner's WJO style opposite a passed hand, or what he considers a minimum opening bid, and similar issues.)

Time will tell whether this works. I am sure, however, that a precondition of this working is that the standard FD files contain no surprises. I.e. when you think bid X means Y, and your partner thinks so, and you are sure that partner thinks so that X means Y, but FD claims X means Z, then it won't work.

Arend