[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Of course you can pass, but partner will also
reopen with just 2 hearts

He'll reopen, but not with a double! Since your double is penalty, there is no reason for him to reopen with double with shortness. Instead, he will just support spades or rebid clubs/diamonds, since if you can't double for penalty there is no point for him to double. So there is no danger of doubling them in 10 cd fit as you suggested.
The reopen double on this situation should be strong penalty suggestion, 4 hearts, so that you can get them when hearts are split 4-2.

I don't see why you want to chew up room and have 2♠ be less informative. If you have 5143, just pass, see if partner can support, show your club support later. Don't bid 2♠ on both Jxxxx & KQJTxx, you are just making your side more problems unnecessarily. Opponent relieved you of having to bid, gave you more space + options, use them!

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Is pass now forcing, what do you bid?

Pass should not be forcing on the 1h-1s auction. The situation is considerably different, because 2/1 bid promises a great deal of strength, which should be enough to warrant either penalize or outbid opponent (similar situation to after partner redoubles a takeout double), while 1s over 1h promise only ~5-6 pts, not clear your side can make anything.

With given hand, just pass, you have nothing to say at this point.

[helene_t]

No, here pass is not forcing. P only made a 1-level response so it is no evident that the board belongs to us, i.e. that we can't defend undoubled.

This means that you have to bid either 2♦ or 2♥ if you don't want to sell out to 2♣. Pass is the normal action with a balanced minimum. I can understand the temptation to bid with this nice heart suit. But if p passes she has at most two hearts so your hearts will be useful in defence as well. I would pass.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jul 8 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

How about this hand:

Scoring: IMP

1♥ (P) 1♠ (2♣)
?

---

Is pass now forcing, what do you bid?

No, pass is non forcing, pass should deny
3 card support for partner (in case you play
suppX) and a 6 card heart suit and a biddable
4 card suit (bid the suit even in if it is xxxx), i.e.
in the current situation 4 diamonds, i.e. you will
be 5332, as the given hand.
Partner is expected to reopen in case he has at
most 2 cards in their suit, i.e. you can pass with
a strong holding in their suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:41 PM, said:

So...

1♠:2♣ 2♠ can be 5
1♠:2♣ (2x) 2♠ promises 6

This is exactly right.

It is very important that you understand why this is true, the idea applies to other auctions as well.

This is somewhat similar:

(1D) - Dbl - (1H) - ??

Without the 1H bid you would have to bid 1S with xxxx xx xxxx xxx, so 1S shows 0+ points. However, after the 1H bid you can pass with this hand, so the 1S bid becomes more descriptive. It is called a "free bid", you didn't have to bid but decided to anyway, with KJxx Kx xxxx xxx you would certainly do it.

Imagine the hand Kxx xx xxxxx xxx, same auction. After the 1H bid you would pass, but what would you do if it went (1D) - Dbl - (pass) - ?? . I think I would bid 1S, I wouldn't pass with only 5 small diamonds.

So it is conceivable that 1S is bid with only 3 spades, but as a free bid that would never be the case.

[neilkaz]

EDIT was looking at wrong hand I think ?.. neilkaz ..

[neilkaz]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1♠
 Pass  2♣    2♥    2♠
 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass
 5♥    5♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

I had a heated discussion with this partner (pickup) after the board
I think I am 100% correct of course . However, in his words I was out to lunch

100% North

South has a 2♠ bid with a good 6 carder. N can expect good play for 4♠ but to bid 5♠ especially at IMPs with what is likely only 8 trumps and these defensive values is awful.

As N I double 5♥ rather than making a forcing pass.

[neilkaz]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

Well the discussion became heated when my p told me that I must have a much better 6 card ♠ suit for my 2♠ bid and my only bid was pass after opening this c****.

When I said I thought 2♠ did not even promise 6 the discussion went further downhill, this is not the first time I have had partners who expect a good 6 card suit.

How is AKTxxx not a good 6 card suit ? This would have been my last hand with this pickup PD after he/she rudely commented on my opening this 11 HCP 3 QT 6-4 hand as crap.

K&R says this hand is worth 16.75 points. I open and rebid 2 all year long.

http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi?ha...KTxxx+Tx+Axxx+x

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 09:41 PM, said:

So...

1♠:2♣  2♠  can be 5
1♠:2♣ (2x) 2♠ promises 6


ps I dont play 2♣ is GF here

How about:

1♠ X 2♦ P

What does 2♠ 'promise' now? only

Spoiler

5 I hope

[jillybean]

I play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦
If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

[skjaeran]

jillybean2, on Jul 16 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

I play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦
If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

Most people play 2♣/♦/♥ as non-forcing in this position, most play it as constructive. To force you start with redouble.
Of course it's possible to keep the meaning as without the double, but that's not standard (and not adviceable, mostly because of frequency).

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Jul 16 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 16 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

I  play 1♠ (P) 2♦ as forcing and have never discussed 1♠ (X) 2♦
If 2♦ isn't forcing here, what is?

Most people play 2♣/♦/♥ as non-forcing in this position, most play it as constructive. To force you start with redouble.
Of course it's possible to keep the meaning as without the double, but that's not standard (and not adviceable, mostly because of frequency).

And henceforth they created transfers.

[jillybean]

And so...

1♠ (P) 2♣ (2♥)
2♠ = 6+ (free bid)


1♠ (P) 2♣ (P)
2♠ could be 5 (min)


1♠ (X) 2x nf (P)
2♠ = 6+


1♠ (X) XX forcing, values.


(1♦) X (1♥) 1♠ (free bid 6-7)

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding. Where can I learn this?

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding. huh.gif Where can I learn this?

Books, though you may have to dig for the right ones. Lawrence had a book "Contested Auctions", though out of print now. Also he has many good books on overcalls, balancing, takeout doubles, etc.

Other worthwhile books are Robson & Segal, "Partnership Bidding", and Marshall Miles' two books "Stronger Competitive Bidding" and "Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century", though be warned many of Miles' views are not mainstream, though he is usually good about presenting the logic behind them so you can make your own decision on what you prefer.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Jul 17 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding. Where can I learn this?

Mike Lawrence's bidding quizzes, the contested auction.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jul 16 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

And so...

1♠ (P) 2♣ (2♥)
2♠ = 6+ (free bid)


1♠ (P) 2♣ (P)
2♠ could be 5 (min)


1♠ (X) 2x nf (P)
2♠ = 6+


1♠ (X) XX forcing, values.


(1♦) X (1♥) 1♠ (free bid 6-7)

In summary, I know zip about competitive bidding.   Where can I learn this?

Hi,

the main problem is, that competitive bidding
depends a lot on partnership understanding, and
while there may exist a "standard system" in
uncontested auctions, this is not the case for
contested auction, at least not to the same extend.
The reason is, that most system books only consider
contested auction very briefly, in bridge courses you
usually have those lectures at the very end, if at all.

I would suggest you decide together with your partner
on a book to learn a system for contested auction.
You may have a look at Marshall Miles book, the advantage
being, it is fairly complete and well written, another book
would be Marty Bergens "Better Bidding with Bergen Vol. 2",
a little bit dated, but ok ... if you like the style.

Most likely there are other books out there, have a look
at "How the Expert win at Bridge" from Burt Hall and
Lynn Rose-Hall, also a very well written book, although it
deals only briefly with contested auctions, but you can find
further reading recommendations in the book.
Side Remark: Could it be that Burt Hall is bhall?

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: As I have stated, I dont agree, that the first sequence
shows a 6 carder (it usually will be a 6 carder, but that is not
the point), because it is not (!) a free bid assuming that pass
would be forcing, in which case bidding shows simply a min.
opener and no interest in defence. And pass should be forcing.
But thats just me.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

it is not (!) a free bid assuming that pass
would be forcing

Quote

And pass should be forcing

Don't these statements contradict each other? Most agree that pass should be forcing after partner's 2/1 bid. And if pass is forcing, just by definition 2♠ is a "free" bid, since you are allowed to pass here, and a free bid is any bid you make when you weren't virtually forced to make a call. Whether that free bid shows 6+ or merely no interest in defence is partnership agreement, but everyone here except you is assuming 6+. Why is your way better? Make your case. Min opener, by itself, is not reason to not want to defend, only shortness in enemy suit. If you are short in enemy suit, and not 6 spades, you must have side 4+ suit. Why not bid that suit if bidding, or pass & see if partner has genuine 3 cd support, bid side suit later if necessary? What advantage do you gain by rebidding 5 cd suit, which you have already promised by your opening bid, and thus conveys little useful information?

Having 2♠ show 6 makes responder's decisions easier, passing with 5 retains more space, which make responder's actions more descriptive also. I don't see any reason to bid 2♠ on a 5 bagger, please enlighten me.

Quote

But thats just me.

It appears to be only you.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jul 16 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Most people play 2D as NF

Has that finally become the norm?

That's one of those forcing bids in 'Standard American' that got me to switch to Precision.