[foo]

Quote

South,N/S,MP,

Qx AQTxx Kx AJ8x

1♥ - (2♠) - 4♥ - (4♠);?

You have the agreement with your partner that at this vulnerabilities after 4♥ bid you are in a forcing pass situation.
Also, 2NT would be inv+ with 4+♥.

Agree with others who say this is not supposed to be a FP situation.

SchTsch, on Mar 17 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

So, whatever you do, your partner will have the following hand:

x 98x AQJxxx KTx

Your CHO bid 4♥ on this?! At Unfavorable?!!

He best be willing to pull any double you make... ...and accept the consequences gracefully if it does not work out well.

[SchTsch]

helene_t, on Mar 14 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

Sorry if this is a rude question but what is the difference between 4♥ and 2N? And what would 3♠ have shown?

I hope that it is not a rude question because I asked the same question after the board.

Well, as we already are discussing the methods, i think that the normal treatment should be that any raise to 4♥ with 3 card support should begin with 3♠, and that 4♥ should be distributional raise too weak for 2NT.

But that wasn't the agreement when I played this board.

[SchTsch]

foo, on Mar 17 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

Agree with others who say this is not supposed to be a FP situation.

I agree, but when you still define that as a FP situation then you should act according to your agreements no matter how stupid they might be.

[foo]

SchTsch, on Mar 17 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

foo, on Mar 17 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

Agree with others who say this is not supposed to be a FP situation.

I agree, but when you still define that as a FP situation then you should act according to your agreements no matter how stupid they might be.

OK. Then the questions become
1= Why make an agreement that is so different from standard practice w/o extensive prior discussion?

2= If this is a FP situation, is R supposed to always pull a penalty X by O whenever they hold a "bar bid 4M" kind of hand? You know the ones where We bid 4M not because of values but mostly because of shape? ...and if the opponents bid "5 over 5" after that, =then= what?

...and just out of curiousity, in your agreed upon system what hands are shown by
1H-(2S)-X?
1H-(2S)-3m?
1H-(2S)-3S!?

[SchTsch]

foo, on Mar 17 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

SchTsch, on Mar 17 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

foo, on Mar 17 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

Agree with others who say this is not supposed to be a FP situation.

I agree, but when you still define that as a FP situation then you should act according to your agreements no matter how stupid they might be.

OK. Then the questions become
1= Why make an agreement that is so different from standard practice w/o extensive prior discussion?

2= If this is a FP situation, is R supposed to always pull a penalty X by O whenever they hold a "bar bid 4M" kind of hand? You know the ones where We bid 4M not because of values but mostly because of shape? ...and if the opponents bid "5 over 5" after that, =then= what?

...and just out of curiousity, in your agreed upon system what hands are shown by
1H-(2S)-X?
1H-(2S)-3m?
1H-(2S)-3S!?

So you are very eager to quarrel with me about how stupid the methods, that I already declared as stupid, really are? You are an artist of some kind or what?

[whereagles]

Dbl for me. I can never get these right, damn.

[foo]

SchTsch, on Mar 17 2008, 08:51 AM, said:

Quote

...and just out of curiousity, in your agreed upon system what hands are shown by
1H-(2S)-X?
1H-(2S)-3m?
1H-(2S)-3S!?

So you are very eager to quarrel with me about how stupid the methods, that I already declared as stupid, really are? You are an artist of some kind or what?

No, I am not eager to argue. OTOH, I =am= having a hard time understanding your pard's thought process.

Was bidding 4H really his best option given your agreements?

So I'm asking questions.

[SchTsch]

foo, on Mar 17 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

No, I am not eager to argue. OTOH, I =am= having a hard time understanding your pard's thought process.

Was bidding 4H really his best option given your agreements?

So I'm asking questions.

Hehe, I am having a hard time understanding that myself sometimes.

I said this is an occasional partnership with very few agreements.
Maybe 4♥ isn't her best option but she had exactly what I expected her to have because I know her style.

[benlessard]

1H----(2S)------???

In a standard framework

2Nt to 3H = nat
3S = gf asking for a stopper or slammish raise
3Nt to play
4m = fit jump slammish or splinter slammish ( I think fit jump is slightly better)
4H (R vs W) = hoping to make game setup FP
4H (fav or equal) = preepting or tactical doesnt setup FP.

There is nothing wrong with playing forcing pass when you bid a vulnerable game over a non-vulnerable partscore. With H you have no reason to bid 4H as preemptive, if the opps are making 4S they will bid it anyway, suggesting a 5H save for -500 is dumb.

If you have S & they have hearts then 4S over 4H doesnt setup FP. 4S over 3H turn forcing pass ON. If you dont want forcing pass ON bid 3S and 4S after they bid game.

Your partner is too heavy for her 4H bid since slam is possible. Over your X she can still bid 5D to cancel the previous mistake but with xxx as trumps i understand her pass.

[SchTsch]

benlessard, on Mar 18 2008, 06:12 AM, said:

Your partner is too heavy for her 4H bid since slam is possible. Over your X she can still bid 5D to cancel the previous mistake but with xxx as trumps i understand her pass.

Well, we didn't play 4♠X.
We played 5♥ one off because of the ♥KJx offside

[benlessard]

Being in 5H = good bridge. Opps can easily have a stiff D and theyre going only 1 down wich not not give you a good mp result anyway.

[Free]

Sorry to sound rude, but I really wonder who plays forcing pass (even in this situation ) and can't come up with a 3♠ cuebid when he has such a huge hand...