[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 19 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't...

Yes, but:

1. This focuses diamonds too much perhaps, making new suit calls cues rather than probes.

2. 3♦ preempts opener's ability to bid clubs to show club control, which seems to be the problem.

The problem with some answers, IMO, is a focus on 2-way checkback of some variety, where 2♣ either is a relay (usually) to 2♦, and hence does not deny four spades, or where 2♣ asks about heart length only (2♦ denying three hearts) and hence does not deny four spades. The given parameters, "new minor forcing," do not involve two-way structural analysis. Hence, as others have said, because a 2♠ reverse is the means of handling 6♥/5♠, spades are neither agreed nor even shown (other than stops) by either side in this auction.

The actual 7-5 hand is a joke. If that hand is handled through 2♣, does 2♠ show 7-6?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2009, 09:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 19 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't...

Yes, but:

1. This focuses diamonds too much perhaps, making new suit calls cues rather than probes.

2. 3♦ preempts opener's ability to bid clubs to show club control, which seems to be the problem.

1. a - It just says we have a diamond fit, what focus is there beyond that?
1. b - Cues for you maybe. Not for me. Definitely not for most (American?) experts.
2. Why does that seem to be the problem?

[Mbodell]

gwnn, on Apr 19 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I still don't understand why I can't bid 2♠ over 1NT with 5♠6♥ and why opener refrained from bidding spades twice even though he has 4.

I more often play 2-way nmf instead of just nmf so there are more auctions to show some hands but couldn't 1m-1♥-1nt-2♠ be nf with minimum (or even sub-minimum) points and 6♥ and 4 or 5♠ (especially if your partnership style is for opener to not show 4 spades when balanced)?

[CSGibson]

Mbodell, on Apr 19 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

gwnn, on Apr 19 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I still don't understand why I can't bid 2♠ over 1NT with 5♠6♥ and why opener refrained from bidding spades twice even though he has 4.

I more often play 2-way nmf instead of just nmf so there are more auctions to show some hands but couldn't 1m-1♥-1nt-2♠ be nf with minimum (or even sub-minimum) points and 6♥ and 4 or 5♠ (especially if your partnership style is for opener to not show 4 spades when balanced)?

No. With weak hands, you just bid two hearts, expecting to play it there. It might not be the best spot, but it allows you to reserve 2 spades for 4-6, 5-6, 5-7, and other distributions, with invitational+ values, which in my opinion is better than methods to show weak 5-6 majors that force to the 3 level if you want to play in the 6 card suit.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Apr 19 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't...

People are aware that 2♠ instead of 2♣ would have been forcing, right? I think it's impossible that responder has 5 spades, that opener has 4 spades, and the thought of playing exclusion because we have agreed a 4-3 fit is quite entertaining
I agree with gnasher.

[whereagles]

5♦ is a bid you don't make without previous discussion.

As responder, I prefer bidding 1♥ + 2♠ + 3♠ unless one of these is NF, ofc. As a rule, you only use conventions if you need. If a hand can be bid naturally, that method is preferrable.

[dicklont]

mtvesuvius, on Apr 20 2009, 03:28 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ KQ862 ♥ AQJ7654 ♦   ♣ T ♠ T54 ♥ 93 ♦ AKQ42 ♣ K86

I passed. I didn't think 3♠ set trump... OOPS.

Would 5♠ have made?
It is not a very good contract imo.
With a void people tend to get overexited (I know I do).

Reversing 2♠ and bidding 3♠ over 2NT would have worked better.

[Phil]

dicklont, on Apr 20 2009, 04:57 AM, said:

Would 5♠ have made?
It is not a very good contract imo.
With a void people tend to get overexited (I know I do).

Reversing 2♠ and bidding 3♠ over 2NT would have worked better.

Too bad partner came down with an effective zero count opposite.

[hanp]

1D = normal
1H = normal
1NT = normal
2C = terrible
2D = normal
2S = normal
3S = just weird

[JLOL]

I think you are too hard on 2C. Some people have not discussed 2S, or some have discussed it as 44 inv in which case 2C is normal.

Also, I don't understand why 2S is normal, you want to play in hearts always so why not just bid 3H and see if partner can cuebid 3S?

[bill1157]

Why doesn't North just bid 2♠'s at his 2nd turn?

Bill

[Codo]

So North was afraid, that partner may misunderstand 2 Spade over 1 Nt so, he tried exclusion without discussion?

Wow, great idea, great success.