Help
1♦ - 1♥
1NT - 2♣*
2♦ - 2♠
3♠ - 5♦**
*New Minor Forcing
**What is it?
Interpet this auction... Weird...
#1
- Vesuvius the Violent Volcano
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,216
- Joined: 2008-December-04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tampa-Area, Florida
- Interests:SLEEPING
Posted 2009-April-18, 21:05
Yay for the "Ignored Users" feature!
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 75
- Joined: 2009-March-10
Posted 2009-April-18, 23:26
To play?
One of the themes of forcing auctions is that game bids are weak and intermediate bids are forcing. I think responder may have something like AKQx xxxx AJx xx and obviously no slam interest.
One of the themes of forcing auctions is that game bids are weak and intermediate bids are forcing. I think responder may have something like AKQx xxxx AJx xx and obviously no slam interest.
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 750
- Joined: 2007-October-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
- Interests:Bridge, music, sports
Posted 2009-April-19, 01:01
Spades are the agreed trump suit, not diamonds.
Responder could have bid 3♦ instead of 2♠ if he wanted a forcing raise of diamonds.
First new minor forcing and then a new suit must be very strong and/or wild distribution, because responder could reverse to show a gameforcing hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts.
I think responder is 5602 and is looking for a grand slam.
When the partnership plays Exclusion Blackwood it is that, otherwise show your next Ace.
Responder could have bid 3♦ instead of 2♠ if he wanted a forcing raise of diamonds.
First new minor forcing and then a new suit must be very strong and/or wild distribution, because responder could reverse to show a gameforcing hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts.
I think responder is 5602 and is looking for a grand slam.
When the partnership plays Exclusion Blackwood it is that, otherwise show your next Ace.
--
Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul. (Nige1)
Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul. (Nige1)
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,727
- Joined: 2006-June-05
- Location:Oslo, Norway
- Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy
Posted 2009-April-19, 02:00
Exclusion if that's in your methods, else just voidshowing.
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#5
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-April-19, 02:24
Exclusion. You don't introduce a new suit over 2♦, get it raised, then try to play game in diamonds!
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 2005-April-06
Posted 2009-April-19, 02:32
I basically never play exclusion in partner's suit.
I don't know what standard NMF is, but I would assume that partner denied 4 spades with 2♦. In that case, it's hardly necessary for 3♠ to be any 3-card support, opener can just temporize with 2n and responder will clarify if he really has 5-6. So I think 3♠ should really be some concentration of values.
Perhaps he has AQJx xxxx AQx xx. Having found out that opener has extra diamond length and some spade values, 5♦ might be a better contract than 3N, so he decided to try it. I'm not saying I endorse partner's bidding (why not just 3♦ over 2♦, for instance), but it seems more plausible than exclusion in my known 5+ suit when we don't really know we have a fit anywhere else.
I don't know what standard NMF is, but I would assume that partner denied 4 spades with 2♦. In that case, it's hardly necessary for 3♠ to be any 3-card support, opener can just temporize with 2n and responder will clarify if he really has 5-6. So I think 3♠ should really be some concentration of values.
Perhaps he has AQJx xxxx AQx xx. Having found out that opener has extra diamond length and some spade values, 5♦ might be a better contract than 3N, so he decided to try it. I'm not saying I endorse partner's bidding (why not just 3♦ over 2♦, for instance), but it seems more plausible than exclusion in my known 5+ suit when we don't really know we have a fit anywhere else.
#7
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2009-April-19, 04:15
After ♠ was set, this should be exclusion, even in opener's suit (you can open from xxxx).
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#8
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2009-April-19, 05:11
ummm probably obvious question, but
How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades?
How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 244
- Joined: 2008-June-03
Posted 2009-April-19, 07:32
gwnn, on Apr 19 2009, 06:11 AM, said:
ummm probably obvious question, but
How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades?
How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades?
The 1NT over 1♥ would surely deny 4♠? has to be 6-5 or more in the majors.
bridge is never always a game of exact, for those times it's all about percentages, partner and the opponents.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,094
- Joined: 2008-December-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North Texas, USA
- Interests:Mountain Biking
Posted 2009-April-19, 10:42
This auction makes less sense than Tyler's.
5♦ should be exclusion, but 2♣ should deny a 5-6 and 2♦ should deny 4♠.
So I confess I don't know what is going on either.
5♦ should be exclusion, but 2♣ should deny a 5-6 and 2♦ should deny 4♠.
So I confess I don't know what is going on either.
Hi y'all!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#11
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2009-April-19, 10:44
barryallen, on Apr 19 2009, 03:32 PM, said:
gwnn, on Apr 19 2009, 06:11 AM, said:
ummm probably obvious question, but
How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades?
How many spades does 1♥ then 2♣ then 2♠ show? Did 2♦ deny 4 spades?
The 1NT over 1♥ would surely deny 4♠? has to be 6-5 or more in the majors.
1NT might not deny 4 spades, but 2♦ should definitely deny them.
With a 5-6 you can bid and rebid your spades.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#12
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2009-April-19, 12:47
There are some really strange analyses here.
I cannot see how spades is remotely agreed here. In fact, I would imagine that the opponents could have an eight-card fit in spades after this auction.
I mean, after Opener's 2♦ call, Responder's 2♠ bid, IMO, just implied weak clubs, and Opener's 3♠ agreed with that sentiment.
So, I'd think 5♦ was just to play, as 4♦ would be the slam move.
I could imagine Opener with something like 3253 with no club honor and Responder with something like 2+ spades (the shorter the spades, the more spade honors), 5 hearts, diamond support, no club stopper (maybe short), and a relative minimum for GF.
I cannot see how spades is remotely agreed here. In fact, I would imagine that the opponents could have an eight-card fit in spades after this auction.
I mean, after Opener's 2♦ call, Responder's 2♠ bid, IMO, just implied weak clubs, and Opener's 3♠ agreed with that sentiment.
So, I'd think 5♦ was just to play, as 4♦ would be the slam move.
I could imagine Opener with something like 3253 with no club honor and Responder with something like 2+ spades (the shorter the spades, the more spade honors), 5 hearts, diamond support, no club stopper (maybe short), and a relative minimum for GF.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#13
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2009-April-19, 12:54
Exclusion my a.... Ken Rexford is right.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#14
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2009-April-19, 13:07
I'm with Ken. It sounds like Axx xx AKJxx xxx opposite KQx AKxxx Qxx xx. Well bid partner.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,033
- Joined: 2008-December-05
Posted 2009-April-19, 13:18
skaeran, on Apr 19 2009, 03:00 AM, said:
Exclusion if that's in your methods, else just voidshowing.
best answer ever
New website: http://www.justinlall.com
#16
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-April-19, 13:23
People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't...
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,214
- Joined: 2007-December-16
- Location:Pasadena, CA
Posted 2009-April-19, 13:24
Exclusion, I'm surprised people think this can be to play.
That said if my partner is not an experienced player then this is to play.
That said if my partner is not an experienced player then this is to play.
#18
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2009-April-19, 13:30
jdonn, on Apr 19 2009, 08:23 PM, said:
People are aware 3♦ over 2♦ would have been forcing, right? Because the answers make it look like many aren't...
Sure.
Whether responder has diamonds or spades, it's a weird auction. Maybe it would be even weirder with diamonds than with spades, I just don't think so.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#19
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2009-April-19, 14:01
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.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#20
- Vesuvius the Violent Volcano
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,216
- Joined: 2008-December-04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tampa-Area, Florida
- Interests:SLEEPING
Posted 2009-April-19, 19:28
Yay for the "Ignored Users" feature!
I passed. I didn't think 3♠ set trump... OOPS.