[mich-b]

4♦ was reasonable , though minimum for bypassing 3NT. (4♣ might be a better bid, using the space to show control "on the way").
5♣ was ok. I agree with showing 1st round controls below game, especially by an already limited hand. (limited by bidding 3NT).
6♦ was way too much. 4♦ was already a move towards slam, and the West hand surely does not hold additional values.

[jdonn]

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

East and West played 2/1 game-forcing. I will not ask the question for a fourth time, because I already know the answer - to play that way is a mistake.

Oh I'll bite. If east/west were playing some form of standard where 2/1 was not game forcing, and east responded 2♦,...
- If west can only raise to 3♦ nonforcing, how is this easier than if they were playing 2/1?
- If west can raise to 3♦ forcing, how is this any different at all than if they were playing 2/1?

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

(Memo to self: asking hanp a question is a mistake. I knew this, but I had forgotten.)

His posts in this thread have been far more constructive than yours! But you certainly know as well as I do, sarcasm is an effective tool for avoiding the blatant truth about oneself.

[aguahombre]

This is a very interesting hand, to me.

1)Criticism of playing 2/1 --probably justified, but workable in the right hands.
2)Blanket acceptance that this East hand is a 2/1 game force response --in spite of the same people's light opening bid style.
3)Slam would not be in the picture after a forcing NT. 3NT or 5D would be the decision.
4)Most interesting, to me anyway, is the singleton club King. This card makes 3NT and 5D equal (not equal score, just equally making). Without it, 3NT sucks. With it, 5D is unlikely to be defeated by a Heart rough.

[hatchett]

It would be ruff luck if 5♦ was defeated by a ♥ rough.

[aguahombre]

hatchett, on Oct 26 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

It would be ruff luck if 5♦ was defeated by a ♥ rough.

no pun intended, I am sure. With the club K available to allow the Club ace to be used for a heart pitch, only a 5/1 heart break could beat 5D (or a 6/1 spade break). Without the Club KIng stiff, then 4-2 hearts would probably do in the contract.

[kenrexford]

If the partnership has any auction, using any style, where the bidding goes something like...

blah-blah-blah-3NT-?

...and a minor suit slam is being considered, then the best advertisement for the partnership approach is not to have the rest of the auction be a jumbled mess of goo.

Opener bids 4♦. We have no idea what this shows, as no one seems to have said what this shows.

Responder bids 5♣. We also have no idea what this shows, as no one seems to have said what this shows.

Opener then takes this non-information and blasts 6♦, for unknown reasons.

Auctions, and analyses of auction after the fact, seem enhanced when tools exist and bids have meanings.

So, I'd really like to know:

1. What is RKCB, if anything?
2. What kind of cuebidding style is used here, if any, or is pattern bidding used?

[dburn]

mich-b, on Oct 26 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

4♦ was reasonable , though minimum for bypassing 3NT. (4♣ might be a better bid, using the space to show control "on the way").
5♣ was ok. I agree with showing 1st round controls below game, especially by an already limited hand. (limited by bidding 3NT).
6♦ was way too much. 4♦ was already a move towards slam, and the West hand surely does not hold additional values.

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

As to sarcasm, I will say only that passing 3NT is a call that contains vast hidden merits that my humble and unworthy eyes cannot perceive. But if East had held

♠xx ♥AQx ♦KJxxx ♣Qxx

then I would rather - well, I would almost rather play an entire session with hanp than play these cards in 3NT and not 5♦.

[cherdanno]

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

[phil_20686]

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

If 4c is a cue bid, then bidding 4d means west has a forward going hand with no club control and neither of the AK of trumps. If he also didn't have a heart control i think i would find a new partner.

Presumeably 3d already showed extras, so he is showing more extras, he must have at least, say

AKxxx
AK
QJxx
xx

Probably the Q of spades as well.

The short answer is,

xx Qxx AKxxx Axx

can bid 6d over 4d 100% sure it will be a good spot, although you might be slightly worried that you are missing grand.

[awm]

In general there is a problem that it's important in game auctions to be able to show or deny extra values. Playing methods where a 2/1 is not necessarily game forcing, you need this in order to determine when to stop in a partial and when to bid game. But it's extremely valuable when 2/1 is game forcing also, to evaluate slam prospects. Some (not necessarily all) 2/1 players do take such an approach. So on this hand:

1♠ - 2♦
3♦(1) - 3NT(2)
Pass(3)

(1) 4+♦; if only four diamonds then will have extra values (like a good 14+)
(2) Suggests playing 3NT despite partner's extras
(3) This hand is kind of shoddy for 16 points; having already shown extras it's a pass.

If responder has one of the control-rich thirteen-counts people are suggesting, he can make a slam try rather than bidding 3NT since he knows that partner has extras. Playing in 5♦ or 4NT will be safe, and sometimes you can still get out in 3NT anyway. Not to mention that some of the hands include ace-empty in a round suit, when 5♦ could easily be the right game.

So I think the key here is having a 3♦ call that shows extras. Stylistically, 2/1 GF has a lot of issues if you have no way to show/deny extras in game-forcing auctions, because you often get these decisions where you have a bit more than a minimum and need to decide whether to push past game. But there's no reason you can't play a version of 2/1 GF where you do show and deny extras, and in fact many 2/1 players do have such agreements.

It would also help to have a way to bid keycard without partner's response carrying you beyond 5♦, but I think this is a secondary issue (and I also think that "minorwood" is a horrible convention; I would play kickback here and someone would be bidding 4♥=RKC if we got past 3NT).

[phil_20686]

also, agree with chrdano that xx Qxx AKxxx Axx probably doesnt want to play in 3N opposite a hand that is 5-4 in the pointy suits, as its quite likely that partner has a rounded suit singleton and netierh of these suits ant to play in 3N opposite a singleton.

[dburn]

cherdanno, on Oct 26 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

♠xx  ♥Qxx  ♦AKxxx  ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

[Jlall]

lol dburn you are such a huge troll, I can't believe anyone even takes any of your posts seriously. They are great unintentional comedy though, kepp it up.

Edit: Also try having a game with Cascade some time I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

[phil_20686]

[quote name='dburn' date='Oct 26 2009, 12:31 PM'] I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.[/QUOTE]
Because if opener has:

[sp]QJ10xx [he]Ax [di]QJxx [cl]Kx

which would presumably open 1[sp] and raise 2[di] to 3[di], you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4[di]. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4[di] to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits. [/quote]
This is not a 3d bid.

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

[cherdanno]

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 26 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

♠xx  ♥Qxx  ♦AKxxx  ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

Come on, unless you consider me an idiot it was obvious that I meant that this hand would bid 4♦ over 4♣, not 4♦ over 3♦.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Oct 26 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 26 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

♠xx  ♥Qxx  ♦AKxxx  ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

Come on, unless you consider me an idiot it was obvious that I meant that this hand would bid 4♦ over 4♣, not 4♦ over 3♦.

His comment could justifiably be based on the idiocy coming from either direction. You only considered one possibility.

[phil_20686]

I reckon nyou were right the first time cherdanno.

With a hand that is 5422 15-17 which is heavy in teh short suits, most people will open 1N. With xx Qxx AKxxx Axx oppsite a hand with 5s4d extras which was unsuitable for a 1N openening, 5d will virtually always be better than 3N un,less you happen to have 9 cashers opposite say AKQxx Jx QJxx Qx, But still 5d has good play. Needs a heart lead and then spades to not break when a club lead seems just as likely.

[fred]

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Because if opener has:

♠QJ10xx  ♥Ax  ♦QJxx  ♣Kx

This is not a 3d bid.

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

Some excellent players would agree with you, but I for one could not stomach the notion of failing to raise to 3D with just about any hand containing 4-card support. Perhaps it should be noted that I tend not to open the bidding with complete garbage.

IMO this thread is a good reminder that sometimes even experts forget this obvious truth:

No matter what system you play, even if nobody makes a terrible bid, you will sometimes get to the wrong contract!

(Which is not to say that I agree with all the bids in the original auction that was presented)

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[phil_20686]

fred, on Oct 26 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Because if opener has:

♠QJ10xx  ♥Ax  ♦QJxx  ♣Kx

This is not a 3d bid.

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

Some excellent players would agree with you, but I for one could not stomach the notion of failing to raise to 3D with just about any hand containing 4-card support. Perhaps it should be noted that I tend not to open the bidding with complete garbage.

IMO this thread is a good reminder that sometimes even experts forget this obvious truth:

No matter what system you play, even if nobody makes a terrible bid, you will sometimes get to the wrong contract!

(Which is not to say that I agree with all the bids in the original auction that was presented)

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm interested in what type of system you would play here fred, surely differentiating hands is at least as important as showing immeadeate support in this situation? Do you play 2d as 5+ and commonly raise on 3, such that the 4th diamond itself constitutes an extra worth showing?

I can't see what the gain is in bidding 3d immeadeately, when i could bid 2s-2n-3d to show the same hand with better limits on strength. I assume there is some hidden gain here that I am missing?

[Jlall]

fred, on Oct 26 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Because if opener has:

♠QJ10xx  ♥Ax  ♦QJxx  ♣Kx

This is not a 3d bid.

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

Some excellent players would agree with you, but I for one could not stomach the notion of failing to raise to 3D with just about any hand containing 4-card support. Perhaps it should be noted that I tend not to open the bidding with complete garbage.

IMO this thread is a good reminder that sometimes even experts forget this obvious truth:

No matter what system you play, even if nobody makes a terrible bid, you will sometimes get to the wrong contract!

(Which is not to say that I agree with all the bids in the original auction that was presented)

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

So you mean the whole concept of constructing specific hands where if you take an action it won't work out well is stupid?

For instance, saying "You pass 3N? Then what happens when partner has THIS HAND" or "You don't bid 6D? Then what happens if partner has THIS hand" might be silly?

What a concept!

Seriously bridge is a game of percentages. Nobody is claiming if they take an action it will work out whenever partner has any hand in his possible set of hands. So refuting someones bid based on one cherry picked hand is pretty silly.

The silliest thing in this thread is by far dbrn saying that you KNOW one common system is inferior to another common system. The second silliest thing is dburn going off on hanp for giving his input in a thread where dburn asked for advice.

But the joke is on all of us for thinking dburn actually cares what anyone has to say, he knows it all and would like to make not-so-clever jokes and not-so-clever references to obscure things to show us how smart he is.

Oh and did I mention he likes to troll Americans?