[gnasher]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2010, 11:23 PM, said:

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 2NT (meant as artificial weak, but I'm ok with it natural as well
3♦ pass

Surely 3♦ here is non-forcing opposite normal responding values? That is, it's what you'd bid with a 4-6 16-count. With his actual hand, opener would raise 2NT to 3NT.

I'm usually very reluctant to break partnership discipline, but I'm sure Justin's right about this: if you respond 1♠ you should pass 2♥.

[Jlall]

Wow a hand gnasher will pass a forcing bid! I guess that's why gnasher would never bid 1S though

[jdonn]

I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids but I like to really be certain it's right. Maybe on this hand it is. I still want to respond to the opening, and still worry partner will be 3361 or that he will have a hand that makes game (T AKxx AKQxxx Kx, maybe some 5-6 hands) but I'm willing to compromise on passing 2♥ since it seems like it will usually be right.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 10 2010, 05:03 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

Opening the in between hands at the 1 level and responding light? Ok ok maybe I've said enough, the secret is already leaking out.

Why not play a forcing club or forcing pass system then and save the room and get the benefit of limited 1-bids?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 08:39 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 10 2010, 05:03 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

There is a hole in standard-type bidding between 1-bids and really big hands and it has no good solution.

Opening the in between hands at the 1 level and responding light? Ok ok maybe I've said enough, the secret is already leaking out.

Why not play a forcing club or forcing pass system then and save the room and get the benefit of limited 1-bids?

I agree. See now we've got two good solutions (depending what you consider 'standard type bidding'), that'll teach you to say there are none.

[Siegmund]

There is room for debate about the gap between "two solutions" and "two good solutions." It's the closest I've heard to a reason for why so many people like these maniacal 3- and 4-point responses to 1-bids. The only thing super-light responding has ever gotten me is down in 2NT.

I think it's part of the appeal of the Polish club family for me. The 11-18 1-bids are "just like standard bids, with the problem strong hands removed." (Though especially with the strong 2-suiters the problem just comes back to haunt us a couple rounds later in the auction.)

[Cyberyeti]

Siegmund, on Jan 10 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

There is room for debate about the gap between "two solutions" and "two good solutions." It's the closest I've heard to a reason for why so many people like these maniacal 3- and 4-point responses to 1-bids. The only thing super-light responding has ever gotten me is down in 2NT.

This is the point of what I play, you don't go down in 2N on bal 18 opposite 4 because we use 1x-1y-2N as an artificial unbalanced GF, so there is no gap between our 1N rebid (we play a weak no trump) and 2N opener. Hence we're playing in 1N.

It does mean that we will occasionally play in 2N with 15 opposite 7, but that stands a much better chance than 18 opposite 4.

[whereagles]

gnasher, on Jan 11 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 10 2010, 11:23 PM, said:

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 2NT (meant as artificial weak, but I'm ok with it natural as well
3♦ pass

Surely 3♦ here is non-forcing opposite normal responding values? That is, it's what you'd bid with a 4-6 16-count. With his actual hand, opener would raise 2NT to 3NT.

lol right. Silly me. 3NT is obvious, of course.

I normally wouldn't respond to 1♦ though... There's a bit of a difference between responding with, say, 5 cards to the ace and the actual quackish hand.

[Fluffy]

I play that after

1♦-1♠
2♥-2NT (2NT = weak)

only 3♣ accepts a partscore, the rest are stronger.

I don't focus too much on partscores I guess


About passing a reverse... I have seen my opponents doing it 3 times in my life, and I always collected a bottom, 3 hands is not enough to judge, but m impression is that it is at least playable.

[zen]

I agree with Jdonn

1D-1S
2H-2NT*leb
3NT

Opener is a max and the hands are misfits. I have seen much worse contracts then this one, and its tough for Opener to stop on a dime in a suit on the three level with the opening hand.

If responder passes 1D they could catch partner with:

AKQ5
5
AKJ1076
K6

And miss a perfectly good game

Or

AK74
Q8
J1054
A54

Where spades is a much better contract, and makes it more difficult for the opponents to get to their heart contract then initially passing.

[kenrexford]

If normal stuff:

Open 1♦-allpass

or

Open 2♣-2♥(neg)-2NT

Sometimes you get stuck. I'm not worrying that much about a stiff spade when stuck with terrible alternatives.

With two-way strong opening structure:

Opener: 2♣ (strong forcing opening, 0-3 spades unless maxi-balanced 24+)
Responder: 2♦ (waiting)
Opener: 2♠ (four hearts and a longer minor OR 1-4-4-4)
Responder: 2NT (no heart fit)
Opener: 3♦ (four hearts, longer diamonds, not three spades)
Responder: judgment
Opener: possible judgment call

or

Opener: 2♣ (same)
Responder: 2♥ (double negative)
Opener: 3♦ (diamonds, 0-3 spades)
Responder: 3♠ (0-3 hearts, punt)
Opener: judgment