An annoying, petty thing that I just wanted to post
#1
Posted 2010-September-27, 09:24
NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:
"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"
You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.
No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#2
Posted 2010-September-27, 09:26
Also 3N as 13-15 with 2(443) is basically unplayable to me, I would never bid it even if that was my agreement. Your partner might have felt the same way!
#3
Posted 2010-September-27, 09:44
Did you ask what he would rebid after you did bid 1S-1NT-any-?
It seems that he has no rebid.
I would have rebid with your hand. Partner may have a long suit and we cannot bid it unless you bid over that forcing NT bid.
Regards,
Robert
#4
Posted 2010-September-27, 10:22
If you are playing "forcing" 1NT responses, I agree with your partner first. He expects you to take another bid. The fact that he should have done something else initially is not relevant.
This situation is similar to a psyche situation. In my opinion, whether the partner of the psyche bidder could have done anything to prevent a disaster after the psyche is not relevant. All bad consequences that follow a psyche are the fault of the psyche bidder (unless partner does something truly outrageous).
#5
Posted 2010-September-27, 10:59
It is not my business for now what partner wants to achieve using forcing 1NT instead of some other system bid. My duty is make another bid and let Partner to clarify.
#6
Posted 2010-September-27, 11:04
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 09:24 AM, said:
The strong feeling I have is about calling 1NT forcing. Even if pard could not have the hand he had, your RHO deserves to know.
Certainly you can do whatever you want i.e., violate agreements by passing a forcing bid. But here you did so because of an inference or more inferences which make 1NT in-fact only semi-forcing in your eyes.
#7
Posted 2010-September-27, 11:37
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 10:24 AM, said:
NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:
"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"
You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.
No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.
somehow it seems wrong to use forcing (or semi-forcing in your case ) 1NT with a GF hand. There should normally be other choices.
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
#8
Posted 2010-September-27, 11:41
Ever passed a reverse?
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#9
Posted 2010-September-27, 11:58
ArtK78, on Sep 27 2010, 07:22 PM, said:
If you are playing "forcing" 1NT responses, I agree with your partner first. He expects you to take another bid. The fact that he should have done something else initially is not relevant.
This situation is similar to a psyche situation. In my opinion, whether the partner of the psyche bidder could have done anything to prevent a disaster after the psyche is not relevant. All bad consequences that follow a psyche are the fault of the psyche bidder (unless partner does something truly outrageous).
For a change, I am in complete agreement with Art.
You passed a forcing bid.
You made your bed. Now you have to lie in it.
It could very well be that taking this position is the right move with this hand. Hard to say without knowing precisely what kind of response structure your partner imposed on you.
#10
Posted 2010-September-27, 12:10
Sorry, I just don't get the reasoning behind agreeing to play a system, then deliberately ignoring what you know you should do with this hand.
Just curious, did you also review your system about what partner does with
x Kx xxx QJ10xxxx
at the same time? (ok, so maybe you have some systemic bid for this hand that I don't know about, but for me, it's a 1N forcing response).
You get all the blame here, Phil.
So many experts, not enough X cards.
#11
Posted 2010-September-27, 12:20
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 10:24 AM, said:
NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:
"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"
You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.
No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,1798, said:
And penance more will do.
Partner's systemic aberration seems minor. Yours seems major.
If you don't like a convention like 1N = forcing then don't play it
If you agree to a convention but depart from it and it works, then you may expect congratulations for your inspired view
If your attempt at the brilliancy prize misfires, then you grovel -- no excuses, no attempts to shift the blame
So you do well to confess here and suffer inevitable public humiliation as penance
#12
Posted 2010-September-27, 12:29
#13
Posted 2010-September-27, 12:37
crazy system.................
#14
Posted 2010-September-27, 12:50
pirate22, on Sep 27 2010, 07:37 PM, said:
crazy system.................
No, he meant that that hand bids 1NT.
FWIW, I used to play a system with non-forcing 2/1s, it wasn't unplayable by any means. GF hands went via 1NT (forcing!).
#15
Posted 2010-September-27, 13:14
I don't understand Aquahombre's comments at all. There was no concealed agreement or inference that was available to Phil that wasn't available to opponents. In fact, he passed and it turned out to be a disaster.
#16
Posted 2010-September-27, 13:24
Me, I also would have opened and I wouldn't have passed even if partner seldom/never will have a 15 count. If 1NT is the right contract that's just too bad.
That being said, my partners are always allowed to do what they think is right. Even when, as here, it clearly (?) isn't. I have my own eccentricities.
#17
Posted 2010-September-27, 13:53
Echognome, on Sep 27 2010, 01:14 PM, said:
O.K. , if it never happens again. Since it is announced as forcing (announcement required in Phil's jurisdiction), it feels wrong to do so when intending to pass --but since that is your agreement, fine. The second time it happens, the announcement is contrary to your agreements and/or experience. As mentioned before, RHO gets to know if, by your agreements, the auction will come back around to him.
The fact that passing did not work out well this time is not relevent to what I feel strongly about.
#18
Posted 2010-September-27, 13:54
kenberg, on Sep 27 2010, 02:24 PM, said:
#19
Posted 2010-September-27, 14:02
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 10:41 AM, said:
What hand in your agreements would bid a forcing NT but would not be a semiforcing 1N in a standard system?
What hand would bid a semiforcing 1N in a standard system but would not bid a forcing NT in your system?
If the answer is none, then your forcing 1N is identical to my semiforcing 1N. Add to that that sometimes you pass 1N when you think it's right, then guess what, you are playing a semiforcing NT!
#20
Posted 2010-September-27, 14:35
rogerclee, on Sep 27 2010, 03:02 PM, said:
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 10:41 AM, said:
What hand in your agreements would bid a forcing NT but would not be a semiforcing 1N in a standard system?
What hand would bid a semiforcing 1N in a standard system but would not bid a forcing NT in your system?
If the answer is none, then your forcing 1N is identical to my semiforcing 1N. Add to that that sometimes you pass 1N when you think it's right, then guess what, you are playing a semiforcing NT!
I know.
Wish most of the posters wouldn't have taken this so seriously. The title is there for a reason - I'm not really looking for justification nor less sympathy. We actually both laughed a little afterward.
I too play a semi-forcing 1N in most of my partnerships, and just decided to experiment a little. Looks like he did the same thing.
Yes, we are still on speaking terms jeez lol.
As far as the future is concerned, I doubt I'm passing this 1N (with him anyway) but I also doubt he's monkeying around with 1N with a 15!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.