Free bid Seems I've been playing it wrong for a while
#1
Posted 2011-October-19, 00:53
1. (1♣)-X-(2♣)-2♥
2. (1♣)-X-(2♣)-3♣
3. (1♣)-X-(1♠)-2♥
4. (1♣)-X-(1♥)-1♠
5. (1♣)-1♠-(2♣)-2♥
6. (1♣)-1♦-(2♣)-2♥
7. (1♣)-1♠-(2♣)-3♥
Thanks, and sorry for what seems like a very basic question.
#2
Posted 2011-October-19, 01:20
2. GF with doubt about strain, either both majors or looking for club stopper
3. Same as 1.
4. Ditto
5. This is F1 without any agreements I think, though it makes lot of sense to play it as "NFB"
6. Same as 5.
7. If you have 2H as F1, you can use this for any special meaning, ie. fitjump. Playing 2H NF, this should be GF with good hearts.
I'm not sure, I might be off with some standard meaning but I know I'll be corrected here
#3
Posted 2011-October-19, 01:34
#4
Posted 2011-October-19, 01:50
Regardless, I object to a WC or anyone else using "that's not how you play". What you play is exactly how you play; and if it works for you, fine. Might or might not be optimum, and perhaps he could explain why; but his dogmatic pronouncement would be a turnoff (in person, or in a forum).
#5
Posted 2011-October-19, 02:05
#6
Posted 2011-October-19, 02:30
Antrax, on 2011-October-19, 02:05, said:
I see nothing in what you bid at the table which goes against "all-game-forcing responses should start with a cue bid"....nor is there anything in Flameous' post contrary to that. "All g.f. start with cuebid" is not the same as "all cuebids are game-force".
Even so, I bet the WC has jumped directly to 4M sometime in his life. Last I looked, 4M is game, and was not a cuebid.
#7
Posted 2011-October-19, 02:35
#8
Posted 2011-October-19, 02:40
it doesn't necessarly mean that the cue should be a GF, for example with more space available the cuebid can just be forcing to suit agreement if you like, for example, 1♣ - x - 1♦ - 2♣ allows a major to be bid (2M) and supported (3M) without committing to game.
on the other hand, the comment above about 1♣ - x - 2♣ - 3♣ not being GF is obviously erroneous as you could make a responsive double with fewer values.
one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that it's utter tosh to demand 9 points for a free bid at the 2 level. if it went 1♥ - X - 2♦ and I have KTxxx♠ and out, i'm not passing. the 'world class' opponent is probably confused by a jump to the 2-level.
#9
Posted 2011-October-19, 02:52
Ax QTxxx xx xxxx i would bid 2♥ on anyday after 1♣-DBL-2♣
1♣-DBL-2♣-3♣ is % 100 gf to me.
aguahombre, on 2011-October-19, 01:50, said:
You have DBL card for this
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#10
Posted 2011-October-19, 02:57
Antrax, on 2011-October-19, 02:05, said:
A freebid at the two-level usually refers to
1banana-(1or2oranges)-2apples
this shows indeed at least a good 9.
But the examples you give are different. A freebid oopposite a t/o double is typically 6-9.
In your first example, 3♥ is invitational. You bid correctly.
#11
Posted 2011-October-19, 03:30
#12
Posted 2011-October-19, 03:43
xx AQxxxx xxxx x is not the same hand as Kxx AQJx xxxx xx. It is not a good idea to bid the same way with both hands. The world is gray and it's not as simple as "invitational in hearts" and that is a box and there's only invitational hands in hearts in that box and whenever you double and bid 3♥ you have a hand from that box.
It pays to bid 3♥ on something like the first one (well maybe that one is starting to be a 4♥ bid already but yea you get my point I hope?) and double to try to look for a good strain on the second one.
George Carlin
#13
Posted 2011-October-19, 04:10
gwnn, on 2011-October-19, 03:43, said:
xx AQxxxx xxxx x is not the same hand as Kxx AQJx xxxx xx. It is not a good idea to bid the same way with both hands. The world is gray and it's not as simple as "invitational in hearts" and that is a box and there's only invitational hands in hearts in that box and whenever you double and bid 3♥ you have a hand from that box.
It pays to bid 3♥ on something like the first one (well maybe that one is starting to be a 4♥ bid already but yea you get my point I hope?) and double to try to look for a good strain on the second one.
But I wonder if it is best to be able to distinguish xx AQxxxx xxxx x and Kxx AQJx xxxx xx
or is it better to be able to preempt with:
xx Axxxxx xxxx x
xxx AJxxx xxxx x
...and what is most common for experts?
Thanks,
Koen
#14
Posted 2011-October-19, 04:49
George Carlin
#15
Posted 2011-October-19, 04:51
Antrax, on 2011-October-19, 02:05, said:
Antrax, I agree with the above posters about the general meaning of these bids. That said, I've discovered here that "Israeli standard" is very far from "standard" as I've seen it anywhere else. This may have been confusing the issue, but I'm not sure.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#16
Posted 2011-October-19, 04:55
#17
Posted 2011-October-19, 05:11
George Carlin
#18
Posted 2011-October-19, 05:22
Antrax, on 2011-October-19, 04:55, said:
Maybe not but it is confusing that they play clockwise even when writing the commentary in Hebrew
#19
Posted 2011-October-19, 11:23
aguahombre, on 2011-October-19, 01:50, said:
MrAce, on 2011-October-19, 02:52, said:
Yes, we have a DBL card for that, but our choice of whether to use it is different from your choice.
(1c) X (2C) X ....is obviously responsive, but with competive values for the 2-level. This might be important for partner to know if there is further competition.
(1c) X (2c) 3C....shows values appropriate for the 3-level or higher. This distinction might be important for partner to know, whether or not the opponents further compete.

Help
