[whereagles]

Walddk, on Mar 8 2005, 04:18 PM, said:

So the country you live in accounts for 10% of Europe's population? (...)
I now see that you are from Portugal. Let me ask one of our Portuguese expert vugraph commentators what he/she thinks.

Well, in my country, Spain and France (~25% or so of Europe), people usually play french standard. If you check a textbook on the french standard, you'll see 1M-2C-2D-3M is a game-forcing raise.

But then again, few people have have actually bothered to read books (expert included), so if you ask 10 of the Portuguese vugraph commentators what 3M is, 9 will say it's invitational. The 10th (probably canelas) will say it's forcing. You might find surprising experts don't read books, but I know those experts and I can tell you they don't read much.

Since this is a forum and people come here to learn, the important point of our discussion is that people realize there are two ways of playing

1M 2C
2D 3M

one as invitational, the other as forcing. Regardless of the technical merits of each method, the thing here is to agree with pard which you play.

[LH2650]

Walddk, on Mar 8 2005, 10:00 AM, said:

whereagles, on Mar 8 2005, 06:56 AM, said:

Correct bidding would be (sayc):

1H 2C
2D 3H (forcing.. with 10-11 bid 2H, with 12-14 bid 4H, so 3H shows 15+)

I am not an expert on Standard American, but I doubt that 3♥ on this auction shows 15+. I would interpret the bid as showing 10-12 with exactly 3 hearts, whereas 2♥ would show the same range with a doubleton.

Fortunately, there is an SAYC System Booklet that can be downloaded from the ACBL web site (under Tools and Supplies). It states that 3♥ is forcing.

I would rebid 2♥ in 2/1, and 3♥ in SAYC.

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Mar 8 2005, 11:01 AM, said:

whereagles, on Mar 8 2005, 10:33 AM, said:

Well, the point is with a doubleton and 10-12 you can bid 2NT. No need to bid 2H on that hand.

.

You still owe me a reply regarding 2NT. You bid 2NT with 10-12 and 2 hearts whether you have a spade stopper or not? And if yes, how does your partner know if he can take your NT suggestion seriously or not?

Finally, if opener happens to have the spade stopper you may not have, do you agree that the NT contract is likely to be wrong-sided?

I honestly don't think you can find many who would bid 2NT without a spade stopper. Consequently, you must bid 2♥ with only 2 and 10-12, and therefore 3♥ becomes invitational with 3.

This is all very logical for the big majority. Your method is not in my opinion, but as long as you are happy, all is fine. Just one final point:

Why it would be easier to remember that 3♥ is invitational rather than game forcing as stated by you in a previous post is beyond me. Please explain. I obviously need to be enlightened.

Roland

P.S. I have now sent an e-mail to 5 Portuguese experts and asked them what is considered standard in Portugal. I will come back when I have received their responses.

[cherdano]

Hi Roland,

with respect to the "official" German Standard ("Forum D", or "Forum D Plus"), you would be wrong. The jump to 3♥ is game forcing. The standard explicitly says that 2NT promises a stopper in the 4th suit, so my own conclusion is that a rebid of 2♥ can be based on 2 or 3 card support. (In the description of Forum D I found, it explicitly promises 3 cards. Doesn't seem to add up.)

Now whether that has anything to do with what would be considered standard among German experts, I don't know. I don't even know whether s.th. like a German standard exists, given the strongest German players play von Arnim/Auken-precision or polish club. Maybe you know better, actually

Arend

[whereagles]

Quote

...reply regarding 2NT. You bid 2NT with 10-12 and 2 hearts whether you have a spade stopper or not? And if yes, how does your partner know if he can take your NT suggestion seriously or not? (...) do you agree that the NT contract is likely to be wrong-sided?

Bid 2NT regardless of the spade stopper. The stopper will be there most of the time anyway. If pard is really worried about it, he can always bid 3S.

As for NT being wrong sided, responder's shape is almost always 3235, so I hardly think this is a problem. It would be more serious if you held doubleton or singleton spade, but that's not the usual case. In any case, it is far more important to get your shape/strenght across than to point the location of high cards.

Quote

I honestly don't think you can find many who would bid 2NT without a spade stopper. Consequently, you must bid 2♥ with only 2 and 10-12, and therefore 3♥ becomes invitational with 3. This is all very logical for the big majority. Your method is not in my opinion

Well, as I said, 3H as forcing is part of the french standard. French standard wasn't invented by casual players: it was written down by knowledgeable theoreticians who thought a lot about it and about this sequence in particular. It is this sort of strong support bids that allow it to overcome the difficulties of not playing 2/1 game-force.

Quote

Why it would be easier to remember that 3♥ is invitational rather than game forcing as stated by you in a previous post is beyond me. Please explain. I obviously need to be enlightened.

I didn't say that. I said the opposite: it's easier to remember 3H as invitational.

Quote

P.S. I have now sent an e-mail to 5 Portuguese experts and asked them what is considered standard in Portugal. I will come back when I have received their responses.

You're wasting your time, but ok Just because everybody will say "invitational" doesn't mean it's the way it must be played...

[hotShot]

Since Forum D is the same as frensh standard, this should be the same there.

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Mar 8 2005, 01:55 PM, said:

Quote

Why it would be easier to remember that 3♥ is invitational rather than game forcing as stated by you in a previous post is beyond me. Please explain. I obviously need to be enlightened.

I didn't say that. I said the opposite: it's easier to remember 3H as invitational.

Please read what I wrote; You said the same, not the opposite. I didn't ask you to repeat what I said, I merely asked for an explanation as to why one of the two would be easier to remember than the other. For you perhaps, but why for everyone else?

Roland

[awm]

In sayc, and in most versions of standard, a direct raise:

1♥ - 3♥

shows 10-12 points and 3+ trumps. I'm aware that a lot of people like the limit raise to promise four, but I've never seen a description of "standard" bidding that included that treatment (most forms of 2/1 however consider direct raise to show four).

So in general standard bidders won't make a 2/1 bid with 3+ cards in partner's major, unless holding game forcing strength. It follows that 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥, which must show a real fit for partner (else why the jump) should show game-forcing strength. The simple preference to 2♥ would normally show doubleton heart and no stopper in spades.

As to which treatment is "better" it seems to me that requiring responder to make not one, but TWO temporizing bids just to show a raise of partner's first-bid suit is ridiculous. Take an auction like:

1♠-2♣-2♥

now in order to show a game force raise of spades, I would have to bid 3♦, and then continue with 4♠ after opener's rebid of 3♠ or 3NT? That method seems to border on unplayable, at least in my book.

-- Adam

[luke warm]

whereagles, on Mar 8 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

Quote

P.S. I have now sent an e-mail to 5 Portuguese experts and asked them what is considered standard in Portugal. I will come back when I have received their responses.

You're wasting your time, but ok Just because everybody will say "invitational" doesn't mean it's the way it must be played...

this brings up a point i made a while back... everybody here has someone (or maybe several someones) they look to as authoritative in bridge matters... maybe these authorities even change over time, but the fact remains that very few of us can point to ourselves as our authorities... well maybe we can do so, but that's quite apart from whether we *should* do so

i would be interested in knowing why the answers roland receives would not be authoritative for you... does whomever you presently hold to be your authority say something different? that would, at least for me, be reason enough to reject contrary views (for example, i hold jeff rubens to be my authority on leads, so i would respectfully discount what other experts say on the subject - until i'm convinced he's wrong and they're right)

however, i don't think it makes a lot of sense for me to be my own authority regarding anything to do with this game... an 'authority' has earned the title... one who hasn't earned it is just a pretender... that's just my unauthoritative opinion

[the hog]

In Acol, the sequence 1H 2C 2D 3H is 100% invit.
In 2/1 of course, in Polish C and in Forum D it is a gf. In sayc I really would not have a clue

Modern Polish C would bid 1H 2C 2D 2S as a waiting bid; 2N in similar sequences 1S 2D 2H 2N could also be bid without a stopper also as a waiting bid and 1S 2C 2S 2N is 100% forcing in modern PC and also does not require a stopper.

The upshot of all this is that it does not matter what you play as long as your pd is on the same wavelength. (I prefer 3H to be forcing, but that is a personal opinion only).

(Cherdano, Auken v A don't play Precision; they play a strong C 4 card M system which, if anything, more closely resembles Moscito than Precision.)

[badderzboy]

Assuming 2♦ is correct my background is ACOL so I reversed for strength? but I try and play SAYC for obvious reasons how does South's bidding differentiate between these two hands then?

Scoring: IMP

---

&

Scoring: IMP

---

[whereagles]

walddk said:

You said the same, not the opposite.

Hum.. you're right. Somehow I understood it the other way around. Anyway... despite the fact your question "why is 3H as inv easier to remember" borders on triviality, I'll oblige and reply. There are many sequences where a jump to the 3-level is inv (1M-3M, 1m-1M-3M, 1x-1y-3x, 1H-1S-1NT-3H), so people tend naturally to think in terms of 'jump to 3-level = inv'. There are, of course, examples where a jump to 3-level is strong (1M-3m, 1NT-3x, 1x-1y-3z), but since those occasions come up less frequently, there is a tendency to see jumps to 3-level as inv.

luke warm said:

i would be interested in knowing why the answers roland receives would not be authoritative for you... does whomever you presently hold to be your authority say something different?

Well, this is a rather long story... Let me summarize it in two points. First is I have reasons not to hold what they say in great regard, but this forum is not the place disclose those reasons.

Second and last, I have only one authority in this game: me. This might sound pretentious, but I prefer to trust my own judgement rather than following other people's judgements. Which is why I always make my own arguments and hardly ever quote anyone. My way of doing things is hard. It requires a lot of reading and unbiased self-criticism. But I feel happy being the way I am, which in the end is what matters

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Mar 9 2005, 04:12 AM, said:

Second and last, I have only one authority in this game: me. This might sound pretentious, but I prefer to trust my own judgement rather than following other people's judgements.

As long as you feel comfortable about this, it's none of other people's business, except for your partner(s) of course. Did your judgements bring you success in major events?

You seem to do a lot of reading. Have you been able to translate the theory into action at the table? Maybe you will be kind enough to tell the rest of us how we may become better players if we follow your example?

In your opinion, 90%+ of us don't read enough. Are we hopeless cases then?

Roland

[Brandal]

whereagles, on Mar 9 2005, 04:12 AM, said:

Second and last, I have only one authority in this game: me. This might sound pretentious, but I prefer to trust my own judgement rather than following other people's judgements.

Maybe you're the best bridgeplayer in the world,
I don't know,but even then I would say it's rather
pretentious.

Does your pd also have you as the only authority?
I think he has to,if it is going to work out?

Trusting your own judgement is an entirely different
thing isn't it?
I mean,we all have to do that every time we play
a hand of bridge?

You think I sit and ponder....."I wonder how Fred
would play this,or what would Fred lead here?"

Nah....sorry Fred,I don't

[hotShot]

Well there is more than one right bid in any auction.

1) There is a bid that is required by your system.
2) There is a bid that describes your hand best.
3) There is a bid that is perfect for this deal.
4) There is a bid that can produce the best result. (e.g. psyche)
5) There is a bid that disturbs opponents bidding most.

This is not always the same bid. A bid can even be proved as bad, if it's agreed in your system it is the 'right' bid.

So any authority, that is not playing your system, might pick another bid. So the only authority for your own bidding, is you and your partner.
(But of cause other pairs, using their own authority might be much better. )

[whereagles]

walddk said:

As long as you feel comfortable about this, it's none of other people's business, except for your partner(s) of course. Did your judgements bring you success in major events? Maybe you will be kind enough to tell the rest of us how we may become better players if we follow your example?

You misunderstand me, or perhaps I haven't made it clear enough.

I DO NOT mean I don't care what other people say. Quite the contrary. It is only if you read a lot that you can compare your own judgement to other people's judgement. What I DO mean is the end, after I gather and analyze all the data, I form an opinion and that opinion is of my own. It may or may not coincide with someone else's opinion, but it will always be my own and shall be quoted as mine. Not anyone else's.

I hope this made it clear what I mean when I say "I am my own authority". I consider my attitude correct because it is based on criticising your own and other people's actions/ideas. The exercise of criticism if the first step towards knowing where you stand and is a positive philosophical attitude. If everyone could do it, you'd do away with fundamentalisms, dogmas, indoctrinations, propaganda and all that stuff used to brainwash people into doing something they don't really want to. Like for instance going to war.

Quote

In your opinion, 90%+ of us don't read enough. Are we hopeless cases then?

No. Anyone who browses these forums has a genuine interest in the game, which shows he's willing to learn, and therefore reads enough.

Anyway, you did a lot of asking already, so now answer this: what exactly is the point you want to make?

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Mar 9 2005, 09:19 AM, said:

Anyway, you did a lot of asking already, so now answer this: what exactly is the point you want to make?

My intention should be obvious. You seem to think what is right for you is right for everyone. You don't want to listen to people who have more experience than yourself; you want to make your own decisions, because only you can judge what is best.

Quote

First is I have reasons not to hold what they say in great regard, but this forum is not the place disclose those reasons.

Well, it's your choice of course. I disagree, that is my point. As long as I live I will be prepared to listen to and learn from players who are better than myself. By doing so I became the player I am today, and I am quite happy about it.

Roland

[whereagles]

Quote

You seem to think what is right for you is right for everyone. You don't want to listen to people who have more experience than yourself;

That is completely false. I never said that. Have you actually read my previous post???

Quote

you want to make your own decisions, because only you can judge what is best.

But of course! That's the whole point. Decisions have to be MY OWN, not anyone else's.

Look, we seem to be having a major misunderstanding here. I think it's best if we just stop it now.

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Mar 9 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

That is completely false. I never said that. Have you actually red my previous post???

I have read all of them, and every time I replied I have been quoting certain parts of them. To be honest with you: I am not impressed, so let's just agree that we disagree.

Finally, although you are entitled to remain anonymous, I think it would have been a good idea to reveal your identity. I even asked you to do that in one of my previous posts. The question is now: Did you read mine?

Roland

[Brandal]

whereagles, on Mar 9 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

But of course! That's the whole point. Decisions have to be MY OWN, not anyone else's.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with making
one's own decisions