[Hanoi5]

MP's, red vs white:

♠74
♥K9
♦K72
♣AKQ876

Pa-Pa-1♠-2♣
Pa-2♥-Pa-???

What would you bid? An maybe more importantly, what is 2♠?

[mikeh]

In 1945, which I assume is intended by the topic heading, 2♠ would have promised 1st round control....I have read all of the BWs from that era, admittedly some time ago (but not when they were new), and I don't think that they had developed a lot of logical bidding ideas....very few NA experts then played in 'established partnerships'.

Nowadays, cue bids can have a wide range of meanings. I think it here means that our hand has grown up. However, he shouldn't infer a huge heart fit, since he is a passed hand and surely we aren't slamming...so we could have invited via 3♥ or bid 4♥....and if we are slamming in hearts, we can show that later....so for now it is just a 'nice hand' one round force, asking partner to do something intelligent and cheap....thus 2N if appropriate.

This would be tougher, imo, if he were unpassed and 2♥ forcing one round, which it would be for me.

[JLOGIC]

2S

[Hanoi5]

Well, I messed up the topic tittle by ten years but the result is the same. 2♠ stands out as a cue-bid with a wide range of possibilities BUT at the time it showed a spade stopper. The winning bid in this situation was 3♥ which nowadays would show support and probably an invitation.

[JLOGIC]

And people still quote guys like Terrence Reese or the Blue Team or whoever on bidding, lol. And think that the Blue team could beat the 20th seed at bridge today.

[nige1]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-May-05, 02:57, said:

And people still quote guys like Terrence Reese or the Blue Team or whoever on bidding, lol. And think that the Blue team could beat the 20th seed at bridge today.

I'm a throw-back who quotes them. It's empty speculation but IMO, In their prime (which did last for about 15 years), the Blue team were better than any modern team.

[JLOGIC]

lol

[JLOGIC]

Didn't we have this conversation once on a federer thread? You cannot compare across eras, it is not fair because games evolve and things change. Ofc if the blue team used their bidding methods of the time against a modern team they would get completely destroyed. That does not take anything away from them. But to say they were better than any modern team in the sense that they would rate to win a match against a modern team if you took the modern team back in time is silly...surely that is not what you're trying to say? Do you also think Rod Laver would beat Andy Roddick under the same conditions?

If you mean that the blue team would get a chance to update their bidding methods then yes that is just speculation but it goes against the point I was making (which is LOL referencing stars of 50 years ago on bidding).

[JLOGIC]

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__451136

[ggwhiz]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-May-05, 07:24, said:

If you mean that the blue team would get a chance to update their bidding methods then yes

Soooo true about comparing their 60 year old bidding methods to todays game.

However, I entered the Vanderbilt in Reno in the mid 80's on the #106 seeded team and survived to play the second day, first 32 against Lea Dupont and Garozzo and the next 32 against Garozzo and Belladona.

My pard declared 2♣ and asked Belladona about their signals and he said No. Garozzo said "I apologize for my partners English but he means to say we don't play any".

Belladona grinned at my pard and in broken English said "We tink we know your hand at trick 3 better than you." He wasn't kidding and that's long after his prime.

He passed on within a few months but it's my #1 highlight of witnessing the combination of talent and class that would surely keep up and kick ass in the modern game.

[Statto]

2♠ here is a direction asking bid, a bit like 4SF. Whether it's GF or F1 may be down to agreement. Regardless, that's my bid.