[Hanoi5]

MP's, all white, you hold:

♠AQJ9xxx
♥x
♦x
♣KQJx

(Pa)-1♥-(3♦)-3♠
(pa)-4♥-(pa)-???

Do you pass or bid 4♠?

What about:

(Pa)-1♥-(2♦)-2♠
(3♦)-3♥-(pa)-???

Do you bid 3 or 4 spades? Is 3♠ forcing (assuming 2♠ showed 11+)?

[Codo]

1. Depends on your system...I have no idea what the limits for 4 ♥ are, but I would bid at least 4 ♠.

2. To me 3 ♠ is forcing. To me 3 Hearts was gameforcing.

[ArtK78]

I would insist on spades. My hand is worth about 8 1/2 - 9 tricks in spades, but may only be worth 3 tricks in hearts. Partner's hand is likely to be more useful to me in spades than my hand will be to him in hearts. But there are no guarantees.

[Free]

I'd insist on ♠, my ♣ suit may be worthless when playing 4♥.

[CSGibson]

♠

I'd bid 4♠ on the 2nd one also. I think 3♠ should be forcing, but I don't trust that partner does also.

[PhilKing]

4♠

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2013-July-02, 06:49, said:

MP's, all white, you hold: ♠ A Q J 9 x x x ♥ x ♦ x ♣ K Q J x
(Pa)-1♥-(3♦)-3♠
(pa)-4♥-(pa)-???

(Pa)-1♥-(2♦)-2♠
(3♦)-3♥-(pa)-???
Is 3♠ forcing (assuming 2♠ showed 11+)?

IMO ...

• Over 4♥, 4♠ = 10, Pass = 7. Holding the higher-ranking suit, you hope to win this competitive auction
• Over 3♥, 4♠ = 10, 4♣ = 9, 3♠ = 5. I doubt that 3♠ is forcing and anyway, you shouldn't risk it.

[gnasher]

In the second auction, I think 3♠ is non-forcing, as was 3♥.

[ahydra]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-02, 08:57, said:

4♠

Hmm, they should make bidding boxes with different size cards. So you can play e.g. a big 1C = strong while a small 1C = natural.

The problem with 4S - is it a cue for hearts? My partner would take it as such -.-

ahydra

[gwnn]

ahydra, on 2013-July-02, 11:15, said:

The problem with 4S - is it a cue for hearts? My partner would take it as such -.-

Your partner should be ashamed of himself.

[Lord Molyb]

gwnn, on 2013-July-02, 11:18, said:

Your partner should be ashamed of himself.

[mikeh]

On the first one, 4♠ is so clear that I think that passing 4♥ is a beginner's error. If we play in hearts, then the opps rate to cash some diamond winners at some point, not to mention that he may have felt obliged to rebid an indifferent 6 card suit and may well have multiple trump losers.

We rate to have only one spade loser at most (yes, I know the suit could lie poorly for us, but this suit offers decent play for one loser opposite a void!).

On the second, I wouldn't rebid spades at all...at least, not yet.

This hand has huge slam potential. I am bidding 4♣, and then bidding 4♠ should partner bid 4♥. This shows 6+ good spades, a secondary club suit and a hand too good to have bid 4♠ over 3♥.

I doubt that partner will raise clubs and, if he does, I'll bid slam in the suit...he'll hold Axxx for the raise and that seems unlikely since he presumably has more than 1♦ given the opps relative passivity, and he has 6+ hearts. Yes, he might be 1=6=2=4, but if he is, slam rates to be decent and might be cold. The main purpose for the 4♣ call is to make my subsequent 4♠ more slammish.

Why can't he hold Kx AQJ109x xx Axx?

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2013-July-02, 12:27, said:

Why can't he hold Kx AQJ109x xx Axx?

I couldn't, because I don't play 3♥ as forcing.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-02, 12:29, said:

I couldn't, because I don't play 3♥ as forcing.

The mind boggles.

I've often wondered how good players can manage with this sort of laissez-faire approach to bidding. On the hand I posited, Kx AQJ109x xx Axx, how is one supposed to have an informative auction if 3♥ is not at least F1?

Opposite a hand with only 5 spades and 2 hearts, one would presumably want to reach hearts rather than spades, and opposite 6 spades and one heart one would want to play in spades (especially if I removed either the 10 or the J of hearts). Please note that my example hand was not intended to 'hit the seam' in your method....I expect that both you and I could readily come up with examples and counter-examples more on point than this one, but it is the one that prompted your response.

It's not that I can't see some advantages, on some hand types, to 3♥ non-forcing but they are, virtually by definition, restricted to the rare hand on which we need to play in a partial AND responder can't get us to the right one by any action on his part, such a reopening with a competitive double. Meanwhile, on constructive hands, where responder is unlimited and degree of fit not established, we have to do something dramatic to force?

I suspect I am missing something since I understand that this approach is indeed used by some thoughtful players (lest it be necessary, I want to make it clear that I include you in that category )

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2013-July-02, 12:45, said:

The mind boggles.

I've often wondered how good players can manage with this sort of laissez-faire approach to bidding. On the hand I posited, Kx AQJ109x xx Axx, how is one supposed to have an informative auction if 3♥ is not at least F1?

Opposite a hand with only 5 spades and 2 hearts, one would presumably want to reach hearts rather than spades, and opposite 6 spades and one heart one would want to play in spades (especially if I removed either the 10 or the J of hearts). Please note that my example hand was not intended to 'hit the seam' in your method....I expect that both you and I could readily come up with examples and counter-examples more on point than this one, but it is the one that prompted your response.

It's not that I can't see some advantages, on some hand types, to 3♥ non-forcing but they are, virtually by definition, restricted to the rare hand on which we need to play in a partial AND responder can't get us to the right one by any action on his part, such a reopening with a competitive double. Meanwhile, on constructive hands, where responder is unlimited and degree of fit not established, we have to do something dramatic to force?

I suspect I am missing something since I understand that this approach is indeed used by some thoughtful players (lest it be necessary, I want to make it clear that I include you in that category )

I would double with no feeling of pain on your example hand.

Admittedly some sequences become less defined than after a forcing 3♥, but it seems OK (or rather, there are worse problems for my methods).

[cherdano]

Before anyone thinks this is a "which side of the pond" issue, I am confident in claiming that 3H is non-forcing in US expert standard.
[BWS defines 2♠ as forcing to 3♥. I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to play 3H any more after the 3♦ competition.]

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2013-July-02, 15:24, said:

Before anyone thinks this is a "which side of the pond" issue, I am confident in claiming that 3H is non-forcing in US expert standard.
[BWS defines 2♠ as forcing to 3♥. I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to play 3H any more after the 3♦ competition.]

I'm puzzled.

Since when does pass (which I would do with a minimum hand with no spade support and 6 hearts) prevent us from reaching 3♥ when it is right to do so?

In addition, while I am a big fan of the BW, even the editors of that publication don't claim...well, they didn't when I last subscribed, that BWS is 'expert standard'. It is a consensus system primarily designed to allow people maximal enjoyment of the MSC, with the side benefit that has accrued over the years of providing a reasonably decent default method for two experts (assuming both read the BW) to sit down for a casual game and have an idea of their agreements.

I'm genuinely interested, btw, not trying to stir up an argument. I know that I am somewhat out of touch with expert standard since I don't travel to Nationals or Regionals but would like to think I'm still sort of an expert

[EricK]

ahydra, on 2013-July-02, 11:15, said:

The problem with 4S - is it a cue for hearts? My partner would take it as such -.-

You're lucky. My partner would take it as natural, and still bid 5♥.