[bearmum]

bidding
1♦ 1♠ 2♥ P

---

I am trying to clarify STANDARD bidding ( and ignoring the terrible 1♠ overcall which SHOULD show 10+ and at least 5 ♠)

1. Do u agree with the 1♦ opener ?
2. is 2♥ forcing for ONE round??

Thank you for your opinions

[joker_gib]

1. No, only the ♠K is defensive value and I prefer 3♦
2. Unless you play Negative Free Bids this is of course forcing.

Alain

[Flame]

1♦ is fine. (3♦ is the alternative)
1♠ is not terrible, i wouldnt bid it but many good players would, anyway std 1S show 8+ hcp not 10.
2♥ is one round forcing std is 10+ hcp and 5♥,therefore the std bid with north hand is double rather then 2♥.

[bearmum]

Flame, on Jan 2 2006, 11:46 PM, said:

1♦ is fine. (3♦ is the alternative)
1♠ is not terrible, i wouldnt bid it but many good players would, anyway std 1S show 8+ hcp not 10.
2♥ is one round forcing std is 10+ hcp and 5♥,therefore the std bid with north hand is double rather then 2♥.

I should have said -- the opps were playing Acol so the 1♠ overcall should show 5 ♠'s

AND because the N/S couple told me that the way they play Standard the 2♥ is NOT forcing -- should that fact be alerted?

[joker_gib]

bearmum, on Jan 2 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

AND because the N/S couple told me that the way they play Standard the 2♥ is NOT forcing -- should that fact be alerted?

Standard : 2♥ is forcing so they have to alert imo

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1D is ok, the same holds for the 1S overcall,
it is true that 1S shows a 5 carder, but if you
dont want to pass, 1S is best, it is lead directing,
you dont mind a raise to 2S, ... besides bidding
spades first is always a good idea..

2H is forcing for one round, playing standard,
and the hand is slightly borderline, with the
known fit, 2H is ok, you know where to run to,
if things get messy.

Without the fit, switch diamonds with clubs,
you will be hard pressed to find a bid, if they
raise to 3S and opener makes a forcing pass.

Marlowe

[Flame]

Yes 2H should be alerted.
1♠ got nothing to do with acol, dont bother yourself with bidding 4 cards overcalls just know its not terrible.

[sdoty]

To echo the comments made earlier:

1. I prefer 3♦, but can live with 1♦.
2. 2♥ = 5+ hearts with at least invitational strength, and is forcing for 1 round. The North hand, not being strong enough for 2♥, would make a Negative Double.

If NS are playing the 2♥ bid as non-forcing, it certainly sounds like they're playing Negative Free Bids. I don't think the hand is appropriate for 2H even if that is their agreement, but that's neither here nor there...

Negative Free Bids definitely aren't standard here in the US, but they're popular in some areas. Regardless, they're alertable in ACBL-land:

Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong.. <snip>

Susan

[helene_t]

The 1♦ opening is fine with me. 4♦ or 5♦ are alternatives, or maybe 2♦ if agreed that this is stronger than 3♦ at these colors. This is a style issue, though. I would probably open 1♦ at matchpoints and 5♦ at IMPs.

The 1♠ overcall is fine whether opps play Acol or anything else, defensive bidding has nothing to do with system. This is a style issue. At IMPs I might pass at these colors. My IRL partner doubles with this hand but don't do that with a pick-up partner

The 2♥ freebid is not standard. For a negative freebid the suit is good enough at these colors. You might chose to experiment with a 3♥ fitbid.

As I read the ACBL rules, a negative freebid may not be alertable. This is a matter of interpretation. I could not find any explicit statement about this issue on the ACBL site. Playing online, it should certainly be alerted unless the tournament rules say explicitly that NFB are not alertable. FWIW, it is not alertable in the Netherlands.

However, if you announce to be playing Standard American you should probably alert as well as pre-alert important deviances such as NFB.

[hrothgar]

bearmum, on Jan 2 2006, 01:22 PM, said:

I am trying to clarify STANDARD bidding ( and ignoring the terrible 1♠ overcall which SHOULD show 10+ and at least 5 ♠)

1. Do u agree with the 1♦ opener ?
2. is 2♥ forcing for ONE round??

Thank you for your opinions

Wow... For someone who is seeking clarfication regaridng some very basic sequences, you're certain quite opinionated on the subject of overcalls.

Lets answer the simple question first: Playing standard methods, a 2♥ advance is forcing.

As for hand 1, the decision what to open is largely a matter of style...

Some people prefer not to preempt with a void and a Kxx in a side suit. They will chose to open 1♦ and Diamonds at the cheapest level to show a weak hand with length.

Other people prefer that their openings are relatively sound with defensive values. These players will prefer a 3♦ opening (perhaps even a pass)

Playing "Standard" I prefer a 1♦ opening. Playing a sound opening system like 2/1 I prefer 3♦

[bearmum]

hrothgar, on Jan 3 2006, 01:48 AM, said:

bearmum, on Jan 2 2006, 01:22 PM, said:

I am trying to clarify STANDARD bidding ( and ignoring the terrible 1♠ overcall which SHOULD show 10+ and at least 5 ♠)

1.  Do u agree with the 1♦ opener ?
2.  is 2♥ forcing for ONE round??

Thank you for your opinions

Wow... For someone who is seeking clarfication regaridng some very basic sequences, you're certain quite opinionated on the subject of overcalls.

Lets answer the simple question first: Playing standard methods, a 2♥ advance is forcing.

As for hand 1, the decision what to open is largely a matter of style...

Some people prefer not to preempt with a void and a Kxx in a side suit. They will chose to open 1♦ and Diamonds at the cheapest level to show a weak hand with length.

Other people prefer that their openings are relatively sound with defensive values. These players will prefer a 3♦ opening (perhaps even a pass)

Playing "Standard" I prefer a 1♦ opening. Playing a sound opening system like 2/1 I prefer 3♦

Sorry -- the couple playing E/W stated "Acol with 5 card overcalls " which is why I said that the overcall was unwise

BUT --- I was really NOT trying to be opinionated(and really resent the implicatation!!) as ALL I was asking was the questions regarding the N/S "STANDARD AMERICAN" bidding because in discussions we had a disagreement as to the 2♥ bid being forcing for 1 round or not !
I thought it was and most others ( who do NOT play SA at ALL) said it wasn't

[FrancesHinden]

2H is forcing for a round in the majority of 'standard' methods I know about.
There is a large minority of people who play it as non-forcing, but they would usually have a better suit for the call.

It is alertable if non-forcing in England, because that is 'unexpected' (which tells you that it is also non-standard).

[mike777]

bearmum, on Jan 2 2006, 05:22 AM, said:

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> xxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Axxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Axxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AQJx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> KTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Tx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> xxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> xxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> QJxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AKQxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KQJxxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Jxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td> bidding
1♦  1♠ 2♥ P   </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

I am trying to clarify STANDARD bidding ( and ignoring the terrible 1♠ overcall which SHOULD show 10+ and at least 5 ♠)

1.   Do u agree with the 1♦ opener ?
2.   is 2♥ forcing for ONE round??

Thank you for your opinions

Let's first clear up what standard 2h forcing means. If playing Lawrence style then 2h is forcing one round but does not promise a rebid. The confusion comes in on exactly what people mean by "forcing".

Hate the 1D opening bid if playing standard bridge. Could live with weak 2D or 3D.

[Chamaco]

bearmum, on Jan 2 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

bidding
1♦ 1♠ 2♥ P

---

I am trying to clarify STANDARD bidding ( and ignoring the terrible 1♠ overcall which SHOULD show 10+ and at least 5 ♠)

1. Do u agree with the 1♦ opener ?
2. is 2♥ forcing for ONE round??

Thank you for your opinions

1) 1D opener
1D is light but is ok.
I hate 2D or 3D, the hand is too strong for a preempt, given the void.
I might live with 5D if anything but never 2/3D.

If not 1D, I will pass.

2) 1S is a good overcall, steals space to opps, suggests a good lead, etc etc. It might backfire sure, but more often than not, it is opener' side that suffers from this removal of the 1-level, and having to describe at the 2 level


3) 2H should be 1R forcing; I like to play that the bidding cannot stop below 2NT or 3 of opener or responder's suit.
This of course requires from responder either good power (10+ hcp), or, if lighter, a good rebiddable own suit OR belated support for opener's suit.

However, I think in standard, the 2/1 in competition is simply 1RF but does not promise a rebid.
However, this is valid for the most common 5 card major variations, I ignore ACOL's standard.

[Al_U_Card]

Whose "kitchen" were you in anyway?

That 2H bid is "forcing" in standard methods but not by those who would bid game with an opening hand and any other bid is to play.......(there are many of them but they rarely last on-line or in clubs..... )

The opening is systemic and conforms to a rule of 20 type of approach, so it has merit.

The overcall, as opposed to a t/o dbl with only 3 H depends on whether they always guarantee 4 cards in an unbid major for their t/o dbls... (Acol notwithstanding)

[FrancesHinden]

You didn't ask, but I find the pass of 2H incredible.

I would be looking for a game (or possibly a slam) on the East cards, not passing over 2H. 6C looks a good, and making, spot. But then, I wouldn't overcall 1S on the West hand.

As East, I would think "what if partner has AKxxx x Qxxx Jxx" - that's a minimum vulnerable 1S overcall, and game in spades is pretty much just on spades 3-2

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 2 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

You didn't ask, but I find the pass of 2H incredible.

This also seems consistant with the bidding at this table...... . Might qualify as the poster-boy for bidding impaired bridge players.....lol

Looks like he was hoping for a big plus in 2H undoubled?......guess bad bidding goes with bad judgement...

[jdeegan]

IMO either 1♦ or 3♦ would be OK. After the 1♦ opener at your table, 2♥ is forcing one round. You now bid 3♦ which pard raises to 4♦. Since opponents can make 5♣, your auction is likely to garner a good result even if you bid 5♦.

[mghmaine]

It will be difficult for you to clarify Standard bidding with all the people posting here who think that opening 1♦ is fine. What that shows, quite accurately, is that basic standards for an opener have gone down the toilet. 1♦ is a terrible opening bid. 3♦ way preferable.
1♠, not my cup of tea, but far more acceptable than 1♦ opener. It locates values and excludes ♥s.
2♥ of course forcing upon opener in Standard.

PS. Sorry I sent this first as a PM. I am quite new to BBF and used wrong method.

[inquiry]

Quote

1♦ is a terrible opening bid. 3♦ way preferable.
1♠, not my cup of tea, but far more acceptable than 1♦ opener

Opening bids have certainly gotten lighter over the years. The problem with this hand as posted is the vulnerabilty is not given. If NS are not vul and EW are vul, I would never consider this a 3♦ opening bid. The reason is simple, at those colors, my partner would never visualize such a hand for a first seat preempt. So I will start by disagreeing that opening 1♦ is a terrible bid.

However, if I was vul and the oppenents were too, this would be a perfect 3♦ opening bid. My partner will know that I have "good suit and good hand" for this auction. He will be able to easily visuallze this hand. Under those conditions, 3♦ is perfect, and 1♦ is a misbid.

So not vul versus vul, I have to open this 1♦ to be taken seriously. Vul versus Vul, 3♦ is just right. Having understandings about the quality of preempts is important, and how vulnerabilty affects them.

So what do you open if you are vul and your oppenents are not vul? In my, admittedly radical view, this hand isn't good enough 3♦ opening bid at unvafavorable vul. Give me the 9 or T of diamonds, and I probably would open 3♦, but here I would prefer a 2♦ opening if that was a "weak two". This doesn't mean I wouldn't open 3♦ with this hand, at unfavoriable, it is just that I would likely not do so, choosing instead 1♦.

That leaves not vul versus not vul. Here this is a heavy 3♦ bid or a light 1♦ bid. I have no strong feeling either way, and would probably be presuaded by my experiences with the partner I was playing with. With Misho and Hannie, I would open 1♦, with most other partners, I would probably open 3♦.

So I can not say whether 3♦ or 1♦ was "right" bid until we see the vul condition. As for over 2♥, 2♥ is 100% forcing in whatever I consider as "standard". The exception is if you are playing Negative Free bids (which while also is one kind of standard, does require an alert).

Ben