[the_clown]

jillybean, on 2012-May-15, 07:52, said:

No scroing, we were bidding some hands on the partnership bidding table.

---

Partner could have supported ♠'s over 3♣ but it brought up an intersting problem anyway.

Which is better in this sequence 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣* nmf or 2♥ Bourke relay?
(edit after reading the post above) Why is Bourke relay better? If I have spades and hearts I won't show that until the 4level.

I agree 3♦/2♦ should be nf.

If you had SJS available, would you have used it on this hand?

Why didnt your partner bid 2♣ over 1♠?

[Zelandakh]

You will probably find this a useful read.

[Phil]

1. 4♣ is terrible. 2♦ is not my preference either.

2. Its nice to have a natural force over 2♦. I have long preached that 3♦ and 3♠ should both be forcing. However, either 4♥ (kickback) or 4♦ (forcing) both seem reasonable here. After 4♥, the auction gets a little weird when partner shows an odd number of keys and the unknown void.

[ArtK78]

I play Extended PLOB over this sequence (extended new minor forcing), so 3♣ would be artificial over 2♦ and that would be my choice. But I don't play 3♦ as forcing over 2♦. If I did, that would be the obvious call.

I would never bid RKCB in any form over 2♦ as I hold a worthless doubleton in hearts. That is just bad bridge. I am at the two level. I have plenty of time to find out more information about partner's hand without jumping into the stratosphere asking for key cards. I don't even know if I want to play in diamonds yet (although diamonds is certainly a playable strain).

One of the reasons for playing Extended PLOB is that it allows you to respond 1♠ and rebid 2♥ nonforcing. If you used 2♥ as the relay you could not do that. I suppose that the counterargument is that playing the relay you can bid the other minor as nonforcing, but that seems to be less useful.

[ahydra]

I think the moral of the story is for your partner - if you have a half-decent 4c second suit, rebid that rather than your first suit. FWIW I would do the same with 7-4 hands unless the 7 was a solid/near-solid suit.

1D-1S
2C-2H*
2S-3S (if forcing, else 4C)

and you're off. Notice how not only has this located the 9c spade fit, it has made your life a lot easier.

Now, to discuss with my partner what kind of handy gadgets we're playing (even if it's just "may be a fake suit") after opener rebids his suit and responder has no clear bid...

ahydra

[Codo]

To your question: To use a bourke relay has the disadvantage that you cannot bid 2 ♥ nonforcing. As many people do not need this bid anyway, you may think about implying this tool. But:
instead of thinking about kickback and Bourke, your partner should start with the basics first.
(S)he should have bid 2 club instead of 2 diamond and surely 3 Spades instead of 4 Clubs.
Sorry, his/her choices are so way off, (s)he needs some very basic lessons.

Care about the nice little tools later.

[mikeh]

Hi jb

I'm happy to see that you have recognized that 3♦ has to be non-forcing...

As for what to bid with the actual hand, this is analogous to 1♣ 1M 2♣

In that situation, it is common to play that 2♦ is a one round force and really says nothing more....it certainly says nothing about diamonds.

We are usually reluctant, however, to use a new major as an artificial force, especially when partner will often have 4 cards in the major.

Thus 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ runs the risk of partner raising to 3♥ and now we can't show a gf diamond raise below 3N, and many such hands are best played in 3N rather than 5♦.

There is no easy solution. Playing 3♣ as artificial is even worse....while a raise to 4♣ is highly unlikely, it isn't impossible (it was a bad bid on the actual hand: partner could have raised spades earlier, could have rebid 2♣ and absolutely, having rebid 2♦, ought to have bid 3♠ over 3♣). In addition, using 3♣ consumes almost an entire level of bidding space and you aren't out of the woods yet no matter what opener does.

My advice, and this is for a serious partnership only, is to use 2♥ as an artificial one round force. If you want to spice it up a bit: use it to deny hearts unless gf.

So how do you show hearts? My suggestion: 2N or 3♥: 2N is 4, 3♥ is 5, both invitational.

With a natural 2N, bid 2♥, which is a one round force, over which you will clarify: if you go back to spades or diamonds (either of which you could have bid naturally last time to show invitational values) you are gf. If you rebid 2N, it is natural and invitational. If you rebid hearts, it is gf.

Note that if you decide to try this, you and your partner should spend a few minutes thinking of every sequence that might arise after the 2♥2N bids, and decide what they ought to mean....the idea is to cover off every hand type...it is doable (I know, I've done it) but takes a little time and imagination.

This may not belong in the I/A section, but I see someone already referred to 2♥ artificial...I hadn't heard of it being the Bourke relay: I suspect it is like many inventions....it has multiple parents, but is best known by the name of the most famous to promote it.

[mikeh]

Codo, on 2012-May-15, 09:31, said:

To your question: To use a bourke relay has the disadvantage that you cannot bid 2 ♥ nonforcing. As many people do not need this bid anyway, you may think about implying this tool.

For those of us raised in NA, we have long since been taught that 2♥ would be forcing: a change of suit (into a previously unbid suit) in an auction in which opener has not rebid in notrump is always a force if below game.

[jillybean]

Codo, on 2012-May-15, 09:31, said:

(S)he should have bid 2 club instead of 2 diamond and surely 3 Spades instead of 4 Clubs.
Sorry, his/her choices are so way off, (s)he needs some very basic lessons.

My partner recognized that his bid was bad but change the hand so that he does have a 4♣ bid and I have a problem.
I didn't intend to solve this hand. which is a non problem if bid correctly but rather to avert future disasters where
I can't escape from clubs

mikeh, on 2012-May-15, 09:38, said:

Hi jb

I'm happy to see that you have recognized that 3♦ has to be non-forcing...

Right, I should always engage the brain before the keyboard.

mikeh, on 2012-May-15, 09:38, said:

My advice, and this is for a serious partnership only, is to use 2♥ as an artificial one round force. If you want to spice it up a bit: use it to deny hearts unless gf.

So how do you show hearts? My suggestion: 2N or 3♥: 2N is 4, 3♥ is 5, both invitational.

With a natural 2N, bid 2♥, which is a one round force, over which you will clarify: if you go back to spades or diamonds (either of which you could have bid naturally last time to show invitational values) you are gf. If you rebid 2N, it is natural and invitational. If you rebid hearts, it is gf.

Note that if you decide to try this, you and your partner should spend a few minutes thinking of every sequence that might arise after the 2♥2N bids, and decide what they ought to mean....the idea is to cover off every hand type...it is doable (I know, I've done it) but takes a little time and imagination.

I like it. The sequences after 2♥ 2N sound a little daunting but my partner will work it out.

[neilkaz]

JB "If you had SJS available, would you have used it on this hand?"

Yes, absolutely as I have at least a slam invitational hand and a very good suit and even have support for PD's suit.

[Stephen Tu]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-15, 02:12, said:

But I agree that 3♦ over 2♦ can't possibly be forcing, it has to be a nf courtesy raise.

Says who? Check out Richard Pavlicek's system, where he uses a non-standard forcing treatment for this bid, putting invites into the PLOB bids.

I know it's highly uncommon to play this as forcing, but I've actually played this style and I think it's nice to be able to unambiguously show a GF diamond hand below 3nt instead of having to bid 3c and partner being in dark about whether you have a real diamond fit or not.

It's also nice to be able to unambiguously bid 3s as a GF 6 carder instead of partner bidding something annoying like 3nt over 3c and you can no longer show the 6 cd spade at 3s. If I was playing WJS I strongly prefer the European style where the WJS isn't a subminimum response (0-5), but rather a "lower end weak 2", so that 2s is forward going inv, and 3s is GF.

[Cyberyeti]

Something that's just come to me, I've only played WJS once in my life, and when I did (not playing a Bourke style relay, late substitution into a KO team), 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ was GF, is this not a common treatment ?

[ArtK78]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-15, 13:39, said:

Something that's just come to me, I've only played WJS once in my life, and when I did (not playing a Bourke style relay, late substitution into a KO team), 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ was GF, is this not a common treatment ?

No. I would say that is a highly unusual treatment.

[petterb]

ahydra, on 2012-May-15, 09:14, said:

Notice how not only has this located the 9c spade fit...

Disagree that you've located a 9-card fit. I'd bid 2♠ with Kx/xx/KQTxx/AJxx and think it's standard to do so.

[32519]

Guys, I'm the novice poster in this thread. I had no idea what PLOB stood for. So I looked it up in a Google search. For the benefit of others (like myself) who don't know what PLOB is, it is an acronym for Petty Pretty Little Odius Bid and you can read more here.

The other one I had to look up as well is The Bourke Relay. Those interested can read more here.

This post has been edited.

[Stephen Tu]

32519, on 2012-May-15, 23:30, said:

who don't know what PLOB is, it is an acronym for Pretty Little Odius Bid and you can read more here.

"petty" little odious bid.

Nothing pretty about it .

[32519]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-May-16, 00:18, said:

"petty" little odious bid.

Nothing pretty about it .

Thanks, corrected the typo.

[Phil]

Extra points to whomever can name who coined the term, about what method, and in what year?

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2012-May-16, 09:03, said:

Extra points to whomever can name who coined the term, about what method, and in what year?

A quick Google reveals:

Quote

PLOB
Acronym for Petty Little Odious Bid, another name for New Minor Forcin'. The name derives from a diatribe by Alphonse Moyse Jr., in The Bridge World's Master Solver's Club, which described the feckin' convention as an "odious, meaningless, petty little bid. Stop the lights! "

[ArtK78]

Phil, on 2012-May-16, 09:03, said:

Extra points to whomever can name who coined the term, about what method, and in what year?

I have made several posts about PLOB, and I noted the source.