[ncohen]

PhilG007, on 2016-November-11, 13:42, said:

No Trumps is a contract that will go down among the dead men

3N is absolutely cold. There are 7 top tricks and you must make either 2 spade tricks or 2 heart tricks (or lots of diamond tricks). Transportation is easy -- overtake the 2nd club. Assume w as declarer:
With a heart lead, if 3rd hand plays the A, there are 3 heart tricks. Otherwise, win the heart and take the diamond finesse, guaranteeing at least one extra diamond trick and very likely 3 extra (if the suit splits 3-2). With a spade lead, probably best to play K or Q. If it wins, play a heart to guarantee 2 hts and 10 total. if it loses, a likely heart return will do the same thing.

if E is declarer, a spade lead sets up lots of spade tricks if N plays A or J. If N plays low, returning a heart again sets up 10 tricks.

[neilkaz]

Yes, is spite of PhilG's brilliant analysis 3NT is as cold as I expect January to be here.

As for the bidding, these sequences where opener rebids his minor suit can be difficult. I have no idea why some method hasn't been standardized over the years. I try to get my partners to play 3rd suit forcing. At least that follows the general principle that new suits by an unpassed responder are forcing.

Here's another method. http://www.bridgemat....com/gadget.htm

As for the actual bidding, I don't think it makes sense after limiting one's hand with the 2C rebid for opener's 2♥ bid to be anything but natural or at least a fragment on the way to 3NT.

As for responder's 3♥ bid, I tell my PD's when they know we want to play a game (15 HCP opposite an opener certainly does) not to bid anything that opener can pass below game. Unfortunately here, the pair wasn't on the same wavelength and responder thought 3♥ was in a forcing sequence.

[Kaitlyn S]

An interesting sequence. 2C has shown a minimum and 2D is not game forcing. Is 2H really fourth suit forcing? If West doesn't have a heart stopper and there isn't a spade fit, can West really hold a hand that he now wants to force to game with, or even that will have safety at the four level?

I'm not sure what 2H should be, seems like either "natural" or "have no clue what to do, do something intelligent" but I can't see that East will have any assurance of another bid after bidding 3D; yet that seems to be a common suggestion.

However, if East does think 3D can be passed (and I think it can), then East has a real problem. If 2H shows hearts, I can bid 3NT as East. If 2H says "I have no clue" by agreement, then I think East's 3H bid was fine, as it's probably the only bid that is supposed to be guaranteed to get another bid (the result notwithstanding) with my second choice 4C. Maybe I should bid 5C? How bad could it be? These club jumps apply to IMPs; the fact that the OP said he didn't want to go past 3NT implies matchpoints, and if it was matchpoints, I would not jump in clubs.

What's the right bid when you don't know what partner's 2H bid means? I would hope it was natural and bid 3NT.

[Kaitlyn S]

duplicate post

[Stephen Tu]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-12, 21:24, said:

An interesting sequence. 2C has shown a minimum and 2D is not game forcing. Is 2H really fourth suit forcing?

It *depends on agreements*. 2D can be played as:
- old std, naturalish F1. In this case 2D normally denies hearts so there is a case for opener's 2H bid being artificial, I suppose. But that would probably require special agreement. Normally 4th suit artificial is assumed applied by responder, not a limited opener.
- Bourke relay, artificial GF. In this case responder can still have hearts, and opener's 2H bid better show real hearts so responder can raise and set trumps.
- other possibilities, inv+ artificial also possible among others I suppose. Maybe an inv+ puppet? Lots of schemes are possible with agreements.

What responder's 3rd round bids of course depend on what the 2nd round bids mean, and what 2nd round jumps would have meant. 2d ... something ... 3d can be logically played as invitational or GF depending on how you want to arrange things.

Unfortunately I don't think there are clear standards anymore. BWS 2017 is still using 2d and 2h as natural F1, the best bid would arguably be jump 3d directly over 2c showing a GF 5-5. Though in some countries I guess that's dangerous since that might be interpreted as splinter??

[UdcaDenny]

We played matchpoints so I didnt want to get past 3NT. If I had a 544 distribution I would offcource bid 2♥instead of 2♦ so In my view P:s 2♥cannot be natural. He should have bid 2NT which I raise to game. Im Swedish and we use western cuebids a lot so 3♥offcource asked P for a stopper

[mike777]

UdcaDenny, on 2016-November-10, 23:14, said:

My P is learning 2/1 and I assumed his 2♥was fourth suit. What should I bid as E. I was afraid that he could pass 3C or 3D and as I denied 4 cards in H by bidding 2♦my 3♥must ask him for a hold. I didnt want to go past 3NT.

---

many play 2d as art and gf....so not sure what the issue was

seems you had an easy 3c bid next.

1c=1s
2c=2d!
2h=3c

[Zelandakh]

UdcaDenny, on 2016-November-14, 00:25, said:

We played matchpoints so I didnt want to get past 3NT. If I had a 544 distribution I would offcource bid 2♥instead of 2♦ so In my view P:s 2♥cannot be natural. He should have bid 2NT which I raise to game. Im Swedish and we use western cuebids a lot so 3♥offcource asked P for a stopper

It seems to me you play similarly to me and many other Europeans Denny. As you can tell the majority here are American and find this style illogical and have a different set of agreements. It looks as if your partner was also from this school. This is something that comes up on BBF regularly. There is no correct answer as to how to play these sequences but it is obviously important to be on the same page as partner. Both methods are perfectly playable so it is just a matter of sitting down together and deciding which way makes most sense to you. More than likely all you will get here are posters' personal preferences, which stems mostly from cultural experience and teaching.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-14, 04:27, said:

It seems to me you play similarly to me and many other Europeans Denny. As you can tell the majority here are American and find this style illogical and have a different set of agreements. It looks as if your partner was also from this school. This is something that comes up on BBF regularly. There is no correct answer as to how to play these sequences but it is obviously important to be on the same page as partner. Both methods are perfectly playable so it is just a matter of sitting down together and deciding which way makes most sense to you. More than likely all you will get here are posters' personal preferences, which stems mostly from cultural experience and teaching.

The distinction is not so much between European and American, but between a sensible system and - to put it politely - a difficult system to play.
This disaster has to do with the latter.

Bidding systems require forcing bids.
There are three types of forcing bids a bidding system will typically employ:
1) Artificial bids like Stayman or transfers, which by their very nature tend to be forcing. I will not dwell on them.
2) Game forcing bids.
3) Forcing bids, which lump together invitational and game forcing hands.

If you lump together invitational and game forcing hands in a bid, you have 2 problems

a) If I make a bid, which is natural and invitational I do not like it to be forcing. If partner wants to reject you want that the bidding can stop - not to continue.
With invitational hands you either want to be in game (acceptance) or ideally you would like to stop 2 tricks below game (rejection).
Stopping in 2NT, 3M and 4m is at times unavoidable but always undesirable, because you will often go down one, when partner rejects the invitation.

b) You need to decide which continuations thereafter keep up the force.
Since the number of possible bidding continuations is easy to underestimate no wonder casual and partnerships below the expert level get confused and run into disagreements what a certain bidding sequence shows and whether it is forcing.

UdcaDenny, on 2016-November-10, 23:14, said:

I was afraid that he could pass 3C or 3D

Such disasters are expensive. This thread is a typical example.

Game forcing bids rarely have this problem, since every bid below game remains forcing. Simple and easy to understand even for intermediate players.

The point is a sensible system gives you an easy bid to unconditionally force to game cheaply and since the bid is game forcing and cheap it can be artificial.
That's why I think the Bourke Relay 2♦ is a sensible convention. Among others it lets you play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ as not forcing but constructive!
The same holds true for 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♣
Of course there are other ways to accomplish the same thing. For example you can play Reverse Flannery and then play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ as artificial and game forcing instead.

I am European, but if American means a sensible system and European means a difficult one, like the French way of bidding or Forum D I am on the American side.
If third suit forcing means it can be an invitational hand I am not a fan of it.
If you are a professional partnership with lots of intricate agreements it might not matter that much, but the vast majority play Bridge as a hobby in casual partnerships.
Reducing the risks of such disaster should be a design point of bidding systems.

Rainer Herrmann