[mck4711]

Vul against not, IMP, N dealer, no agreements with partner

A98
-
J10x
AKJ10xxx

p - 1C - 1D - 1S*
p - 2D** - x - p
2H - 2S*** - 3H - p
p - ?

* first Q: does 1S show 4+ or 5+? forcing? or is neg. X playable, ideally of course for both unbid?
** 2nd Q: is the overcall here the best bid? or overbid, and 2C (maybe 3C) the better choice?
*** 3rd Q: similar to Q2 - good or bad bid? if bad, what else, 3C?
? what to bid here?

P had 10xxx, Axx, Kxx, Qxx

I have somehow the feeling that this was "not the best bidding" from my side. Last Q: is there a good book on competitive bidding?

[jillybean]

Q1. 1S promises 4+,likely denies 4 hearts and it is forcing.

Q2. I don't like 2D and don't understand the bid, what did you intend when you bid 2D?
I think 2C is the better bid, bidding 3S later to show 3 card support would be fine too.

I can't answer your remaining questions because I thnk the auction was derailed after 2D.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Q1

Ideally, it would be nice to have 4-4 in the Majors for a Neg-DBL here.
Since this often not the case, one expert came up with this solution:
1C - ( 1D ) - ??

DBL = 4 cards Sp and says nada about Hts
1S = 5+ Sp
1H = 4+ Hts

So with your partner's hand he could have made a Neg-DBL to show exactly 4 cards Sp which would help you later in the competition.

[blackshoe]

Twofer's solution is interesting, but it's not standard. I would suggest thoroughly understanding the standard method before experimenting.

2♦ implies 4 spades and a limit raise or better, so responder's pass over 3♥ ought to be forcing, I think.

2♦ was the wrong call. Describe your hand. Rebid your clubs. Partner can rebid spades if he has length, or as Jilly suggested a later spade bid by you would show 3 card support.

[wank]

2♦ on this auction is a game force. it tends to deny a primary spade fit, contrary to what is written above, as with one, you would raise directly or do whatever you do in your methods to show a strong slammy raise (splinters, er....gerber, etc). typically it's a game-forcing hand based on clubs, possibly with some secondary spade support. the idea is to allow you to investigate the right game (3NT, 4 spades, 5 clubs) or slam.


bidding it here is a clear overbid. you don't want to bid game opposite many perfectly respectable 1♠ responses. however, i wouldn't be happy with a simple 2♣ either - you have a a good 3 card support, a void and a hot suit of your own. for want of anything better, i would rebid 3♣ and hope to get spades in on the next round.

[daveharty]

wank, on 2011-July-22, 20:58, said:

... however, i wouldn't be happy with a simple 2♣ either - you have a a good 3 card support, a void and a hot suit of your own. for want of anything better, i would rebid 3♣ and hope to get spades in on the next round.

Yes. This is a really good hand, possibly improved by partner's 1S bid. 3C is a pretty good description of its playing strength. Partner has a comfortable 3NT rebid over it, too. (As others have said, if partner rebids 3D or 3H, you could then bid 3S.)

[mck4711]

Thx for all your replies.

I like Two4bridge idea, but as mentioned, knowing the standard first is key.
Wank, thx for your advise, how to describe this hand. I had the same feeling that I had a 'hot' hand (especially after p's 1S, but was not sure how to describe best. As the actual bidding went I deadlocked myself.

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2011-July-22, 20:58, said:

2♦ on this auction is a game force. it tends to deny a primary spade fit, contrary to what is written above, as with one, you would raise directly or do whatever you do in your methods to show a strong slammy raise (splinters, er....gerber, etc). typically it's a game-forcing hand based on clubs, possibly with some secondary spade support. the idea is to allow you to investigate the right game (3NT, 4 spades, 5 clubs) or slam.


bidding it here is a clear overbid. you don't want to bid game opposite many perfectly respectable 1♠ responses. however, i wouldn't be happy with a simple 2♣ either - you have a a good 3 card support, a void and a hot suit of your own. for want of anything better, i would rebid 3♣ and hope to get spades in on the next round.

Strange, is this a SAYC type affectation, I'd normally play it as an often 3 card raise to "2 and a half or more" in no way GF. That said with 7 clubs I'd bid 3♣ on this hand. I must admit in a competitive auction I might have bid 1N with your partner's hand to give an impression of my range and balanced hand with a spade suit that bad, but then I play a 4+ card club and a weak no trump so I hold 4 spades and a hand unable to act again much less often in this sort of auction.

[wank]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-23, 02:36, said:

Strange, is this a SAYC type affectation,

no, it's a bridge affectation - it should be the same in acol.

[Cyberyeti]

We use 2N as an artificial GF here so don't need the cue bid for that (we do the same in the unopposed auction).

[semeai]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-23, 03:20, said:

We use 2N as an artificial GF here so don't need the cue bid for that (we do the same in the unopposed auction).

Here = all of England, or many expert partnerships in England, or some expert partnerships in England, or your partnership?

[ggwhiz]

I know a negative dbl over 1♣ - 1♦ promising both majors is common but I hate it.

The 1♠ bid only promises 4 but doesn't deny more and puts you in a terrible position.

If partner has 5 of them and any kind of modest values, game is extremely likely. I understand your cue-bid.

Instead, you have to bid 2♣ in case pard only has 4♠? I bet a sim would show you playing right there when 4♠ is odds on way too often.

3♣ is better but risks missing the 4♠ game when responder has short clubs.

The worst is how often 1♠ is bid instead of 1nt on a hand like this one.

[Cyberyeti]

semeai, on 2011-July-23, 05:50, said:

Here = all of England, or many expert partnerships in England, or some expert partnerships in England, or your partnership?

We = my partnership, here = in this situation.

It's an idea that I came across from Sally Horton's book in the 80s, not sure where it originated, and we've modified it since, but it's a structure of 12-14 1N, wide range 15-bad 19 1N rebid and good 19-21 2N opener meaning 1x-1y-2N can be an artificial unbalanced GF.

[VM1973]

ggwhiz, on 2011-July-23, 08:11, said:

I know a negative dbl over 1♣ - 1♦ promising both majors is common but I hate it.

The 1♠ bid only promises 4 but doesn't deny more and puts you in a terrible position.

If partner has 5 of them and any kind of modest values, game is extremely likely. I understand your cue-bid.

Instead, you have to bid 2♣ in case pard only has 4♠? I bet a sim would show you playing right there when 4♠ is odds on way too often.

3♣ is better but risks missing the 4♠ game when responder has short clubs.

The worst is how often 1♠ is bid instead of 1nt on a hand like this one.

I agree with most of your points. I think the best thing on this hand is to convince RHO to bid something so you can make a support double!

What you'd really like to do is double raise spades, but you only have 3. So then you're stuck between bidding 2♠ or 3♣ and personally I don't know which one is right.

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-23, 02:36, said:

Strange, is this a SAYC type affectation, I'd normally play it as an often 3 card raise to "2 and a half or more" in no way GF. That said with 7 clubs I'd bid 3♣ on this hand. I must admit in a competitive auction I might have bid 1N with your partner's hand to give an impression of my range and balanced hand with a spade suit that bad, but then I play a 4+ card club and a weak no trump so I hold 4 spades and a hand unable to act again much less often in this sort of auction.

When replying to someone who is asking about the standard or normal meanings of bids, replying explaining your own pet method is not very helpful, particularly when you don't explain that it is your own pet method.

Standard methods appear slightly odd at first sight, because if the auction starts

1 something (overcall) cue bid

i.e. responder cue bids, that is now almost universally played to show a raise of opener's suit, not necessarily game forcing (people who play it as something else often play a method where virtually every bid is artificial). A long time ago this cue bid used to be used as a general game force, but that is out of fashion because responder can easily just bid a suit natural and forcing.

However, when the auction starts

1 something (overcall) natural bid (pass) cue bid

i.e. opener cue bids, that is now played almost universally as a game force. This is often based on a strong hand with a long suit, but might have support for partner. The position is different, because opener doesn't have an easy way to show a forcing rebid in his own suit.

So the 2D bid made by opener was game forcing, as wank says.

[ggwhiz]

VM1973, on 2011-July-23, 09:45, said:

What you'd really like to do is double raise spades, but you only have 3. So then you're stuck between bidding 2♠ or 3♣ and personally I don't know which one is right.

IMO it's just a hole in standard agreements that has no route to the best contract beyond a guess. Bid 3♣ as your best chance to declare or 2♠ (severe underbid?) to be dummy and go to the fridge for a fresh beer.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-July-23, 10:09, said:

When replying to someone who is asking about the standard or normal meanings of bids, replying explaining your own pet method is not very helpful, particularly when you don't explain that it is your own pet method.

Standard methods appear slightly odd at first sight, because if the auction starts

1 something (overcall) cue bid

i.e. responder cue bids, that is now almost universally played to show a raise of opener's suit, not necessarily game forcing (people who play it as something else often play a method where virtually every bid is artificial). A long time ago this cue bid used to be used as a general game force, but that is out of fashion because responder can easily just bid a suit natural and forcing.

However, when the auction starts

1 something (overcall) natural bid (pass) cue bid

i.e. opener cue bids, that is now played almost universally as a game force. This is often based on a strong hand with a long suit, but might have support for partner. The position is different, because opener doesn't have an easy way to show a forcing rebid in his own suit.

So the 2D bid made by opener was game forcing, as wank says.

I was just utterly shocked as even when not playing my pet method, I've never heard anybody explain this as GF and I certainly never have so was VERY surprised to be told it was standard given that I'm closing in on 35 years of play, >25 of that at a decent level, I would have expected to have seen it by now.

Why if you have decent methods, for 1x-P-1y-P-? do you need to bother changing them ? I'd have thought you're less likely to hold a GF here than without the overcall.

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-23, 12:47, said:

I was just utterly shocked as even when not playing my pet method, I've never heard anybody explain this as GF and I certainly never have so was VERY surprised to be told it was standard given that I'm closing in on 35 years of play, >25 of that at a decent level, I would have expected to have seen it by now.

Why if you have decent methods, for 1x-P-1y-P-? do you need to bother changing them ? I'd have thought you're less likely to hold a GF here than without the overcall.

Yes there are hands where opener can cue and dont have a gf hand, such as the one below, but i am having hard time to construct hands where opener cues and dont have a gf hand to be honest. Not many hand types you can come up with that can not be bid naturally.

Axx
AKx
xxx
AQJx

This hand may not have enough for GF values vs a very weak 1 level response, but reaching a no play game when hold this will not be worse than missing games or confusion or fear of being passed in a complicated NON-GF opener's cue.

She is trying to give some basic information to B/I players. And i believe she and Wank did it very well. It is extremely confusing to try to explain a B/I level player when and how and why they can stop before game, after opener makes a cue, which by the way, is a very tuff decision even for experts. Imo this will not only confuse them but will cause a lot of disasters.

To me what she says is std but I am not saying what you suggest is wrong, i would jump on your suggestion in A/E section and i would find it worth to listen, but not in B/I section. I think when writing in B/I pages, the simplicity and accuracy of the msg given is more important than the need for theoretical debate.

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-23, 12:47, said:

Why if you have decent methods, for 1x-P-1y-P-? do you need to bother changing them ? I'd have thought you're less likely to hold a GF here than without the overcall.

I also have a lot to say about this statement but i will not due to the reasons i wrote above.

mck4711, on 2011-July-22, 17:19, said:

* first Q: does 1S show 4+ or 5+? forcing? or is neg. X playable, ideally of course for both unbid?
** 2nd Q: is the overcall here the best bid? or overbid, and 2C (maybe 3C) the better choice?
*** 3rd Q: similar to Q2 - good or bad bid? if bad, what else, 3C?
? what to bid here?

P had 10xxx, Axx, Kxx, Qxx

A1-Playing std methods 1♠ shows 4+ ♠
A2-I think 2♦ is overbid, i would have bid 3♣ but i can live with 2♣ too.
A3-Hard for me to answer this due to 1 and 2.

[daveharty]

mck4711, on 2011-July-22, 17:19, said:

Last Q: is there a good book on competitive bidding?

I don't think anyone has addressed this here, it's probably been done in another thread but here are a couple of suggestions. Mike Lawrence's "Complete Book of Overcalls" is pretty good. More advanced is Robson and Segal's "Partnership Bidding at Bridge: The Contested Auction", which is even better for being a freely downloadable PDF. I don't have the link handy but it should be fairly easy to find.

[mck4711]

daveharty, on 2011-July-24, 14:17, said:

I don't think anyone has addressed this here, it's probably been done in another thread but here are a couple of suggestions. Mike Lawrence's "Complete Book of Overcalls" is pretty good. More advanced is Robson and Segal's "Partnership Bidding at Bridge: The Contested Auction", which is even better for being a freely downloadable PDF. I don't have the link handy but it should be fairly easy to find.

Daveharty: thx for this link, yes it is a free pdf-file, quite easy to google, only one "small" problem: it has 234 pages...