[msjennifer]

nekthen, on 2017-January-26, 08:22, said:

As a side note, I think it is amusing that the addition of a practically worthless J would completely change the bidding around as you will now open 1N and I will open 1♦

I agree with you.With 2 suits wide open it is stupid to open 1NT if a silly Jack is added to the hand given.An international did open 1NT on suc a hand against me when he was red VS white .It went all pass,The fist 9 tricks were taken by the opponents.Minus 300 when opponents could have made only 9 Tricks in a spade contract which is what happened at all the remaining tables.Some 1NT (!!!) opening with Jxx-AKxx-AKxx-xx.just done " to preempt opponents".

[GrahamJson]

Joe_Old, on 2017-January-26, 09:27, said:

Since this is 2/1, don't ever, ever, ever rebid 3♦ as that is an invitational, non-forcing bid.

My bid is 3♠, a splinter and slam invitational. It confirms a heart fit and implies ♦ values. Partner is invited to show first round ♦ control at the 4 level (100% forcing).

I have sympathy for 3♣, a cue bid, as partner can now show a ♦ stopper with 3♦ (forcing, because once responder starts a cue bidding sequence, all bids are forcing below game). 3♣ cannot be a second suit or game try in this sequence, except by prior agreement, because once an 8+ fit is found modern practice requires responder to bid game with an unappealing minimum or investigate slam. Here, 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♠ would guarantee the A♣, A♦ or K♦, and second round control in spades.

Hm, not so sure about this. The system used by Bridge Magazine for its bidding competition is 2/1 and supposed to be based on best current expert practice. It clearly states "When responder's suit is raised a return to opener's suit is forcing." The panel includes Bobby Wolff and Mike Lawrence amongst others, who presumably know their stuff.

[dave_beer]

I play that 3♦ is forcing for one round but would bid 4♦ which I play as a slam try and usually shows 5-5.

[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-January-26, 09:27, said:

Since this is 2/1, don't ever, ever, ever rebid 3♦ as that is an invitational, non-forcing bid.

Do you have some literature to back up this assertion? Traditionally sequences of the 1m - 1M; 2M - 3m type are forcing and I am not aware of any high level pairs playing them as NF, let alone doing so without a gadget available to cover the hands that would want to force with a double fit.

[GrahamJson]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-26, 11:01, said:

Do you have some literature to back up this assertion? Traditionally sequences of the 1m - 1M; 2M - 3m type are forcing and I am not aware of any high level pairs playing them as NF, let alone doing so without a gadget available to cover the hands that would want to force with a double fit.

I see that Bridge World Standard uses a return to opener's minor as forcing. http://www.bridgewor...system.html#IVH

[fourdad]

nekthen, on 2017-January-26, 05:25, said:

So 4♣ would be Romex Gerber? Partner shows you both major suit aces with 4N. You now do not know about the K♦ partner could be
♠ AKxx
♥ AJxx
♦ xxx
♣ xx

There is a reason Gerber should only be used for NT hands

If my partner did not show diamond control, I would not bid the slam!!
I have used Romex for 40 years and find that, while nothing is perfect the advantages of knowing exact controls far outweighs the type of hand you invented.

[Joe_Old]

GrahamJson, on 2017-January-26, 09:55, said:

Hm, not so sure about this. The system used by Bridge Magazine for its bidding competition is 2/1 and supposed to be based on best current expert practice. It clearly states "When responder's suit is raised a return to opener's suit is forcing." The panel includes Bobby Wolff and Mike Lawrence amongst others, who presumably know their stuff.

How do you invite?

If you use 2NT, 3♥ and 3♦ as invites showing different hand patterns, that leaves ♠ and ♣ bids as game forces, as well as 4♦.

[Joe_Old]

GrahamJson, on 2017-January-26, 09:55, said:

Hm, not so sure about this. The system used by Bridge Magazine for its bidding competition is 2/1 and supposed to be based on best current expert practice. It clearly states "When responder's suit is raised a return to opener's suit is forcing." The panel includes Bobby Wolff and Mike Lawrence amongst others, who presumably know their stuff.

Check GIB 2/1. 3♦ is a game try suit, 10+ points, forcing only to 3♥. Other expert systems make 3♦ invitational only.

I know robots can't be trusted, but the GIB bidding system itself was set up by a respected world class player. I "forget" the name.

[Caitlynne]

3D is unequivocally the correct textbook rebid for responder. It is 100% forcing; there is little benefit to debating with partner about which is better or safer - a minor suit part-score at a higher level vs. a major suit part-score at one level lower. (And on what basis could you make that determination anyway?)

Much more valuable is to use the bid naturally to show support or where additional length is - either as a game try or, as here, as a hint toward slam. If, for example in the present situation, partner tries to decline/sign-off with 3H, you would simply raise to 4H. However, should partner do something more encouraging below 4H - e.g. bid 3S - now you can cooperate with a 4C cue bid.

You can't really do much more unless you are even stronger, of course, but the principle is evident.

[msjennifer]

nekthen, on 2017-January-26, 06:36, said:

On this sequence I think a 3 card raise, highly unlikely, what shape could p have? I assume vanilla 2/1 means 5 card major and strong NT. Unless p has 4 hearts he must rebid 1N with a weak NT holding 3 hearts. Could he have 1-3-5-4? I would have thought he bids 2♣

In fact I can imagine more cases where he opened a 3 card ♦ suit and raised with 4♥

Absolutely correct .It will be almost next to impossible to construct ,let alone visualise ,a hand raising responders suit,which is known to be only a 4 card suit with Jxx? This HAS to be a FOUR card support.

[msjennifer]

Caitlynne, on 2017-January-26, 18:57, said:

3D is unequivocally the correct textbook rebid for responder. It is 100% forcing; there is little benefit to debating with partner about which is better or safer - a minor suit part-score at a higher level vs. a major suit part-score at one level lower. (And on what basis could you make that determination anyway?)

Much more valuable is to use the bid naturally to show support or where additional length is - either as a game try or, as here, as a hint toward slam. If, for example in the present situation, partner tries to decline/sign-off with 3H, you would simply raise to 4H. However, should partner do something more encouraging below 4H - e.g. bid 3S - now you can cooperate with a 4C cue bid.

You can't really do much more unless you are even stronger, of course, but the principle is evident.

To say simply.in your words,it is an One round force,since you say that Opener may decline and Sign Off in 3 H.Now is this sign off bid Forcing on responder or not?If not ,then the 3D bid is only an invitational bid ,and if yes then it is a game forcing bid telling Opener that you were going to bid a game anyway, but you wanted to show where your values are.Am I right? Or does it ask the opener to start cuebidding ,whatever his hand is( he has already shown a limited hand).?

[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-January-26, 17:36, said:

Check GIB 2/1. 3♦ is a game try suit, 10+ points, forcing only to 3♥. Other expert systems make 3♦ invitational only.

Forcing to 3♥ is not the same as invitational. Do you not think that that bidding system allows Responder to continue after a 3♥ call from Opener? What you perhaps mean to say is that 3♦ is forcing and INV+. That is something quite different. Once again, I ask you for some documentation to your assertion of other expert bidding systems making 3♦ invitational only. There may be - I do not know them all - but I doubt very much that there is a single top level system doing so without using 2♠ or 2NT as a relay. Most of the CCs of top pairs are available online these days - please provide some links!

[rhm]

GrahamJson, on 2017-January-26, 06:47, said:

Quote

...
While it is true that red suit values are at a premium, the most important issue is whether there are wasted values in spades or not.
An advanced player will also take into account his own length in spades. 3 or 4 cards in spades are much better than 2 or less.
...
Rainer Herrmann

On the other hand xx Axxx AKxx xxx has no play for six. I'm not so sure that slam is as likely as most others think. Therefore I prefer 3D, seeing if partner can make a positive noise. If he can't then I'm happy to play in 4H.

Why don't you read what you quote?
This is an argument for the splinter not against it.
Splinters are designed to keep you out of no play slams.

Rainer Herrmann

[Joe_Old]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-27, 02:55, said:

Forcing to 3♥ is not the same as invitational. Do you not think that that bidding system allows Responder to continue after a 3♥ call from Opener? What you perhaps mean to say is that 3♦ is forcing and INV+. That is something quite different. Once again, I ask you for some documentation to your assertion of other expert bidding systems making 3♦ invitational only. There may be - I do not know them all - but I doubt very much that there is a single top level system doing so without using 2♠ or 2NT as a relay. Most of the CCs of top pairs are available online these days - please provide some links!

The point is that there is no consensus on whether 3♦ is invitational, forcing to 3♥ or forcing to game, so don't bid 3♦ unless you know your partner's preference.

[helene_t]

Joe_Old, on 2017-January-27, 09:04, said:

The point is that there is no consensus on whether 3♦ is invitational, forcing to 3♥ or forcing to game, so don't bid 3♦ unless you know your partner's preference.

It only matters if you think partner might take it as nonforcing and pass it with something like 1354 11-count.

Whether he takes it as a slam try or a game try doesn't matter as long as he won't pass it with a minimum but correct to 3♥.

[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-January-27, 09:04, said:

The point is that there is no consensus on whether 3♦ is invitational, forcing to 3♥ or forcing to game, so don't bid 3♦ unless you know your partner's preference.

Why would it be a problem unless partner passes? And you still have not provided any evidence of top level pairs that play 3♦ as non-forcing, let alone a random partner who will surely be playing it forcing just as >99.9% of players do.

[Kaitlyn S]

el mister, on 2017-January-26, 07:41, said:

What actually happened was that I played in 6♥ through a rudimentary bidding sequence that I won't detain you with, making on a spade lead. Partner showed up with ♠AKT ♥T43 ♦AK54 ♣986

Playing in game is fine on these cards. Half the time you're going to have two trump losers. This time you didn't and you still could have been beaten. Frankly I would rather be in game than slam on these cards. Those who splintered will stay out of slam because of the spade wastage opposite the singleton. However, it sounds like "splinters" don't mean anything to you and you could have (in theory) avoided that issue by posting in the Novice/Beginner forum. I'd like to think that although many experts do answer questions in that forum, they try to restrict their answers to something that would be understood by a novice or beginner, which I would not expect in this forum. (I say "I'd like to think" instead of "I'd expect" because there was a lot of talk of splinters in a recent N/B forum thread.)

[Kaitlyn S]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-27, 11:00, said:

Why would it be a problem unless partner passes? And you still have not provided any evidence of top level pairs that play 3♦ as non-forcing, let alone a random partner who will surely be playing it forcing just as >99.9% of players do.

Less than 1 in a thousand play that non-forcing? Surely you jest. If I asked the 70 players in my intermediate class, I'd bet at least 10 of them would say non-forcing. (This would be true even if I had taught it as forcing last week ) And any one of them could potentially be the random partner you speak of.

[Phil]

What tripe. When I read threads like this I am concerned about the quality of the forums.

Gerber.
3D being NF.
A jump meaning ANYTHING but a splinter.

Cant believe my eyes. Ugh.

Rhm is correct (and anyone else that agreed with him).

Back to bidding school for the rest of ya.

[johnu]

Joe_Old, on 2017-January-26, 17:36, said:

I know robots can't be trusted, but the GIB bidding system itself was set up by a respected world class player. I "forget" the name.

I don't know if there was a world class player involved in setting up GIB bidding, but the developer Ginsberg wasn't a world class player. Even if there was a player involved that was world class, they may have played an eccentric, non-standard system, and I seriously doubt that they were involved in much more than opening bids and overcalls, first responses, opener rebids, and some 2nd round responder bids. The number of possible bids as you get into responders' 2nd bids and openers' 3rd bids start to get way out of hand. Some developer either filled in the missing bids, or developed an algorithm to find a reasonable bid.

As an example, when you bid a game in a competitive auction when partner hasn't shown much of anything and you see that GIB thinks you have 25-30 points. This may be a sacrifice, a 2 way bid, or a value bid hoping partner will put down a decent hand. No way a world class (or expert, intermediate, or even most beginners) would specify that GIB interpret that bid as 25-30. Other times, a bid is undefined in the bidding matrix and GIB passes out of the blue. These aren't designed as part of the system, they are bugs.