Discussion:
missed game
(too old to reply)
a***@yahoo.co.uk
2018-06-16 18:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Cross IMP pairs, 5 card majors, 15-17NT all vuln:

North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2

N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P

I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3 spade break. What do you think?
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-06-16 20:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3 spade break. What do you think?
In what system is responder's new suit at 3 not game forcing? But it cannot be relied on to promise 4+.

Surely 4C promised 4+ in blood. Rebidding spades would surely deny 4+ clubs in blood.

Jumpraising clubs surely requires 5+.

Carl
ais523
2018-06-17 16:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving
partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam
with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding
only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of
the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3
spade break. What do you think?
In what system is responder's new suit at 3 not game forcing? But it cannot be relied on to promise 4+.
Surely 4C promised 4+ in blood. Rebidding spades would surely deny 4+ clubs in blood.
Jumpraising clubs surely requires 5+.
The 3C bid here is named in many sources as "third suit forcing", and is
described as forcing, and artificial in the sense that it might not be a
genuine suit (doing it on a three-card suit is common as there
frequently isn't a four-card suit to use for the purpose); some systems
go so far as to always use the cheapest suit available to save bidding
space, but that's nonstandard. Unfortunately, none of those sources seem
to go into just how forcing it is! However, I'd personally play it (in
the general sense) as a one-round force, not a game force.

This implies that North's 4C is showing a suit and a minimum (which is
pretty much what North has). North's shown six clubs, though, so a 6331
or 6322 hand is fairly likely; as such, South can't assume that North's
best side suit has as many as three cards in it. If South has to bid 3NT
on any hand with no side suit, that's going to lead to a lot of 3NTs
going down.

I think South should have made sure that the auction didn't stop short
of game, though, given that both players have an opening bid. The
problem is figuring out which suit it should be in, as there isn't
enough information. That argues that maybe North should just bid 3S
despite the possible club fit; AKQxxx is a suit holding that means the
suit will probably work as trumps even if you don't have a fit, so
because there's a reasonable chance you won't find the right suit before
you get too high, you may as well pick one you at least know will work.

For what it's worth, I have a suspect that the main culprit in this
situation is the 2H bid: it's very common for systems to play it as
natural, but it uses up too much bidding space, and now neither South
nor North have enough room to learn what the other holds. (This is the
main observation that lead to the creation of the 2/1 bidding system, in
which the 2H bid is game-forcing in its own right in order to try to
reclaim some of the bidding space it takes up, and in which an
artificial 1NT would be used on less powerful hands as a method of
learning the opener's side suit.) In this particular sequence, South
showing hearts has prevented North showing clubs, which is what lead
to the problem (normally with a 6:4 you bid the 6, then the 4, then
the 6 again, but bidding space has gotten in the way).
--
ais523
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-06-17 18:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ais523
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving
partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam
with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding
only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of
the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3
spade break. What do you think?
In what system is responder's new suit at 3 not game forcing? But it cannot be relied on to promise 4+.
Surely 4C promised 4+ in blood. Rebidding spades would surely deny 4+ clubs in blood.
Jumpraising clubs surely requires 5+.
The 3C bid here is named in many sources as "third suit forcing", and is
described as forcing, and artificial in the sense that it might not be a
genuine suit (doing it on a three-card suit is common as there
frequently isn't a four-card suit to use for the purpose); some systems
go so far as to always use the cheapest suit available to save bidding
space, but that's nonstandard. Unfortunately, none of those sources seem
to go into just how forcing it is! However, I'd personally play it (in
the general sense) as a one-round force, not a game force.
This implies that North's 4C is showing a suit and a minimum (which is
pretty much what North has). North's shown six clubs, though, so a 6331
or 6322 hand is fairly likely; as such, South can't assume that North's
best side suit has as many as three cards in it. If South has to bid 3NT
on any hand with no side suit, that's going to lead to a lot of 3NTs
going down.
I think South should have made sure that the auction didn't stop short
of game, though, given that both players have an opening bid. The
problem is figuring out which suit it should be in, as there isn't
enough information. That argues that maybe North should just bid 3S
despite the possible club fit; AKQxxx is a suit holding that means the
suit will probably work as trumps even if you don't have a fit, so
because there's a reasonable chance you won't find the right suit before
you get too high, you may as well pick one you at least know will work.
For what it's worth, I have a suspect that the main culprit in this
situation is the 2H bid: it's very common for systems to play it as
natural, but it uses up too much bidding space, and now neither South
nor North have enough room to learn what the other holds. (This is the
main observation that lead to the creation of the 2/1 bidding system, in
which the 2H bid is game-forcing in its own right in order to try to
reclaim some of the bidding space it takes up, and in which an
artificial 1NT would be used on less powerful hands as a method of
learning the opener's side suit.) In this particular sequence, South
showing hearts has prevented North showing clubs, which is what lead
to the problem (normally with a 6:4 you bid the 6, then the 4, then
the 6 again, but bidding space has gotten in the way).
--
ais523
Do you know of any published system that does *not* have as game-forcing responder's new suit at 3-level? It was game-forcing in Goren for sure. I'm pr4etty sure in Acol as well.

With 6-4 of less than opening strength, you have to abandon the 4.

Carl
ais523
2018-06-17 18:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Do you know of any published system that does *not* have as
game-forcing responder's new suit at 3-level? It was game-forcing in
Goren for sure. I'm pretty sure in Acol as well.
With 6-4 of less than opening strength, you have to abandon the 4.
I checked two sources for Acol. The "Modern Acol System File" (which
used to be on the EBU website, but seems to have disappeared by this
point) doesn't mention continuations after 1M, 2M at all.

The most comprehensive source about Acol I know is mjbridge.info: the
relevant page is <http://mjbridge.info/responders%20rebid/page152.html>.
It lists the bid, in traditional Acol, as forcing at the three-level or
if it's a reverse, and mentions that in modern Acol it's normally
forcing regardless. It doesn't say "game forcing", just "forcing" (and
my experience making agreements with partners is that "forcing" will be
normally taken as a one-round force unless you're very clear on what you
mean!). It's possible that it's meant to be game forcing, but that
doesn't seem to be explained there. (That said, it also isn't clear how
artificial the bid is; is it artificial in that it might be only a
three-card suit, or can it be artificial on a zero-card suit?)
--
ais523
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-06-17 19:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ais523
Post by ***@verizon.net
Do you know of any published system that does *not* have as
game-forcing responder's new suit at 3-level? It was game-forcing in
Goren for sure. I'm pretty sure in Acol as well.
With 6-4 of less than opening strength, you have to abandon the 4.
I checked two sources for Acol. The "Modern Acol System File" (which
used to be on the EBU website, but seems to have disappeared by this
point) doesn't mention continuations after 1M, 2M at all.
The most comprehensive source about Acol I know is mjbridge.info: the
relevant page is <http://mjbridge.info/responders%20rebid/page152.html>.
It lists the bid, in traditional Acol, as forcing at the three-level or
if it's a reverse, and mentions that in modern Acol it's normally
forcing regardless. It doesn't say "game forcing", just "forcing" (and
my experience making agreements with partners is that "forcing" will be
normally taken as a one-round force unless you're very clear on what you
mean!). It's possible that it's meant to be game forcing, but that
doesn't seem to be explained there. (That said, it also isn't clear how
artificial the bid is; is it artificial in that it might be only a
three-card suit, or can it be artificial on a zero-card suit?)
--
ais523
You appear to be looking at opener's new suit, not responder's.
ais523
2018-06-17 19:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by ais523
Post by ***@verizon.net
Do you know of any published system that does *not* have as
game-forcing responder's new suit at 3-level? It was game-forcing in
Goren for sure. I'm pretty sure in Acol as well.
With 6-4 of less than opening strength, you have to abandon the 4.
I checked two sources for Acol. The "Modern Acol System File" (which
used to be on the EBU website, but seems to have disappeared by this
point) doesn't mention continuations after 1M, 2M at all.
The most comprehensive source about Acol I know is mjbridge.info: the
relevant page is <http://mjbridge.info/responders%20rebid/page152.html>.
It lists the bid, in traditional Acol, as forcing at the three-level or
if it's a reverse, and mentions that in modern Acol it's normally
forcing regardless. It doesn't say "game forcing", just "forcing" (and
my experience making agreements with partners is that "forcing" will be
normally taken as a one-round force unless you're very clear on what you
mean!). It's possible that it's meant to be game forcing, but that
doesn't seem to be explained there. (That said, it also isn't clear how
artificial the bid is; is it artificial in that it might be only a
three-card suit, or can it be artificial on a zero-card suit?)
You appear to be looking at opener's new suit, not responder's.
No I'm not? The page I linked is about what responder should do after
opener repeats a suit, and thus defines the meaning of a new suit rebid
by responder.

I did accidentally say 1M, 2M rather than 1M, 1/2x; 2M in my first
paragraph. However, that was a thinko; I meant the situation where 1M
and 2M were both by opener.
--
ais523
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-06-17 18:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ais523
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving
partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam
with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding
only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of
the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3
spade break. What do you think?
In what system is responder's new suit at 3 not game forcing? But it cannot be relied on to promise 4+.
Surely 4C promised 4+ in blood. Rebidding spades would surely deny 4+ clubs in blood.
Jumpraising clubs surely requires 5+.
The 3C bid here is named in many sources as "third suit forcing", and is
described as forcing, and artificial in the sense that it might not be a
genuine suit (doing it on a three-card suit is common as there
frequently isn't a four-card suit to use for the purpose); some systems
go so far as to always use the cheapest suit available to save bidding
space, but that's nonstandard. Unfortunately, none of those sources seem
to go into just how forcing it is! However, I'd personally play it (in
the general sense) as a one-round force, not a game force.
This implies that North's 4C is showing a suit and a minimum (which is
pretty much what North has). North's shown six clubs, though, so a 6331
or 6322 hand is fairly likely; as such, South can't assume that North's
best side suit has as many as three cards in it. If South has to bid 3NT
on any hand with no side suit, that's going to lead to a lot of 3NTs
going down.
I think South should have made sure that the auction didn't stop short
of game, though, given that both players have an opening bid. The
problem is figuring out which suit it should be in, as there isn't
enough information. That argues that maybe North should just bid 3S
despite the possible club fit; AKQxxx is a suit holding that means the
suit will probably work as trumps even if you don't have a fit, so
because there's a reasonable chance you won't find the right suit before
you get too high, you may as well pick one you at least know will work.
For what it's worth, I have a suspect that the main culprit in this
situation is the 2H bid: it's very common for systems to play it as
natural, but it uses up too much bidding space, and now neither South
nor North have enough room to learn what the other holds. (This is the
main observation that lead to the creation of the 2/1 bidding system, in
which the 2H bid is game-forcing in its own right in order to try to
reclaim some of the bidding space it takes up, and in which an
artificial 1NT would be used on less powerful hands as a method of
learning the opener's side suit.) In this particular sequence, South
showing hearts has prevented North showing clubs, which is what lead
to the problem (normally with a 6:4 you bid the 6, then the 4, then
the 6 again, but bidding space has gotten in the way).
--
ais523
3S would deny 4+ clubs in blood.

It is not possible to play the raise to 4C as promising a minimum. Making a waiting bid would in practice require you to jump to slam at your next turn.

Carl
Travis Crump
2018-06-18 01:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3 spade break. What do you think?
I just have a meta-rule that it is impossible to stop in 4m in a
noncompetitive auction[ie 4m is always forcing]. It is possible that you
can determine that you have two small opposite two small[or Jx opp Qx]
plus another loser and need to stop in 4m, but I'm not that smart.
Bruce Evans
2018-06-18 06:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving
partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam
with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding
only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of
the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3
spade break. What do you think?
Bad system and bad bidding, but 4C is not a bad place to stop in since
5C is often down even when the trumps break 3-2 (unless the spades are
3-3 and you play for that, but then 4S makes 5 much more easily). The
4C bid makes it too difficult to find 4S. If south had a doubleton or
even a void in spades, it would be even more important to find 4S (with
the void, the entry problems in 5C are larger).
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
I just have a meta-rule that it is impossible to stop in 4m in a
noncompetitive auction[ie 4m is always forcing]. It is possible that you
can determine that you have two small opposite two small[or Jx opp Qx]
plus another loser and need to stop in 4m, but I'm not that smart.
Indeed, 4C here should be a slam try, and should have better or longer clubs.
The club fit is usually only 4-4 (possibly 3-4 if 3C can be on 3 cards), so
even 5C will be hard to make unless partner has significant extras. 5C
would usually be down, with 3NT cold and 4S playable, if partner has
mere extras like x KQJT9 KJT AQxx. 5C would be down 1 off the top and down
2 on bad club breaks, if partner has x KQJT9 KJT KQxx.

I would just bid 3S (game forcing). A suit playable opposite a void
must be shown somehow. 2S didn't show it. In my system, 2S shows any
hand not suitable for another bid. Usually a minimum with 5 only 5
spades (can be 65432). In some systems, 2S shows 6 spades, but they
might be 765432 instead AKQxxx. In better systems, some artificial
bid shows a minimum with 6+ spades.

Bruce
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-06-18 17:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving
partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam
with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding
only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of
the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3
spade break. What do you think?
Bad system and bad bidding, but 4C is not a bad place to stop in since
5C is often down even when the trumps break 3-2 (unless the spades are
3-3 and you play for that, but then 4S makes 5 much more easily). The
4C bid makes it too difficult to find 4S. If south had a doubleton or
even a void in spades, it would be even more important to find 4S (with
the void, the entry problems in 5C are larger).
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
I just have a meta-rule that it is impossible to stop in 4m in a
noncompetitive auction[ie 4m is always forcing]. It is possible that you
can determine that you have two small opposite two small[or Jx opp Qx]
plus another loser and need to stop in 4m, but I'm not that smart.
Indeed, 4C here should be a slam try, and should have better or longer clubs.
The club fit is usually only 4-4 (possibly 3-4 if 3C can be on 3 cards), so
even 5C will be hard to make unless partner has significant extras. 5C
would usually be down, with 3NT cold and 4S playable, if partner has
mere extras like x KQJT9 KJT AQxx. 5C would be down 1 off the top and down
2 on bad club breaks, if partner has x KQJT9 KJT KQxx.
I would just bid 3S (game forcing). A suit playable opposite a void
must be shown somehow. 2S didn't show it. In my system, 2S shows any
hand not suitable for another bid. Usually a minimum with 5 only 5
spades (can be 65432). In some systems, 2S shows 6 spades, but they
might be 765432 instead AKQxxx. In better systems, some artificial
bid shows a minimum with 6+ spades.
Bruce
3S would make sure of missing slam whenever responder misfit spades.

Carl
Lorne
2018-06-18 22:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
North South
AKQ764 9
7 A86532
Q6 K7
J764 KQT2
N S
1S 2H
2S 3C
4C P
I thought we were in a game forcing auction, so raised clubs giving partner a chance to support spades with a doubleton, or look for slam with a good hand. She thought I was straining a raise possibly holding only three clubs, so bailed out. I guess I could have just bid one of the black suit games straight away, 4S and 5C make thanks to the 3-3 spade break. What do you think?
3C is a game force for me. With less you pass 2S or bid 2N or 3H.
Loading...