[foo]

Hannie, on Dec 20 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

The forcers pass with KQTxx x Ax KQTxx?

I don't know about you, but after 1S-pa-1N-(2H);?? , I'd consider your pure (no wastage in ♥'s, no bad holdings) 4 loser example to have a enormous amount of playing strength.

If pard has 1 good card and a ♠ fit, We rate to make 4S.
If pard has 2 good cards and even reasonable fitting shape, We rate to make 4S or possibly 5C.
If pard has good stops in ♥'s and reasonable fitting shape, 3N has decent chances.

IOW, your example is pretty much a GF hand based on the odds.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 20 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 20 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

The forcers pass with KQTxx x Ax KQTxx?

I don't know about you, but after 1S-pa-1N-(2H);?? , I'd consider your pure (no wastage in ♥'s, no bad holdings) 4 loser example to have a enormous amount of playing strength.

If pard has 1 good card and a ♠ fit, We rate to make 4S.
If pard has 2 good cards and even reasonable fitting shape, We rate to make 4S or possibly 5C.
If pard has good stops in ♥'s and reasonable fitting shape, 3N has decent chances.

IOW, your example is pretty much a GF hand based on the odds.

So you were going to be consistent and bid 3♣ after 1♠ p 1NT p with your "game force based on the odds"?

Funny how partner is the one who knows whether or not he has useful cards. When he doesn't have any, he passes your non-forcing bid. the hands you describe, he bids over the nonforcing bid anyway and you get to the game you want to be in.

BTW, none of your three possibilities seems particularly likely. Isn't it more likely partner has no spade fit, not two of the A A K A cards, and not a double heart stopper? So your "on the odds" seems more like a "contrary to the odds" to me.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Dec 20 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

The forcers pass with KQ10xx x Ax KQ10xx?

No this is a slow 3♣ call which takes the force off.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 20 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 20 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 20 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

The forcers pass with KQTxx_x_Ax_KQTxx?

I don't know about you, but after 1S-pa-1N-(2H);?? , I'd consider your pure (no wastage in ♥'s, no bad holdings) 4 loser example to have a enormous amount of playing strength.

If pard has 1 good card and a ♠ fit, We rate to make 4S.
If pard has 2 good cards and even reasonable fitting shape, We rate to make 4S or possibly 5C.
If pard has good stops in ♥'s and reasonable fitting shape, 3N has decent chances.

IOW, your example is pretty much a GF hand based on the odds.

So you were going to be consistent and bid 3♣ after 1♠ p 1NT p with your "game force based on the odds"?

Funny how partner is the one who knows whether or not he has useful cards. When he doesn't have any, he passes your non-forcing bid. the hands you describe, he bids over the nonforcing bid anyway and you get to the game you want to be in.

BTW, none of your three possibilities seems particularly likely. Isn't it more likely partner has no spade fit, not two of the A A K A cards, and not a double heart stopper? So your "on the odds" seems more like a "contrary to the odds" to me.

My POV was that 1S-pa-1N-(2H);3C was =non forcing=.

Please don't mix me up with someone from the other camp.

What I was trying to say re: Hannie's example is that I consider that hand strong enough to GF in this auction. So if 3C is Forcing, I'm using it. If 3C is not, I'm bidding something that is.

But I'm going to Game, whether 3N, 4S, or 5C, with KQTxx_x_Ax_KQTxx in this auction.

I'll let one of the "Young Scientists" do the simulation to see how well it rates to work out.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 20 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

My POV was that 1S-pa-1N-(2H);3C was =non forcing=.

Please don't mix me up with someone from the other camp.

What I was trying to say re: Hannie's example is that I consider that hand strong enough to GF in this auction.  So if 3C is Forcing, I'm using it.  If 3C is not, I'm bidding something that is.

But I'm going to Game, whether 3N, 4S, or 5C, with KQTxx_x_Ax_KQTxx in this auction.

I'll let one of the "Young Scientists" do the simulation to see how well it rates to work out.

Sorry if I misrepresented your POV about 3♣ not being forcing. I'm glad to see we agree on that much. My post still remains that given the example brought up by Hannie, on the hands where we belong in game partner is generally not passing a nonforcing 3♣ bid. That hand, as Hannie intended it to begin with, is a perfect example of why 3♣ should be nonforcing.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 20 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 20 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

My POV was that 1S-pa-1N-(2H);3C was =non forcing=.

Please don't mix me up with someone from the other camp.

What I was trying to say re: Hannie's example is that I consider that hand strong enough to GF in this auction.  So if 3C is Forcing, I'm using it.  If 3C is not, I'm bidding something that is.

But I'm going to Game, whether 3N, 4S, or 5C, with KQTxx_x_Ax_KQTxx in this auction.

I'll let one of the "Young Scientists" do the simulation to see how well it rates to work out.

Sorry if I misrepresented your POV about 3♣ not being forcing. I'm glad to see we agree on that much. My post still remains that given the example brought up by Hannie, on the hands where we belong in game partner is generally not passing a nonforcing 3♣ bid. That hand, as Hannie intended it to begin with, is a perfect example of why 3♣ should be nonforcing.

The better hand to show Hannie's POV as to why 3C should be NF here can be made by as little a change as switching the red suits:

KQTxx_Ax_x_KQTxx (instead of what Hannie gave: KQTxx_x_Ax_KQTxx )

To paraphrase Robson & Segel, Ax in Their suit is far more defensive than Ax in what is likely to ne one of Our suits.

ATT, I would literally bid these two hands differently.

[kenrexford]

Hannie, on Dec 20 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

The forcers pass with KQ10xx x Ax KQ10xx?

2NT.

[helene_t]

I think it should be invitational no matter if one plays GB2NT or not.

Without GB2NT, a strong hand can cue and a weak hand can pass.

With GB2NT, 2NT can be used with either a weak or a strong hand.

Alternatively on could play 2NT as invitational or stronger and 3♣ as weak. I think van Cleff/vd Neut play it that way. (I might be confusing them with some other Dutch pair).

[foo]

helene_t, on Dec 21 2007, 05:16 AM, said:

I think it should be invitational no matter if one plays GB2NT or not.

Without GB2NT, a strong hand can cue and a weak hand can pass.

With GB2NT, 2NT can be used with either a weak or a strong hand.

Alternatively on could play 2NT as invitational or stronger and 3♣ as weak. I think van Cleff/vd Neut play it that way. (I might be confusing them with some other Dutch pair).

I think we've established that the standard meaning here is for
1M-pa-1N-(foo);bar

To be Invitational.

Now it appears the issue is to nail down what hands qualify as Invitational

[benlessard]

In a really expert partnership i would expect 2nt GB or be quasi-standard. But in a not-so clear expert casual ' its in case of doubt its forcing' rule apply for me.

[foo]

benlessard, on Dec 22 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

In a really expert partnership i would expect 2nt GB or be quasi-standard. But in a not-so clear expert casual ' its in case of doubt its forcing' rule apply for me.

Ah. The "all strange or unclear bids are Forcing" rule.