Help
1 ♣ - (pass)-1♥!(♠)-(2♥)
pass-(pass)-double-(pass)
2 ♠ - (pass)-3♦...
1♥ shows 4+ spades.
is 3♦ sing off, invitational or forcing?
Page 1 of 1
a competitive sequence
#1
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2013-July-22, 10:45
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 2010-December-02
Posted 2013-July-22, 10:49
With a forcing hand I would bid direct 3♦ so this should be signoff
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 796
- Joined: 2010-October-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
Posted 2013-July-22, 11:15
With a sign-off hand I would have bid a direct 3♦ so this should be forcing.
But obviously this situation could depend on agreements. I have played responder's balancing in a new suit as NF (and strong hands need to double/cuebid/jump) in all my expert partnerships.
But obviously this situation could depend on agreements. I have played responder's balancing in a new suit as NF (and strong hands need to double/cuebid/jump) in all my expert partnerships.
Michael Askgaard
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2013-July-22, 12:06
Holding any hand which would remove 2S, our 2NT rather than double would have been used as a preparation for a Diamond sign-off; so 3D here would be forcing. Doesn't matter about the Walsh response...auction would be the virtually the same after a 1S response.
Was 2S a punt, or does the pair (like us) not use mandatory support doubles here?
Was 2S a punt, or does the pair (like us) not use mandatory support doubles here?
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#5
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2013-July-22, 14:10
mfa1010, on 2013-July-22, 11:15, said:
With a sign-off hand I would have bid a direct 3♦ so this should be forcing.
But obviously this situation could depend on agreements. I have played responder's balancing in a new suit as NF (and strong hands need to double/cuebid/jump) in all my expert partnerships.
But obviously this situation could depend on agreements. I have played responder's balancing in a new suit as NF (and strong hands need to double/cuebid/jump) in all my expert partnerships.
me 2
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,660
- Joined: 2011-February-12
Posted 2013-July-22, 14:19
it seems counter intuitive that I could have 6 dia and 4s and a weakfish
hand and would prefer to show my 4+ cards spade suit and back in later
in a sequence that is only possible if the opps interevene with a 3d sign off.
i can buy a 3d invitational bid since i could bid 3h with a game forcing hand
asking for a heart stop (my x would imply diamonds). I could have also bid 3d
immediately as a forcing call -- sometimes the x is used to limit our hands
as well as show some extra strength.
hand and would prefer to show my 4+ cards spade suit and back in later
in a sequence that is only possible if the opps interevene with a 3d sign off.
i can buy a 3d invitational bid since i could bid 3h with a game forcing hand
asking for a heart stop (my x would imply diamonds). I could have also bid 3d
immediately as a forcing call -- sometimes the x is used to limit our hands
as well as show some extra strength.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,316
- Joined: 2011-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Interests:student of the game
Posted 2013-July-22, 14:40
Don't understand this sequence. Why didn't we
just pass and defend 2♥?
just pass and defend 2♥?
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2013-July-22, 17:16
jogs, on 2013-July-22, 14:40, said:
Don't understand this sequence. Why didn't we
just pass and defend 2♥?
just pass and defend 2♥?
I don't understand what hand you are looking at. I don't see one.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2013-July-23, 01:29
Forcing, with a nf hand I had not doubled, but bid the diamonds or I had passed 2 ♠ after I found the (possible 4-3) fit.
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#10
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 796
- Joined: 2010-October-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
Posted 2013-July-23, 04:11
Codo, on 2013-July-23, 01:29, said:
Forcing, with a nf hand I had not doubled, but bid the diamonds or I had passed 2 ♠ after I found the (possible 4-3) fit.
I would expect partner's 2♠ to be a doubleton usually, since the vast majority of hands with 3 would support double 2♥.
Michael Askgaard
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,679
- Joined: 2008-April-06
Posted 2013-July-23, 09:52
jogs, on 2013-July-22, 14:40, said:
Don't understand this sequence. Why didn't we
just pass and defend 2♥?
just pass and defend 2♥?
If I had an invitational 54xx I would double for penalty, but I am not an expert, as experts are never allowed to double for penalty.
If double forces a relay of 2♠ by agreement then there must be an agreement about whether a direct 3♦ or a delayed 3♦ is GF or weak. It could be either.
Page 1 of 1