Am I wrong?
It didn't occur to me that he could pass this It just "seemed" forcing...
#1
Posted 2016-September-04, 16:41
Am I wrong?
#2
Posted 2016-September-04, 16:53
(Apparently you were not playing 2/1...)
It might not be 100% game-force after the competition, if he just makes pref to 3♥ or rebids 4♣...
I guess rules are a bit "flexible" there... and different players might have different opinions re GF or not.
#3
Posted 2016-September-04, 17:40
1) If you stop and double opponents
2) No good fit is found and side lacks stoppers for 3N may end up in 4 minor rarely
#4
Posted 2016-September-04, 17:44
steve2005, on 2016-September-04, 17:40, said:
1) If you stop and double opponents
2) No good fit is found and side lacks stoppers for 3N may end up in 4 minor rarely
Ummm... in our system 1♥-2♣ is forcing to 2♥. I would advise you not to look like an idiot by responding assuming conditions that are clearly not in force in the OP.
#5
Posted 2016-September-04, 17:47
Is this an Acol quiz question?
#6
Posted 2016-September-04, 17:53
Vampyr, on 2016-September-04, 17:44, said:
I would suggest not looking like as ass by getting snippy when someone makes assumptions in the face of you providing no system details.
#7
Posted 2016-September-04, 17:57
Vampyr, on 2016-September-04, 17:44, said:
I'd advise that you not expect people to be able to guess at the meanings of your own idiosyncratic treatments...
[When I post a MOSCITO auction I have the good grace to explain nonstandard treatments as to avoid wasting everyone's time]
#8
Posted 2016-September-04, 18:33
So yes, I think that it is forcing. But you say 2D was forcing to 2H, and playing 1H-2D-2H-P seems odd to me. So of course I don't know how a poll would go if you confined it to people who see an uncontested 1H-2D-2H as passable.
But playing online with someone you barely know, if that's what this was. leads to such things. I enjoy playing online, and I often play with people I barely know, and so there are these things.
But yes, I cannot imagine that I would pass. I would make other calls you would not approve of though.
#9
Posted 2016-September-04, 18:41
I don't think 3D as non-forcing is unreasonable - you would X first if you wanted to force.
#10
Posted 2016-September-04, 19:01
TylerE, on 2016-September-04, 17:53, said:
She puts London as location, assuming 2/1 GF is unwise, a Brit would normally state it if they were playing it.
3♦ should be forcing for everybody who hasn't discussed it and agreed that it isn't, whether it's F1 or FG with no agreement is unclear.
#11
Posted 2016-September-04, 23:00
ahydra
#12
Posted 2016-September-05, 01:00
In that case a nf 3d bid is the only way to stop in 3d. Maybe forcing is more useful. But presumably dbl followed by 3d is stronger.
For 2/1 pairs the auction
1h p 1s 2d
3c
is most commonly played as invitational but here presumably responder hae shown enough that there is no need to distinguish between weak and invitational.
#13
Posted 2016-September-05, 04:22
This is an interesting post because how some players bid is completely different to others. As MrAce demonstrated in a recent post, his interpretation of a suit rebid at the three level (as opposed to a new suit) went against what many other people were suggesting, including myself.
As he succinctly put it, "He makes the bid because of shape, not shape and beans".
I do feel there is some general difference between British and American bidding sequences, and interpretation of bids, especially where the opponents have intervened.
To me, if opener bids a new minor at the three level, it is forcing for one round at the very least, whatever system you are playing. Opener is unlimited, except where a partnership are using a strong club system.
#14
Posted 2016-September-05, 04:27
Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-04, 19:01, said:
Yes and as mentioned above, the (non)forcing nature of 3♦ would not be in question if we were already forced to game.
#15
Posted 2016-September-05, 05:41
helene_t, on 2016-September-05, 01:00, said:
In that case a nf 3d bid is the only way to stop in 3d. Maybe forcing is more useful. But presumably dbl followed by 3d is stronger.
I do not know if it is useful to have a way to stop in 3♦; with what hand would I want to go on a solo adventure with no guarantee of a fit? for this reason I don't know if it is sensible to have two ways to bid 3♦, and would reserve the double for more flexible hands, eg with ♣Hx. I may be wrong about this. (Bid a passable 3♦ with a moderate 6/6?)
The actual hand, not that it's super relevant, was x AKJ10xx K10xxx x.
#16
Posted 2016-September-05, 05:46
hrothgar, on 2016-September-04, 17:57, said:
[When I post a MOSCITO auction I have the good grace to explain nonstandard treatments as to avoid wasting everyone's time]
Nothing nonstandard here. Pure natural bidding, no artificial colours, no preservatives.
#17
Posted 2016-September-05, 06:08
Vampyr, on 2016-September-05, 05:46, said:
But the answer to your question could depend on the strength promised by the 2♣ bid. 8+ is different from from 12+ while both could be consistent with the agreement that 2♣ is a one round force but we could end in 3♦ on some auctions.
#18
Posted 2016-September-05, 06:12
Vampyr, on 2016-September-05, 05:41, said:
The actual hand, not that it's super relevant, was x AKJ10xx K10xxx x.
If opener has a 1552 12-count and responder has a 3136 10-count ... especially for those who play 4-card majors since you would like to show the fifth heart. But you play 5-card majors in this partnership, don't you?
At this vulnerability it is probably a bit far fetched since a weak hand can afford to pass.
#19
Posted 2016-September-05, 06:15
helene_t, on 2016-September-05, 06:08, said:
Yes, that is true, but again if partner is 8+ rather than 10+ I still don't see why I want to climb past his suit at the 3-level on a possible (probable?) misfit.
#20
Posted 2016-September-05, 06:16
helene_t, on 2016-September-05, 06:12, said:
At this vulnerability it is probably a bit far fetched since a weak hand can afford to pass.
Yes and I agree.