Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ercan Cem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East (long spade hand) can find a lawyer defending his case; but no lawyer I know of would be willing to defend West.
Nov. 18
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Michael I mostly agree with our analysis. Except the part where you say:

So two hearts is either a one-suiter with worry OUTSIDE of hearts OR (maybe) four-card clubs that wanted to bid three clubs next—as opposed to direct three clubs which we might want to depict five-card clubs.

But it looks as if you can only handle this four-card clubs thing if partner bids cheaper than three diamonds. So maybe it is more practical for opener to just rebid three clubs here—then follow with three spades over three diamonds.

It sounds as if you haven't made up your mind. And it feels your final analysis depends on exactly what two hearts followed by three hearts imply.
Nov. 18
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Michael: I am not necessarily arguing that three clubs is not forcing. But considering that after the partnership sequence, say, 1 - 1 - 1NT, people have a way to invite in clubs (or diamonds) suggests that the case in discussion may not be as certain as you assert; at least not without partnership discussion. I am especially doubtful about your point that two clubs over one notrump is as wide-ranging as, say, 1 - 1 - 2—where, unlike the discussed example, responder is unlimited.
Nov. 18
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether or not three clubs is a better overall description, and partnership agreements aside, is it absolutely certain that three clubs is forcing? Obviously, two clubs would be non-forcing; so how does East invite with clubs and diamonds?
Nov. 18
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With that, West would bid two notrump over two hearts.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe this overall problem is not simply a matter of agreement, but rather of logic and science. As Michael Lawrence said in his book, once the opponents opened the bidding, our first concern is to find a playable part-score, rather than being able to bid the games—if there is one to bid. This argues that one should be able to bid his long suit without forcing to anything. So non-forcing but encouraging, especially when a fit found makes a lot of sense.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While conducting this poll, I was almost certain that except the few outcasts none would opine for non-forcing.

(1) Because a typical responder would deliver 5-6-plus, a typical strong jump-shift would be (can be) roughly defined as a hand with an equivalent of 19-plus. (So 19-plus bit is not an arbitrary definition.) A strong jump-shift is by definition forcing to game. If some know-it-all claims “what if responder responded with queen-jack-fifth in spades and out?”, that is responder's problem. With that logic, even a 22-HCP jump shift does not cut: what if responder responded on yarborough? In the same vein, if in the example auction you and your partner agreed that you can freely bid two hearts on king-fifth and out, okay; but that is not what is expected when two reasonable non-partner players sit to play a tourney. Further, exactly why king-fifth, and not queen-fifth, or even jack fifth? Where and how do they draw the line?

(2) Those respond freely bid two hearts: what is typical hand your partner raises to three hearts to invite; what is a typical hand your partner bids four hearts?

(3) Those respond freely bid two hearts: when your partner has more than a raise to game, what does he do? Cuebid first? (What else?) Hence, if your partner cuebids, and then bids a suit, (i) is he bidding his long suit; (ii) is it even forcing? (why?); (iii) or is partner control bidding agreeing your hearts? In any case how would you differentiate these two cases?

(4) When partner makes a take-out double he may have some shape and an 11 count. If you are willing to bid two hearts facing that; why would someone want to pass when he learns that partner is much much more stronger than that? (And those who say that they do not subscribe to heavy overcalls, that is also your problem; this is the way in modern bridge—and not by arbitrary decision, but decades of cumulative expert experience.)


I assert that those who defend two-spades as non-forcing cannot make a consistent overall case.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What you say is not bridge logic at all. It is definition. Here, bridge logic means in classic reverse situations, one is virtually forced to play that the reverse shows extras. In the given auction, that is not the case.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The theory is that if opener rebids a suit at the three level (for example, one heart - two diamonds - three clubs, he show extras because he gobbled up bidding space. This is not the case when opener rebids two spades in the given auction. So whoever says that opener's two-spade rebid shows extras, it is by their definition only; not by bridge logic.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you bid and opponents steal the contract, people will say you should have passed; if you pass and miss a game, people say you should have opened.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More news on Deal #2. I have contacted Frank Stewart. He said he had the deal from Alfred Sheinwold's archives, and Mr. Sheinwold did not mention any source.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Has there been a time when Papa's actions did not cost him something? Especially his mouth!
Nov. 6
Ercan Cem edited this comment Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I overcall with one spade and I am left in doubled, I am happy; if I overcall with three spades and left in doubled, I am unhappy; if I overcall with two spades and left in doubled, I am not sure. So two spades it is.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: for that plan to work, partner must know that you have the queen when you win with the ace, which, usually, is not possible.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If were to go back that far, I would refer it as Precambrian Era.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Classically, three notrump rebid shows 15-17 HCP, and two notrump rebid shows either 12-14 or 18+ HCP (if the latter, opener will bid over three notrump). In theory, both rebids promise 5-3-3-2 shape with stoppers in the unbid suits, and doubleton in responder's suit.

But this structure is also problematic. To start with, some hands in the required range will lack a stopper in the unbid suit. (Worse: should one assume queen-third as a stopper?) Further, when opener jumps to three notrump, responder will not know whether opener has fast tricks, or soft values; or whether he has an honor in responder's suit.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve In a BWS panel, if two hearts gets even one vote with that example hand of yours, I would be surprised. It is either one notrump or two diamonds. Two hearts is not even wrong.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On that layout the declarer would have played on hearts before diamonds.
Aug. 21
Ercan Cem edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also checked the index. It must be the case that they did not change the pair name, even though they did not participate.
Aug. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top