[bluecalm]

Imo:

-3N shows long clubs + stopper and partne is strongly advised to not remove it. We would bid 2N with 18-19.
-pass after 4S is forcing as we showed a lot of points
-we have easy bid after 4S but what that bid is I do not know (5C/4N/6C)
-I guess you don't play nfb's because then 2D would be perfect
-I don't like 2C, partner could have 2 clubs. Bidding 3C or 3D is madness.

Quote

I am inferring that south argued that he showed long clubs for 3N but I just don't understand that

What else ? You bid 2N with 18=19, right ? Or maybe if you bid 3N with 18-19 then 2N should show long clubs. One or the other, playing both as potentially being balanced hands is very bad. Even without it bidding this 18-19 balanced in competition is a nightmare because many bids (most doubles, 3N if we are at 3level) doesn't show clubs now which hurts.

[han]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-21, 05:23, said:

-I guess you don't play nfb's because then 2D would be perfect

No, we play that 2D shows hearts and 2H shows diamonds. I don't know how it is in Poland, but my impression is that almost all Dutch top players play something like this, and none play negative freebids. (I don't mean to suggest that I am a Dutch top player)

Quote

-I don't like 2C, partner could have 2 clubs. Bidding 3C or 3D is madness.

I've just been yelling at cyberyeti for assuming his own system, and I ran out of energy. Perhaps needless to say we don't play that 1C is short, and I would have told you if we did.

If you do play that 1C is short and you bid with this hand anymore, then it seems to me that you are paying a heavy price.

[MickyB]

Pass is forcing.

I don't see why 3N here should deny a balanced 18-19. If both 2N and 3N are forcing it would make more sense to bid 3N with the balanced hand and 2N with the unbalanced hand. Obviously, this means I find that South is to blame.

I would've opened 2NT, and I would like to think that we would reach slam after partner responds 3S showing spade shortage.

[Cyberyeti]

 han, on 2012-August-21, 05:22, said:

You are very unfair, but I don't know if you are trying to insult Americans, Europeans, or you are just trying to blame me. In any case, there are a lot of Europeans that post here, including a couple of very good players. None of them seem to have any problems responding in context, and some also like to point out how they would deal with the problems with their own agreements. I don't see why you can't do the same.

I'm not insulting anybody, most Americans play 5542 strong or something so different they'd have to tell you about it, Europeans play a much wider variety of systems and no trumps. I stated in one line in my OP what I'd have done and why in my system, then moved on to your auction for the rest. I actually think that the last line of my original post is the key here, 1♣ in a 5542 system is horribly overloaded, so if I have any sensible option of opening something else like 2N, I would take it and bid this as 20-21 balanced, I think you're too good for 18-19.

I then gave Justin a snarky response because he replied to the bit that was clearly "in my system" and replied using the bid meanings from his.

Many posters put 2/1 or whatever in the extra line that comes below the thread title when you create it.

Quote

If you feel that weak notrumpers and fit-jumpers are being discriminated against, please take it elsewhere.

I don't, I get a little bored of the same thread appearing over and over which amounts to "we opened a 2 card club and didn't find our club contract when opps interfered", but sometimes you have bad hands for your system (I know the bent version of Acol I play has several, usually we have bids that cover everything but are wider range than they are for most people so we over/underbid occasionally), and finding out what other systems do better with them can lead you to finding solutions or just realising you're going to get stuffed on certain hand types, but you reckon it's rarely enough that you ignore it.

Edit: crossed posts with you

Quote

Perhaps needless to say we don't play that 1C is short, and I would have told you if we did.

Quote

We play 5-card majors, strong notrump.

does not compute, or do you play 5533 and not consider 3 short as many Brits would ?

[mfa1010]

Pass to 4♠ was clearly forcing. I think S could have 18-19 bal or long clubs here. It looks wrong to double 4♠. To add one minor thing that has not been mentioned: with only 2 hearts S can see that opps have a heart fit on the side, and this should on average scare him further away from double.

I like to read about other systems and how they handle the problems posted, btw.

[gnasher]

I think that 3NT is not specific about hand-type. I dislike the suggestion that with a balanced 19-count we should bid 2NT then 3NT, for two reasons:
- Opener might have only three clubs, and responder will often have only four, so it doesn't really work to play 2NT as forcing.
- It gives away a lot of information, which could be costly either in the play or in helping the opponents to judge whether to save.

I think responder assumes that pass is forcing, but opener might overrule him by passing out 4♠. That applies in all situations where it looks as though pass should be forcing, but the first player to call is limited and we've already decided not to play in slam.

Presumably South was expecting four clubs opposite. I think that makes it quite risky to defend 4♠ - those red-suit honours might not be taking any tricks at all in defence. Hence I would bid 5♣ partly to make and partly in case 4♠ is making.

[gnasher]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-21, 05:57, said:

or do you play 5533 and not consider 3 short as many Brits would ?

He plays 15-17, 5-card majors, 3-card minors, 1♣ with xx33. So does almost all of North America. And so does anyone who posts a problem in this forum without specifying a system (assuming the system is relevant).

[bluecalm]

Quote

I've just been yelling at cyberyeti for assuming his own system, and I ran out of energy.

Sorry I assumed you do play that I thought people in Netherlands generally do and I assumed too much.

Quote

. I don't know how it is in Poland

Traditionally everybody played NFB's. Now transfer became popular but standard are still nfb's. Nobody heard about 2D being forcing with diamonds here

Quote

I would've opened 2NT

I always thought opening 2N with those hands is a price you pay for the rest of the system (no way to bid that in standard, awkward in precision). My guess is that you play something better than American Standard and have some way to bid strong hand with clubs after 1/1.

Quote

does not compute, or do you play 5533 and not consider 3 short as many Brits would ?

You are not up to bridge lingo. "Short" means "possibly 2" in this context.

Quote

I dislike the suggestion that with a balanced 19-count we should bid 2NT then 3NT, for two reasons:
- Opener might have only three clubs, and responder will often have only four, so it doesn't really work to play 2NT as forcing.

I am unable to understand it. Nobody is suggesting 2N should be forcing to 3C or w/e. It's just 18-19 balanced. How does it not work ? Partner just raises to 3N barring some extreme hand. I like the suggestion that 3N should be 18-19 and 2N should promise 6+clubs. I think saying which hand type you have (6clubs or 18-19 balanced) is very important.
In fact it's so important in competition that many elite partnership (all Italian pairs) removed 18-19 balanced from their 1C opening altogether. We don't have that in standard so let's at least have some agreements like:
dbl = strong hands which doesn't fit elsewhere
2N = clubs + stopper
3S = clubs + shortness
3N = 18-19bal

or w/e to allow us to compete in clubs if necessary.

[Phil]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-21, 06:39, said:

I think that 3NT is not specific about hand-type. I dislike the suggestion that with a balanced 19-count we should bid 2NT then 3NT, for two reasons:
- Opener might have only three clubs, and responder will often have only four, so it doesn't really work to play 2NT as forcing.
- It gives away a lot of information, which could be costly either in the play or in helping the opponents to judge whether to save.

If its a good balanced 19, we might have opened 2N. With 17(+) - 19(-), I don't mind rebidding a non-forcing 2N, because if partner passes its probably the right place.

It feels wrong to lump a heavy 2N rebid into 3N, because the hand with a trick source is potentially slammish, while a flat 19 is not.

MickyB's suggestion is really best - inverting 2N and 3N (I think I made a similar suggestion a few months ago). Occasionally you'll overbid to a bad game, but you have the entire 3 level to explore if you like.

[helene_t]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-21, 05:57, said:

does not compute, or do you play 5533 and not consider 3 short as many Brits would ?

You are a troll

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2012-August-21, 08:51, said:

You are a troll

I seriously resent that, anything shorter than 4 is short to a goodly percentage of Brits where comparatively few people play 5 card majors. When I was learning bridge 35 years ago, nobody played a 2 card club and a 3 card club was called "prepared" or "phony" and decidedly short and abnormal. Admittedly in the expert forum now maybe not, but I still think of short as <4 ie shorter than your longest suit.

[Flem72]

 han, on 2012-August-20, 17:37, said:

---

We defended 4S doubled for +100, while 6C was cold.

Did 3NT show long strong clubs or could it be balanced 18-19?

Was pass forcing?

Who should have bid differently?

I think X is bad b/c there are likely no C tricks, so you're looking at a S, a H and 1/3 a D in your own hand. They are likely to hold all other S cards; if you plan to set 4S, partner must contribute something in H & D. P is, I assume, 6-10 support and could hold S stiff and KD or S dbl and AD, AH or KD & QH or any combo. Give P 8ish support and the worst is something like KD, QH and S stiff. I hope I'd bid 5C, which shows both values (after 3N) and suit quality -- P should wake up and take it home with those tricks.

[JLOGIC]

 han, on 2012-August-21, 02:16, said:

Justin, it was argued to me afterwards that 3NT should show this kind of hand, and that with a balanced 18-19 one should bid 2NT first (forcing, often invitational), and then 3NT. What do you think about this?

Also, would you investigate slam after this start of the auction?

I am highly opposed to not being able to jump to game when partner is limited and our degree of fit is known and I know what contract I want to play. I mean, if I had 19 or 18 with 5 clubs, I don't see why I should not be able to place the contract.

That hand would know it would want to play 3N. A hand with long solid clubs that might have slam/want to play 5C jumping to 3N does not make that much sense to me, why would that not be the hand to bid 2N forcing and then follow up with something like 3S or 3H (or, if partner bids 3D over it, investigate further?). Intuitively, it makes sense to me to bid 2N when you are not sure about the contract yet, as you leave more room for investigation. I find it backwards to bid 3N when we might want to play something else, and 2N when we know we are always bidding 3N.

That said if south judged that 3N was the contract and that he didn't want to investigate 5 or 6 clubs, he can bid 3N. I think I would bid 2N with the south hand but I might be biased from seeing the actual hand.

[han]

The BBF forums is still a great place to learn about bridge. Thanks for all the wonderful responses!

[gnasher]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-21, 08:36, said:

Nobody is suggesting 2N should be forcing to 3C or w/e.

See post #11.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Intuitively, it makes sense to me to bid 2N when you are not sure about the contract yet, as you leave more room for investigation. I find it backwards to bid 3N when we might want to play something else, and 2N when we know we are always bidding 3N.

I like bidding 3N with 18-19 bal but then imo we should bid 2N with 6+clubs even if we are always bidding 3N after.
The reason is that they might bid 4S and then partner needs that information. I am not buying arguments about leaking info to them as it doesn't matter. They are leading a spade no matter what and either we have 9 tricks or we don't. The layout of clubs will be apparent anyway once we play to trick 2.

[MrAce]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-21, 06:39, said:

I think responder assumes that pass is forcing, but opener might overrule him by passing out 4♠. That applies in all situations where it looks as though pass should be forcing, but the first player to call is limited and we've already decided not to play in slam.

I like this about the forcing pass of a limited hand. Especially if this limit is the mimimum range of responder. ( 6-9 or w/e in your choosen system)

[helene_t]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-August-21, 09:23, said:

I find it backwards to bid 3N when we might want to play something else, and 2N when we know we are always bidding 3N.

But with the balanced 18-19 we are less afraid of opps disturbing us while with the long club suit it may pay to show our hand immediately.

[twoshy]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-21, 09:01, said:

I seriously resent that, anything shorter than 4 is short to a goodly percentage of Brits where comparatively few people play 5 card majors. When I was learning bridge 35 years ago, nobody played a 2 card club and a 3 card club was called "prepared" or "phony" and decidedly short and abnormal. Admittedly in the expert forum now maybe not, but I still think of short as <4 ie shorter than your longest suit.

And if you learned bridge 35 years ago in China, when everybody played Precision, and every natural system was considered abnormal, you might have thought of "short club" as 16+?

C'mon mate, you've been around these forums for long enough...

[Lurpoa]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-21, 05:00, said:

Then say what you're playing if you're not interested in other systems, I assume some 5542 strong no trump if it's an American posting, but not when it's a European. I didn't know how many clubs you promised or what your no trump was (I haven't met a lot of Dutch players, but none of them played 15-17).

I'm just so used to a 2+ card club being alerted, that if a European doesn't alert it I assume they're not playing one.

I've also been told off FOR assuming everybody plays 5542 strong so I don't any more.

As to whether the pass over 4♠ is forcing, it depends what 2♣ shows and what other raises you have available (particularly what 3♣ is). If 2♣ guarantees a 5 or 6 count, I think it should be forcing.

My point asking about 2N rather than 3N was the one Phil raised, playing it Leb style to allow 2 ways of bidding several hands is good here and I wasn't sure if this was standard. I also agree with him in that I learn a lot from how people handle these hands in systems I don't play, and I appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of such systems from this (and when is the best time to throw a spanner in the works).

Cyber...
I understand...
I admire, your combativeness.
Take care !