[Phil]

This hand appeared in our monthly newsletter:

♠xx ♥A ♦AKxx ♣AQJxxx

1♣ (1♠) x (2♠);

?

No discussion about 2N.

[helene_t]

3S just in case p might think 3d is non forcing

[PhilKing]

I think 3♦ is forcing (game forcing, in fact), so I will do that (if I did not want to force, I would double for takeout and pass the response).

One could argue that you could double and bid 3♦ next round to force, but I think that is a false argument, since it presumes our opponents never do anything inconvenient, such as bid more spades.

[nige1]

 Phil, on 2015-June-26, 08:56, said:

This hand appeared in our monthly newsletter: ♠ x x ♥ A ♦A K x x ♣ A Q J x x x
1♣ (1♠) x (2♠);
??
No discussion about 2N.

Suppose you guess that, here, calls have the following meanings:

• Pass = NAT. Weak.
• Double = ART. Responsive. Perhaps it should show 3♥? But it denies 4♥.
• 2N = Nat. NF.
• 3♣ = NAT. NF.
• 3♦ = NAT. INV or F1? depending to some extent on what partner's -ve double meant
• 3♥ = NAT. NF.
• 3♠ = UCB. In 1st instance, asking for ♠ stop.

With agreements such as those, IMO Double = 10, 3♠ = 9, 3♦ = 7. Double seems descriptive.

[PhantomSac]

3D, don't understand why this would be a problem.

Oh, there are still people who think that a negative X says anything about diamonds so 3D is not a reverse. lol @ them.

[Phil]

3♦ is completely obvious to me, however in our Contract Bridge Forum, many are choosing 4♦ (and don't think 3♦ is forcing) which was pretty shocking:

See Page 7 - http://www.contractb...5/July/D22.html

[mikeh]

 Phil, on 2015-June-26, 17:02, said:

3♦ is completely obvious to me, however in out Contract Bridge Forum, many are choosing 4♦ (and don't think 3♦ is forcing) which was pretty shocking:

See Page 7 - http://www.contractb...5/July/D22.html

I don't play NABCs and haven't even played a Regional in years, so my impressions may be out of date, but those impressions are that of those who play bridge on a regular basis, fewer than 10% have anything resembling an understanding of basic principles. Your publications response seems typical. We have a player here who is sure that he is an expert, having won back to back Regional events last year, with whom I had the auction (he dealt) of 1♦ 1♠ 3♥ and confusion set in when I assumed he had a splinter and he thought he was showing 5=6 in his suits. When I asked him what was wrong with bidding 2♥ and then, if appropriate, 3♥, his brow wrinkled and he said that he hadn't ever thought of that.

You are never going to go broke by underestimating the bridge knowledge of most club level players.

[Jinksy]

The players responding to that poll include Mike Lawrence, so unless he's slumming it this week (admittedly I don't recognise the other names) I would guess they're not club level.

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-26, 17:48, said:

You are never going to go broke by underestimating the bridge knowledge of most club level players.

 Jinksy, on 2015-June-26, 18:05, said:

The players responding to that poll include Mike Lawrence, so unless he's slumming it this week (admittedly I don't recognise the other names) I would guess they're not club level.

They are all either very good players or pros,

Jill Meyers
Fred Hamilton
Lee may be Roger Lee (just guessing)
Bart Bramley

Their achievements are beyond district level, some of them represented USA in various world wide events and won. I know Jill did, I know Bart won so many nationals and by nationals i do not mean LM pairs or GNT. They won main events such as Blue Ribbon, Reisinger, Vandy, Spingold.

I personally like 3♦ being forcing.

[neilkaz]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-June-26, 12:57, said:

3D, don't understand why this would be a problem.

Oh, there are still people who think that a negative X says anything about diamonds so 3D is not a reverse. lol @ them.

Agreed.

[mikeh]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-26, 19:24, said:

They are all either very good players or pros,

Jill Meyers
Fred Hamilton
Lee may be Roger Lee
Bart Bramley

Their achievements are beyond district level, some of them represented USA in various world wide events and won. I know Jill did, I know Bart won so many nationals and by nationals i do not mean LM pairs. Main events I am talking about such as Blue Ribbon, Reisinger, Vandy, Spingold.

I personally like 3♦ being forcing.

I'll take your word for it, and I don't mean that other than literally, but I am astounded that these players would treat this as a non-reverse. Maybe they play that the double promises diamonds? I find that hard to believe but absent that agreement, which is imo seriously unplayable, I'd love to know the thinking behind this as non-forcing. I have tried to come up with a reasonable rationale and can't make it happen.

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-26, 21:45, said:

I'll take your word for it, and I don't mean that other than literally, but I am astounded that these players would treat this as a non-reverse. Maybe they play that the double promises diamonds? I find that hard to believe but absent that agreement, which is imo seriously unplayable, I'd love to know the thinking behind this as non-forcing. I have tried to come up with a reasonable rationale and can't make it happen.

To be honest I am surprised as well Mike. First just like you I thought they were bunch of club players, until Jinksy mentioned Mike Lawrence's name. Then I checked the other names and I know most of them. Played against all of them as well. Had personal conversations with Bart in the past. I love the guy.

As I said idk who Lee is, maybe our very own Roger?

Fred Hamilton, I am sure you have heard of him, Cappelletti convention's other name is Hamilton. He is said to be the finder of that convention. (I know it is not a convention that one would brag about but still, lol) But he won Bermuda Bowl in 1976, 1994 World seniors, 1982 Cavendish, 17 nationals, other than that was runner up in a lot of WBF events.

Jill Meyers played in USA women team many times. She has won world championship more than any other women in the WBF history. (7 times world champ with 6 different partners, 4 of them Venice cup). Placed 2nd 3 times and 3rd one time in world championships. Won 18 nationals.

Bart Bramley is hell of a good player. Terrific card player. I think he was 2nd after M.Rosenberg in world wide Par Contest. First one was won by B.Garozzo. Won 13 nationals. He is a great personality, humble and friendly person. Likes to help anyone who approaches. As well as his wife. He is also the founder of "Bart" convention, a very similar convention to Gazzilli, but was invented much earlier by Bart.

You already know M.Lawrence.

Looking at the credentials of the people, and I know first hand about Jill and Bart that they are very modern bidders, not like some old school good card players who wins by experience and good card play only. They spent significant amount of time on theory and bidding part of the game as far as I know. So I am surprised with all their votes for 4♦ or 3♠ bid. It would of course help to hear the logic behind their bid and their resistance to play 3♦ forcing if not GF. So your guess is as good as mine.

[Stephen Tu]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-27, 03:08, said:

Bart Bramley is hell of a good player. Terrific card player. I think he was 2nd after M.Rosenberg in world wide Par Contest. First one was won by B.Garozzo. Won 13 nationals. He is a great personality, humble and friendly person. Likes to help anyone who approaches. As well as his wife. He is also the founder of "Bart" convention, a very similar convention to Gazzilli, but was invented much earlier by Bart.

This paragraph is mostly true, he is a tremendous player, but I'm pretty sure the "Bart" convention is attributed to some other player with the last name "Bart", not invented by Bramley. I also don't really consider the convention similar to Gazzilli at all, the only similarity is that it *involves* the sequence 1s-1nt-2c. Gazzilli uses 2♣ as possibly artificial and strong, and most of the followups are unwinding that, while in Bart 2c is just the normal 2c hands after 1s-1nt, and is mainly about giving responder more sequences at the expense of sacrificing being able to play in 2♦.

[mikeh]

I once read that BART stood for Bay Area Rapid Transport, and wasn't actually the name of the inventor of the bid, but I have no idea if that was true

[Stephen Tu]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-27, 08:10, said:

I once read that BART stood for Bay Area Rapid Transport, and wasn't actually the name of the inventor of the bid, but I have no idea if that was true

"Bay Area Rapid Transit", but BART the SF bay area public train system, Bart the Simpsons character, and Les Bart the inventor of the convention are different entities despite sharing a name. BART is an acronym and thus indeed stands for the train system. Bart the name of the convention though is after the inventor, not an acronym, and thus should not be all capitalized, same as Acol the system, which is I believe named after a bridge club on an Acol road, and is not an acronym for anything either.

[gszes]

3d = non forcing

If the bidding proceeds 1c 1s x p I doubt there is anyone that would disagree that 2d is non forcing. The fact that 2s was bid should not remove from our arsenal the very important concept of a highly distributional yet weakish hand that wishes to compete. I can create a ton of them but for ex A A xxxxx Axxxxx. Surely we need t do something over 2s yet w/o a NON forcing 3d we are almost completely hamstrung. The worst part about not playing 3d as non forcing is we have an x available for hand of greater strength or 3s for hands that only need a spade stop for 3n. We can also add some power with slightly less distribution and still only wish to make our bid non forcing Kx A Kxxx Axxxxx. The weaker we like to open our hands the more important it is to keep 3d as non forcing would you open A A Qxxx xxxxxxx 1c? if so you definitely need that 3d bid as non forcing.

[gwnn]

 gszes, on 2015-June-27, 11:34, said:

3d = non forcing

If the bidding proceeds 1c 1s x p I doubt there is anyone that would disagree that 2d is non forcing.

LOL

edit: http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry728007

[MrAce]

 Stephen Tu, on 2015-June-27, 10:23, said:

"Bay Area Rapid Transit", but BART the SF bay area public train system, Bart the Simpsons character, and Les Bart the inventor of the convention are different entities despite sharing a name. BART is an acronym and thus indeed stands for the train system. Bart the name of the convention though is after the inventor, not an acronym, and thus should not be all capitalized, same as Acol the system, which is I believe named after a bridge club on an Acol road, and is not an acronym for anything either.

You are probably correct about Les Bart, I always thought it was Bramley who found it.

[rhm]

 PhilKing, on 2015-June-26, 11:37, said:

One could argue that you could double and bid 3♦ next round to force, but I think that is a false argument, since it presumes our opponents never do anything inconvenient, such as bid more spades.

True as far as it goes.

But that only means you are out of the game if you would like to bid 3♦ non forcing. Now you would have to double and if opponents do something inconvenient you get stolen blind, never finding your diamond fit.
Not forcing does not mean 3♦ shows a minimum opening nor that we do not have a high level contract. Fit establishment is crucial and responders strength is not well known.

It seems to me this scenario that opponents inconvenience me is (much) more likely when I am weaker than stronger.
On the above hand I can either double or bid 4♦. Let's assume I double and next hand bids 4♠ passed back to me.
Precisely because I am strong I can double again or I can at least consider to bid 4NT, something I could not do if I had an ace less.

It is somewhat similar to the argument whether you want to play negative free bids or not. When playing them responder has to (negative) double on some hands to establish a force, which is a disadvantage.
But negative free bids win when you can establish a fit (or misfit) with weaker hands immediately and these scenarios are more frequent when opponents bid.

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

 gwnn, on 2015-June-27, 11:38, said:

LOL

edit: http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry728007

I am unsure if you are lol because my statement was so completely obvious it was not worth mentioning or because i was completely oblivious to the above reference that agrees with my statement Or you wanted to play devil's advocate and show at least one in disagreement.