Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks Julian, that is interesting. Do you use 2NT-3S as Minor Suit Stayman? What are the requirements and what are the responses?
The usual idea is to bid the higher of two five-card suits, but the lower of two four card suits.
In your example, you are not planning to bid again, but it is still better to show the major first because (a) you would prefer to find a major suit fit and (b) sometimes you do get an opportunity to bid again.
The auction might start 1C-1S-1NT and now you can bid 2D and let partner choose where to play. But imagine that the auction started 1C-1D-1NT: now you probably have to pass because 2S would be a reverse and you are not strong enough for a responder’s reverse. But you will miss a spade fit if partner has three.
Michael, yes 4C = 1 or 4 key cards and 5D = 0 or 3 key cards.
Charmaine, there are 5 key cards: the 4 aces and the king of the proposed trump suit. After (say) a 5C response, a bid of the next suit up (5D unless diamonds are trumps) will ask whether partner also has the queen of trumps.
These next-suit-up bids are only after the 5C and 5D responses. With two key cards the response is 5H if holding 2 (of the 5) key cards, but not the queen of the proposed trumps. The response is 5S if holding 2 (of the 5) key cards AND the queen.
I’ll let Julian give answers. But I will mention that when I first started going to a bridge club (many years ago – I was still in my twenties then), the manager of the club used to describe “Revolving Discards” as “Revolting Discards” – she was not a fan!
Hi Julian, I understand and agree that a response of four of a minor is a cue bid. My understanding had been that a change of suit at the three level would be natural and forcing. On Thursday night, in an on-line club game, an opponent held:
S QJ87432
H 103
D –
C K1032His partner opened three diamonds and he responded three spades – I was a little surprised at this bid. No harm was done as partner looked at her 23-count and bid 3NT. We had missed our nine-card heart fit, but partner played it well to make the over-trick in No Trumps for 68% on the board.
This topic has come up once already on the forum, I think. The number of losers should not be a factor in choosing a pre-empt – you don’t count losers until you have found a fit.
But if you are responding and the partnership has a sound pre-empting style, I would play partner for:
– A weak two: 8 losers non-vulnerable, 7 losers vulnerable.
– A weak three: 7 losers non-vulnerable, 6 losers vulnerable.
– A weak four: 6 losers non-vulnerable, 5 losers vulnerable.These are estimates and some partnerships are more aggressive when pre-empting. The seat at the table might suggest keeping things sound (2nd seat) or relaxing things a bit (third seat).
Yes, As the cards lie, leading the Q of hearts should take the contract two off.
It’s a slightly unusual lead though and will often work out badly.
I also replied to your Facebook post.
A passed hand cannot make a forcing bid. It is rare for opener to pass a response, even from a passed hand, but sometimes a player will make a light third seat opener, intending to interfere with the opponents and attract an opening lead. In third seat, I might even choose to open 1S with AKQXX XXX XXXX X, intending to rebid diamonds over a 2C response or pass a 2H response.
Fair point!
I wouldn’t ask for an undo either but it is frustrating and I know that I am not the only player who has been caught out by this.
Bernard, thank you. Today’s seminar addressed many of my questions and I found it very interesting.
If I understand correctly your list of priorities is meant as a guide rather than an absolute, which I think must be right. You showed an example where you preferred to rebid your second suit with 5-5 in the majors (so “Rebid your 2nd suit” ranked higher than “Bid NT”). I found some of my old notes from another teacher – an England international (no, not the very tall one!). His order of priority for responding to 4th Suit Forcing at the two level was very different (bidding NT was way down the list!). But I think that these ordered lists are probably more useful as guides.
Over the years, I have played 4th Suit Forcing at the two-level as for one round, forcing to 2NT and as forcing to game. I currently favour playing it as forcing to game – partly to balance the fact that we have tweaked our system and lost some of our other game forcing sequences (e.g. 1D-2S shows 4-8 HCPs and 1D-1S-2C-2S shows 9-11 HCPs and is constructive). It can happen that playing fsf as game-forcing gives us a problem, but it is rare. In today’s first example, we would settle for bidding the fourth suit even if a little weak to force to game – at least it allows us to fully explore the possibilities of playing in NTs or spades. At pairs, I think that there is a better argument for playing 4th Suit Forcing as forcing to 2NT at the two level.
Thanks again, it was a very helpful seminar!
