[Quartic]

All vulnerable, you pick up a nice hand in 4th seat:

---

After partner's Michaels Cue Bid, you know you want to play in spades. How do you continue?

[ggwhiz]

I like 3♦ followed by 4♠ to give partner a chance but consider it very unlikely to go any further.

A direct jump to 4♠ could be a dive and this route just says I mean it to position partner better if the auction takes a different turn.

[Phil]

A jump to 4♠ is terrible. I like 3♦>4♦.

[aguahombre]

We have a lucky agreement, which makes this one easy. 2NT for the fragment. Seems important to know whether we are mirrored in diamonds before we launch.

[JLOGIC]

In my regular partnerships I play 3C shows hearts and 3D shows spades over 2D (inv or better). It is good to have a way to set trumps. Without that agreement I agree with starting with a cuebid and then bidding 4S to show a slam try in spades.

[Quartic]

At the table I chose to bid 3♦, attempting to show a slam try by rebidding 4♠ at my next turn. Unfortunately the bidding continued:

---

What now?


I like the look of using 3♣ and 3♦ as limit+ hands - I may well suggest this to my regular partner.

[Phil]

Quartic, on 2012-March-09, 10:25, said:

At the table I chose to bid 3♦, attempting to show a slam try by rebidding 4♠ at my next turn. Unfortunately the bidding continued:

What now?

5♠?

[aguahombre]

Quartic, on 2012-March-09, 10:25, said:

At the table I chose to bid 3♦, attempting to show a slam try by rebidding 4♠ at my next turn. Unfortunately the bidding continued:

---

What now?


I like the look of using 3♣ and 3♦ as limit+ hands - I may well suggest this to my regular partner.

With your current methods, or with Justin's recommended method, haven't you created a FP here? If so, I think 5S is too weak and would pass suggesting slam..exspecially since CHO did not have to bid 4H voluntarily and has a good one himself. If pard now doubles, I will guess the stiff club and proceed to 6S.

[Quartic]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-09, 11:24, said:

With your current methods, or with Justin's recommended method, haven't you created a FP here? If so, I think 5S is too weak and would pass suggesting slam..exspecially since CHO did not have to bid 4H voluntarily and has a good one himself. If pard now doubles, I will guess the stiff club and proceed to 6S.

I hadn't discussed forcing passes with this partner (or any follow ups to 2♦). I tried 5♠, which was down 2 for -200:

---

Unfortunately, 5♦ would have been down 1.

[JustaDummy]

Well, I didn’t get most of that. It’s the language, I think - although the bridge may also be beyond me. Is this not meant to be a beginner/intermediate forum, or am I just thick?

For example I’ve never heard of Michaels cue bid. (post 1)
What is a “dive?” (post 2)
Why is South raising diamonds with a singleton? (post 3)
What is a fragment, or mirrored? (post 4)
What is a FP? (post 8) If it’s “forcing pass”, what is that? (post 9)

Do I have to go away and learn lots of extra stuff like this before I can be classed as a beginner? Or should I just go away?

[mikeh]

JustaDummy, on 2012-March-09, 14:04, said:

Well, I didn’t get most of that. It’s the language, I think - although the bridge may also be beyond me. Is this not meant to be a beginner/intermediate forum, or am I just thick?

For example I’ve never heard of Michaels cue bid. (post 1)
What is a “dive?” (post 2)
Why is South raising diamonds with a singleton? (post 3)
What is a fragment, or mirrored? (post 4)
What is a FP? (post 8) If it’s “forcing pass”, what is that? (post 9)

Do I have to go away and learn lots of extra stuff like this before I can be classed as a beginner? Or should I just go away?

Not sure if you have to go anywhere, but good on you for asking the questions.

Michaels is a very common method of showing a two-suited hand, almost all play it as 5-5 or better. If RHO (right hand opponent) opens 1minor, a cuebid of 2minor by you shows both majors. Note that if you are not vul and they are, this can be very weak. There have been threads on BBF about what strengths you should hold, and I won't go there in this post.

if RHO opens a major, then the cuebid of 2 of that major shows the other major and an unspecified minor.....in traditional Michaels, partner can ask which (edit: I wrote major' and meant 'minor'...now fixed)minor you hold by bidding any number of notrump other than 3N (which is game and thus is traditionally 'to play'). However, there are differing versions of Michaels, especially in the area of how advancer (the partner of the overcaller is the advancer....the partner of the opener is responder)bids and many players use other methods.

a dive is a sacrifice...a bid made not in the expectation of making the contract but rather as an attempt to block out or preempt the opps. I would never see 4♠ here as a dive, because the opps haven't shown a fit or any real strength, so I wouldn't see this as a situation in which we should be scarificing, at least not yet. However, if we assume that we have other ways of getting to 4♠ (see the comment below about 3♦), it is useful to play that going that other way suggests we are bidding on power while the direct jump (or blast or bounce or other slang) is based on playing strength.....a big fit and distribution rather than a good hand in hcp.

The suggestion that S bid 3♦ is not a raise of diamonds: overcaller's 2♦ showed both majors. As with the last paragraph, it helps to have at least two ways to get to 4♠, because overcaller could have a very good hand....say overcaller has Kxxxx AQJxx x Kx....given that the heart K rates to be with the opening bidder, this is a wonderful slam.

So traditionally we would use the cuebid of 3♦ (it is a cuebid because opener bid 1♦, and our partner's 2♦ was itself a cuebid) to establish a force. it wouldn't say anything about why we want to force....we'd clarify that on our next bid...the whole point is to ensure that we get that chance....the cuebid is forcing.

Justin (JLOGIC) suggests another way to 'cuebid', and that involves giving up a natural 3♣ call in order that 3♣ always shows a good hand (invitational or better opposite a 'weakish' 2♦ hand) in hearts and 3♦ is the equivalent in spades. This has the advantage of cluing in partner as to what suit we want as trumps, amongst other matters.....and the cost is deemed by those who use this method (the loss of 3♣ as natural) as not being too high.

A 'fragment' is typically a 3 card holding. In the context of michaels, overcaller is at least 5-5 and may be 65/66 etc. But with, say, 5=5=3=0 (the notation of = means we are giving the precise shape....here 5♠5♥3♦ and a club void.....5=5=0=3 would be a ♦void and a club 'fragment'). I wouldn't use it here, but there can be hands on which, for example, we might want to play in the 'fragment' suit, if advancer had a lot of them. Alternatively, knowing of the fragment, if it exists, allows us to infer the shortness in the 4th suit.

Mirrored means that we have the same length in a suit as partner does. We are completely mirrored when we have the shape overall shape: if we are 4=3=3=3 and partner is 5=2=3=3, we are mirrored in the minors.....if partner were 4=3=3=3, we'd be completely mirrored.

Mirrored hands tend to play badly....if we are in a suit contract, we have no ruffs coming and no discards on a long suit....if our long suit is the same as dummy's we get no pitches on it.

A FP is indeed a forcing pass. You will find quite a few threads on FP situations. I don't have time or room to do more than touch on the topic. Two of the leading bridge theorists of all time, Eric Kokish and Eddie Kantar have each written extensively on the topic, and they disagree on a number of points.....all established expert partnerships will have their own rules....knowing when a pass is forcing and when it isn't is a very important part of bridge at the highest levels.....and I refer to the auction and to the level of competition.

[JustaDummy]

Wow! Thank you Mikeh. I have d/led your post for further study - but is this all basic? I worry about that. I don't want to spend more time studying than playing…

[han]

This discussion is not basic at all. This just happened to be a very interesting hand from many perspectives, from beginners to experts.

[mikeh]

JustaDummy, on 2012-March-09, 16:34, said:

Wow! Thank you Mikeh. I have d/led your post for further study - but is this all basic? I worry about that. I don't want to spend more time studying than playing…

There was a typo in my description of michaels over a 1M bid...I said that advancer asks for the major by bidding NT....but the major is always 'known'....bidding NT (but not 3N) asks for the 'minor'....I fixed the post, but wanted to make sure you caught it

[CSGibson]

JustaDummy, on 2012-March-09, 16:34, said:

Wow! Thank you Mikeh. I have d/led your post for further study - but is this all basic? I worry about that. I don't want to spend more time studying than playing…

Much of this is vocabulary/information you will pick up naturally from playing & talking with bridge players, but there is probably a threshold you need to reach to make best use of the BBO forums. That is not meant to discourage you from using the forums - just the opposite, I mean to say that you shouldn't give up on this just because you may not understand something right away.

[JustaDummy]

CSGibson, on 2012-March-09, 17:25, said:

Much of this is vocabulary/information you will pick up naturally from playing & talking with bridge players, but there is probably a threshold you need to reach to make best use of the BBO forums. That is not meant to discourage you from using the forums - just the opposite, I mean to say that you shouldn't give up on this just because you may not understand something right away.

I get that. But I also get discouraged by wading through all the posts in this beginners' forum, trying to find something that I can understand and maybe use in a game.

So is it not worthwhile to have a "complete beginners / newbies" forum where all the jargon can be introduced, just to help folks like me who have played a reasonable amount of bridge but don't have all the conventions, jargon, insights immediately to hand, and where we can go to get some of that? It just looks to me like the beginners and intermediates area is simply too much for real beginners.

Don't get me wrong here. I actually do not consider myself a complete beginner. I have used ACOL, Precision, and now SAYC and have played in real, over-the-table duplicate matches. So not a complete rookie. But this stuff in this so-called beginners forum is just beyond me. I do of course recognise that this is my problem.

And I have tried. I have scanned the posts here and been bemused by lots of them. Not encouraging at all. It always seems to me that I just do not know enough to be able to play this game.

So I think that any Newbies forum would need to be heavily moderated! I absolutely know that lots of bridge experts know lost of stuff and want to help others to know lots of stuff too, which is just excellent, but I'm also sure that lots of folks like me just need a bit of an easing in, somehow.

And this forum doesn't do that, which is why I plead for a moderated forum where some of the more advanced posts are removed, so as to help folks like me to focus on the essence. Any real teachers here?

Users of this forum might then graduate, as they see fit, to the beginners / intermediates forum and take their chances, but in the meantime while in the Rookies forum, they might be introduced to some ideas, without the cleverer-than-you posts which I believe are too common here.

Otherwise, this is just the Internet, right?

[ahydra]

JustaDummy said:

Users of this forum might then graduate, as they see fit, to the beginners / intermediates forum and take their chances, but in the meantime while in the Rookies forum, they might be introduced to some ideas, without the cleverer-than-you posts which I believe are too common here.

I don't recall having seen many "cleverer-than-you" posts. Can you point me at one to show me what you mean?

I think this forum is pretty good, even for beginners. Just ask any question, whether it's "what is a squeeze" or "what's the best line in this very dodgy 6S" and you'll get detailed help (with clear explanations, most of the time) from all sorts of players, including experts. Rude posts seem to be few and far between. If you're unsure of any terminology, check out http://www.bridgehan...dexes/index.htm for an encyclopedia, or just ask in the thread you found it in - nobody's going to mind!

The Advanced/Expert players forum, on the other hand... well, I've been playing 7 years and am not brave enough to go there just yet.

ahydra

[Quartic]

JustaDummy, on 2012-March-09, 18:03, said:

So is it not worthwhile to have a "complete beginners / newbies" forum where all the jargon can be introduced, just to help folks like me who have played a reasonable amount of bridge but don't have all the conventions, jargon, insights immediately to hand, and where we can go to get some of that? It just looks to me like the beginners and intermediates area is simply too much for real beginners.

I do think the beginner/intermediate forum perhaps spans too wide an ability range. Personally, I'm not quite sure whether I should rate myself as a high intermediate, or a low advanced, so I generally err on the side of caution and post here instead of in advanced/expert. But this does mean that sometimes the topics that interest me are not really appropriate for beginners who may read them too.

[mikeh]

JustaDummy, on 2012-March-09, 18:03, said:

So is it not worthwhile to have a "complete beginners / newbies" forum where all the jargon can be introduced, just to help folks like me who have played a reasonable amount of bridge but don't have all the conventions, jargon, insights immediately to hand, and where we can go to get some of that? It just looks to me like the beginners and intermediates area is simply too much for real beginners.

Don't get me wrong here. I actually do not consider myself a complete beginner. I have used ACOL, Precision, and now SAYC and have played in real, over-the-table duplicate matches. So not a complete rookie. But this stuff in this so-called beginners forum is just beyond me. I do of course recognise that this is my problem.

And I have tried. I have scanned the posts here and been bemused by lots of them. Not encouraging at all. It always seems to me that I just do not know enough to be able to play this game.

reading your posts reminds me of that day in the dim distant past when I played my first game of bridge. I had been a chess player and generally a games player, but I knew nobody who played bridge. I had read the bridge column in the newspaper, and remember reading about tenaces and singletons and so. I figured out what a singleton was but was puzzled by the references to tenaces.

I was in the Engineering Undergraduate Lounge when 3 guys asked if anyone played bridge....nobody answered and they became desperate so I told them I would like to learn.

The next week I bought Five Weeks to Winning Bridge (tho I have always remembered it as Seven Weeks to Winning Bridge and have thought that maybe I bought the edition for slow learners). I finished my first reading within 2 weeks and was by then by far the most knowledgable of the 4 or 5 of us who played in that original game....I don't claim I was the best player, but I was the only one to have read a book.

What I am saying, in a roundabout way, is that it won't take long for you to get up to speed for so long as you are willing to ask questions.

One reason the B/I forum is 'tough' is that we have few beginners who actually post....I have no idea how many we have lurking, but few post. To make matters much worse, many of the posters who reply are advanced to expert, and quite a few don't differentiate between posting here and in the A/E forum....thus you see a B/I asking how to bid a hand, and lots of answers suggesting relay based big club methods, or exclusion keycard, or other esoterica, often idiosyncratic esoterica that most experts would reject for one or more reasons.

The more players like you make posts as you have, the more likely it is that we will see appropriate posts in reply.

If you read the other forums you will see strong language routinely applied....I am one of those who tends to be harsh.....but I hope that you won't find that sort of response to anything you post in this forum.

We have an astounding amount of talent and experience here.....some truly world class players and a number of others approaching that level....it can take a while before you can reliably identify whose opinions should be read more carefully than others, but even that won't take long....plus you can google those of us who use our real names on this site and thus find those who have credentials to back up their claims to authority.

I only wish a site like this had been available 40 years ago....I think I would have become a better player than I am, or at least topped out at my best potential earlier. So stay with it, and enjoy.

I tell my clients (in my law practice...I don't play pro), who sometimes worry that they are asking silly questions, that there is no such thing...silly answers, maybe...silly questions, never.

[aguahombre]

Back to Partner. There was no reason for him to bid 4H over 4D with that bare minimum Michaels hand. He had already shown the shape, and had nothing extra in reserve. Had he passed, you would be content with 4S.