Zelandakh, on 2016-November-14, 04:27, said:
It seems to me you play similarly to me and many other Europeans Denny. As you can tell the majority here are American and find this style illogical and have a different set of agreements. It looks as if your partner was also from this school. This is something that comes up on BBF regularly. There is no correct answer as to how to play these sequences but it is obviously important to be on the same page as partner. Both methods are perfectly playable so it is just a matter of sitting down together and deciding which way makes most sense to you. More than likely all you will get here are posters' personal preferences, which stems mostly from cultural experience and teaching.
The distinction is not so much between European and American, but between a sensible system and - to put it politely - a difficult system to play.
This disaster has to do with the latter.
Bidding systems require forcing bids.
There are three types of forcing bids a bidding system will typically employ:
1) Artificial bids like Stayman or transfers, which by their very nature tend to be forcing. I will not dwell on them.
2) Game forcing bids.
3) Forcing bids, which lump together invitational and game forcing hands.
If you lump together invitational and game forcing hands in a bid, you have 2 problems
a) If I make a bid, which is natural and invitational I do not like it to be forcing. If partner wants to reject you want that the bidding can stop - not to continue.
With invitational hands you either want to be in game (acceptance) or ideally you would like to stop 2 tricks below game (rejection).
Stopping in 2NT, 3M and 4m is at times unavoidable but always undesirable, because you will often go down one, when partner rejects the invitation.
b) You need to decide which continuations thereafter keep up the force.
Since the number of possible bidding continuations is easy to underestimate no wonder casual and partnerships below the expert level get confused and run into disagreements what a certain bidding sequence shows and whether it is forcing.
UdcaDenny, on 2016-November-10, 23:14, said:
I was afraid that he could pass 3C or 3D
Such disasters are expensive. This thread is a typical example.
Game forcing bids rarely have this problem, since every bid below game remains forcing. Simple and easy to understand even for intermediate players.
The point is a sensible system gives you an easy bid to unconditionally force to game cheaply and since the bid is game forcing and cheap it can be artificial.
That's why I think the Bourke Relay 2
♦ is a sensible convention. Among others it lets you play 1
♣-1
♠-2
♣-2
♥ as not forcing but constructive!
The same holds true for 1
♣-1
♠-2
♣-3
♣
Of course there are other ways to accomplish the same thing. For example you can play Reverse Flannery and then play 1
♣-1
♠-2
♣-2
♥ as artificial and game forcing instead.
I am European, but if American means a sensible system and European means a difficult one, like the French way of bidding or Forum D I am on the American side.
If third suit forcing means it can be an invitational hand I am not a fan of it.
If you are a professional partnership with lots of intricate agreements it might not matter that much, but the vast majority play Bridge as a hobby in casual partnerships.
Reducing the risks of such disaster should be a design point of bidding systems.
Rainer Herrmann
Help
