Playing with a new partner...

[Guest Jlall]

This comes from a recent post. I was wondering what the modern standard was for this sequence (I'm defining that as if you were playing with a new partner and had no agreements, what would you expect to be forcing?).

 

1C 2D 2S p ?

 

Is 2N forcing, is 3C forcing? Also feel free to comment on what you think the best treatment is, but for the poll purposes just stick to what you would think with a new partner.

[Chamaco]

Is 2N forcing, is 3C forcing? Also feel free to comment on what you think the best treatment is, but for the poll purposes just stick to what you would think with a new partner.

I voted neither forcing, in an undiscussed pship, but I hate it.

 

If you ask me what is the best treatment here, I'd say using Negative freebids.

 

Otherwise, Junhi Zu has suggested the use of artificial 2NT, which gives up a natural invitation, but after all it is not the only sequence where the natural 2NT is given up in order to clear other sequences.

[cherdano]

For the record, in BWS 2N is forcing, but 3♣ is not.

[Finch]

I can't see how 2NT can be forcing unless you play either weak NT or NFB.

In a strong NT system with 2S F1, both have to be non-forcing.

[mike777]

See the other post where I wrote down the Mike Lawrence style.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=15entry98489

[luis]

What I think :

2NT, 3♣ and 3♠ are not forcing.

3♦ and 3♥ are forcing.

[Walddk]

What I think :

2NT, 3♣ and 3♠ are not forcing.

3♦ and 3♥ are forcing.

It was bound to happen one day, and it did now: I agree with Luis! ;)

 

Roland

[luis]

What I think :

2NT, 3♣ and 3♠ are not forcing.

3♦ and 3♥ are forcing.

It was bound to happen one day, and it did now: I agree with Luis! ;)

 

Roland

:-))

[mikeh]

Justin's post arises from a comment I made on another thread: that I play that 2♠ promises a rebid. That makes any bid by opener forcing, since partner has promised that he will not pass (absent interference).

 

You will occasionally pay to a hand on which you can make exactly 2N or 3♣. But surely that is low percentage. You will not find ANY consistent winners who design their methods around reaching 2N. And aiming to play 3♣ is not that much better.

 

In the meantime, playing either as non-forcing means that opener must either make a space-consuming and potentially misdescriptive jump or fake change of suit or an ambiguous cue-bid with any hand that is a Queen or so (King, if 2♠ could be really weak..not NFB weak but 8-10 points or so) better than a normal low-range opening bid.

 

I HATE 3-level cue-bids that do not send any message other than I want to force to game somewhere: make your best guess. And guess it is: if opener could be wanting to move towards 3N while leaving room, responder will frequently be unable to show shape or range...responder has to bid conservatively because he has NO clue as to opener's hand type.

 

So playing 2N or 3♣ as passable aims at a very narrow and low-value target, while screwing up your constructive game/slam sequences.

 

Look at it in another way: preempts work because they destroy bidding space. All successful constructive methods are created with a view to maximizing bidding space on good hands. Yet playing 2N /3♣ as non-forcing means that you have to add to the preempt and destroy your own bidding space on good hands in order to cater to the occasional +120/+110.

 

Fill your boots, boys (and girls). You will win a few part score hands, but we will outbid you (all other things being equal) in game and slam decisions.

 

BTW, obviously my comments are based on imp considerations: the partscore swings are more valuable at mps, but even there, I prefer to have the 2♠ bidder make another bid.

[jdeegan]

:) For me, only the cue bid, 3♦, would be forcing, but then I am most certainly not 'modern' and offer a view of little value to your quest.

[EricK]

2♠ is forcing me to bid but it isn't GF. I need a bid to show a balanced minimum (assuming I am not opening these 1NT) - I shall choose 2NT for this purpose. I also need a bid to show a minimum hand with long clubs and no spade support - I shall choose 3C for this.

 

If I make these forcing, then I am effectively playing 2S as a GF.

 

It is a bit of an American disease making more and more bids more and more forcing. The idea, presumably, is to avoid missing games at IMPS, but the arguments aren't that convincing. After all, partner knows about the game bonus just as much as we do, so he will be keen to bid game even if I make NF bids (as long as they are reasonable descriptive ones), but we at least give ourselves the chance to stop in a part score if either player thinks game is low odds.

 

Eric

[Guest Jlall]

Well I think in this auction there is a lot of merit of playing 1 or both as a 1 round force. This adds clarity to 3N and 3D, something we lack otherwise (see other thread for my thoughts on a 3N bid with 2N/3C as NF). I also thought that 2N/3C non forcing was "standard" but when Mike disagreed I decided to start a poll because I really didn't know what others thought.

[EricK]

Certianly it is nice to have these as forcing if you pick up a strong hand, and nice to have them as NF if you pick up a weak hand.

 

But if you pick up a weak hand and you are playing them as forcing you have left yourself with no escape, but if you play them as non-forcing and pick up a strong hand you still have other bids, so the situation isn't so bad.

 

In my experience I pick up weak hands far more often than strong hands, so obviously I have to have a system which caters for them. YMMV.

 

Eric

[Walddk]

Justin's post arises from a comment I made on another thread: that I play that 2♠ promises a rebid. That makes any bid by opener forcing, since partner has promised that he will not pass (absent interference).

If 2♠ promises another bid, thereby driving you to game most of the times, you will get to a no play game more often than not in my opinion. Here is just one example:

 

KQJxx

Axx

xx

xxx

 

Axxx

Qx

Qxx

AQxx

 

1♣ (2♦) 2♠

 

I suppose we agree that opener must support to 3♠. Now, according to mikeh responder raises to game because he promised another bid. I even gave opener a goodish minimum, and yet you will go down in 4♠ even on the most favourable lie of the cards.

 

I find this unsound.

 

Roland

[kfgauss]

For the record, in BWS 2N is forcing, but 3♣ is not.

I'm having trouble finding any reference to this situation in the BWS document -- could you let me know where you find this?

 

If there is indeed no reference to this situation, then I think both of these would be NF by the general agreement that if in doubt, calls are NF in competitive auctions.

 

Andy

[Elianna]

Wow, so far I seem to be the only one that has voted for both (though I see reading later on that Mikeh agrees with me). Basically, I voted both for the same exact reason Mikeh stated later on: 2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

 

I might not expect a new partner to know this, for the same reason that I might not expect a new partner to realize that the auction 1♠-2♥-3♥ (opps pass) is forcing to game: I don't believe that many people know SAYC.

 

But as I try to expect the best out of any new partner, I'll go with expecting them to know both.

[EricK]

Wow, so far I seem to be the only one that has voted for both (though I see reading later on that Mikeh agrees with me). Basically, I voted both for the same exact reason Mikeh stated later on: 2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

 

I might not expect a new partner to know this, for the same reason that I might not expect a new partner to realize that the auction 1♠-2♥-3♥ (opps pass) is forcing to game: I don't believe that many people know SAYC.

 

But as I try to expect the best out of any new partner, I'll go with expecting them to know both.

In SAYC a 2/1 rebid promise a rebid. The reason it can afford to do that is that opener can always rebid his suit or make a 2 level bid in a lower ranking suit on a minimum hand thus allowing certain hands to stop short of game (eg 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♥ is NF but 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ is forcing as you said).

 

In the sequence under discussion, opener hasn't the luxury of rebidding his suit at the two level, so you can't afford to make responder's bid promise a rebid (unless you effectively make it GF).

 

Eric

[Chamaco]

2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

 

As far as I know, 2x (2S here) promises a rebid UNLESS partner bids 2NT or preferences (or rebid his own suit) at the 3 level.

 

So basically, 2/1 here would promise a rebid ONLY if opener rebids 2 of a suit, but, being it impossible in case of 2S, indeed, from the practical viewpoint, 2S does NOT promise a rebid for lack of bidding room.

 

If the 2/1 bid had been 2H, the over pard's 2S, responder would have been forced to bid.

[kfgauss]

2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

 

As far as I know, 2x (2S here) promises a rebid UNLESS partner bids 2NT or preferences (or rebid his own suit) at the 3 level.

 

So basically, 2/1 here would promise a rebid ONLY if opener rebids 2 of a suit, but, being it impossible in case of 2S, indeed, from the practical viewpoint, 2S does NOT promise a rebid for lack of bidding room.

 

If the 2/1 bid had been 2H, the over pard's 2S, responder would have been forced to bid.

Elianna's right about 2/1's without interference in SAYC. See http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_book.pdf (top of p.5). This is also the method given by Root in "Commonsense Bidding," for example. (SAYC needn't be taken as our standard, of course, but all Elianna claimed was that SA used this).

 

Root suggests not bidding 2NT on KQ432 86 A52 A76 after 1S-2H;?, but rather bidding 2S so we can stop below game (he gives K10963 K2 A104 K109 as an example of something worth a 2NT bid).

 

I do agree with Eric, however, that the competitive situation is quite different in that we have no catchall. There's also the point of shading a bit more than even a SA 2/1 in competition.

 

Root (which we also needn't take as our standard), for example, states that a noncompetitive 2/1 promises 11 points but a competitive 2/1 may be shaded to 10 or a good 9, and thus, he reasons, competitive 2/1's don't promise rebids. To force responder to bid again, he claims, opener must bid a new suit or jump. Note that this means that even 1S (2C) 2D; 2S is NF for him. (NB: Root's "points" include distrib.)

 

Root's book as a whole is certainly no longer standard (e.g. he plays 1M-3M as forcing) but the point is still valid. I do think that the "lack of a catchall" point is even stronger, though.

 

Most of this is aimed at refuting Elianna's claim that "2/1 promises rebid" means competitive auctions too. As for what I think is currently standard, I think NF for both. I have no idea what's best, but will note that I play this as NF with all current partners (or so I believe).

 

Andy

[the hog]

I can't see how 2NT can be forcing unless you play either weak NT or NFB.

In a strong NT system with 2S F1, both have to be non-forcing.

Ok Frances, my take - I can't see how 2NT can be non forcing in a practiced, serious partnership. You are contracting to make exactly 8 tricks. How often can this be right? Personally I would prefer to play 2NT as a Ruben's advance, but obviously this is not possible in a non expert partnership.

[cherdano]

For the record, in BWS 2N is forcing, but 3♣ is not.

I'm having trouble finding any reference to this situation in the BWS document -- could you let me know where you find this?

 

If there is indeed no reference to this situation, then I think both of these would be NF by the general agreement that if in doubt, calls are NF in competitive auctions.

 

Andy

Section V.F starts by saying that new suit responses after an overcall is forcing, and if it is at the two level, it is forcing to the next level of openers suit.

 

No this isn't strictly the same situation here, as it was a jump overcall not a simple overcall. But I don't see why it should be different than say 1♥-(2♦)-2♠.

 

Arend

[Finch]

Of course you never want to play in 2NT. Just like you never want to play 3 suit, 4NT, 5NT, 4 minor or 5 major in an uncontested auction. That doesn't mean that, given where you currently are in the auction, it's not right to play 2NT.

 

I believe the standard approach is that 2♠ is forcing for a round but does not promise a rebid. Given that, it's hard to see what opener is supposed to bid on a weak NT without spade support if not 2NT, and 2NT is probably the best available contract. (2♠ or defending 2♦ may have been better, but they aren't possible because 2♠ was forcing.)

 

There are three things you can do about this.

 

i) play 2♠ as non-forcing (which is actually what I do in my most serious partnership). That works brilliantly until you get a forcing 2♠ bid, when you either bid 3♠ (costing a level) or you have to double first. Doubling first is usually OK when the opponents don't bid again, but sometimes they raise... and now the auction can get very murky, as your double of 2♦ promised either a hand with both majors that wants to compete, or a forcing hand with a major.

 

ii) Mikeh suggests playing the 2♠ promises a rebid. Of course that makes some games easier to bid, but it is also not standard, and it makes some auctions harder. If you have 10-12 HCP with a 5-card spade suit you can't bid 2S without getting too high opposite a minimum. That means you have to double. So, you double... what is partner supposed to rebid on a 3334 13-count if not 2NT (non-forcing)? Well, now what? If we bid 3♠, is that forcing? If so, we're going to get too high again opposite other hands. I think this method makes this fairly common hand type unbiddable. You can choose to play that way (it's like playing 4th suit forcing as game forcing at the 2-level, which also makes a fairly common hand type unbiddable but simplifies other auctions), but not without loss.

 

iii) Live with it. In my second most serious partnership we live with it. It doesn't bother us much. You have the values for 2NT, and on an uncontested auction you'd end up in 2NT anyway after a 1NT rebid and an invite. It's usually easier to play after the overcall, as well.

[EricK]

I can't see how 2NT can be forcing unless you play either weak NT or NFB.

In a strong NT system with 2S F1, both have to be non-forcing.

Ok Frances, my take - I can't see how 2NT can be non forcing in a practiced, serious partnership. You are contracting to make exactly 8 tricks. How often can this be right? Personally I would prefer to play 2NT as a Ruben's advance, but obviously this is not possible in a non expert partnership.

It is a nice ideal in a non-competitive auction to only play in 1NT or 3NT and never 2NT. It is harder to achieve that if the opponents overcall 2♦.

 

By making 2NT forcing you are effectively making the opponents' overcalls even more pre-emptive than they already are, because now you have to sell out or get to game. The last thing you should want to do is have methods which encourage the opponents to compete more.

 

Eric

[kenberg]

I sometimes and dealt hands with five spades where after 1C-Pass I intend to innvite game but stop at a low level if partner is not interested. If instead I hear 1C-(2D), I bid 2S intending to pass 2NT or 3C. Fairly often, after hearing I ahve some spades and some values, partner is able to do something more and we arrive ina game.

 

Surely everyone gts dealt some hands where he will bid 2S after 1C-(2D) providing that he is not required to bid again, but where he will pass if the 2S bid requires further action. How does the auction develop then? Let's say fourth hand passes and partner reopens with a double. You would now bid 2S with four spades and four points. You have a good deal more. I suppose you jumpt to 3S. Does this really save space? Isn't it better to just bid 2S right away?

 

The reason for the immediate 2S bid is not just to reach a partial. It often provides the easiest way to get to game.

 

 

Ken

[junyi_zhu]

This comes from a recent post. I was wondering what the modern standard was for this sequence (I'm defining that as if you were playing with a new partner and had no agreements, what would you expect to be forcing?).

 

1C 2D 2S p ?

 

Is 2N forcing, is 3C forcing? Also feel free to comment on what you think the best treatment is, but for the poll purposes just stick to what you would think with a new partner.

No good to assign too many nonforcing bids here. It's often more important to have a way to bid naturally on the way to games or slams. Another treatment here is to play 2nt as invitational in either C or S, so now you have a whole 3 level as forcing.

The point is that when you play at 3 level, it's often a bad spot in IMPs.

So over 2nt, 3C shows minimum, other bids show extra and are natural. 3 level cuebid

shows C support and is gameforcing. So with balanced minimum, you still need to bid 3nt. Which is probably fine in IMP.