Generic Agreements Over Pre-empts

[Finch]

Two threads recently have mentioned the merits of knowing what bids mean in very high level cramped auctions. (http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=12282 and http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=12185).

 

I realised that this is one area where our system file is lacking any general agreements, with the exception of 4NT bids which we have discussed in some detail. I think this is because we always seem to be in agreement in these auctions (probably because he taught me most of my competitive bidding style!). But I thought I would try and articulate our style, and I thought other people might find this helpful, so here are some 'rules'. I am not certain rule 6 is entirely accurate, I need to discuss some of the sequences with 'im indoors. (I have omitted all the 4NT stuff which is an essay in itself, and have omitted some specific sequences we have non-generic agreements about).

 

Unless we have specifically agreed otherwise:

 

1. A jump to game or slam is always natural and non-forcing.

2a. Finding the right strain is more important than the right level.

2b. As a consequence, in pre-empt auctions, we don’t use ‘double then bid’ to show a stronger hand than an immediate bid.

3. We don’t make ‘contract correction’ bids.

4. After a high-level 2-suited overcall, it is not normally possible to play in the 4th suit.

5. If a cue bid is the only way to set partner’s last suit as trumps, it does not promise a control in the suit.

6. If it is possible to cue at the appropriate level to agree partner’s suit, new suits are natural (possibly fit bids, depending on context). Otherwise see 7.

7. If partner has made a firm statement about the correct strain at game level or higher, new suits are cue bids. Otherwise new suits are natural and constructive.

8. We also have some detailed ideas about what 4NT means in jammed auctions, and about when pass is forcing but I’m staying away from them (unless requested by popular demand…)

 

notes

1. Usually not if it’s in their suit, although we play (1M)-4M and a few other multi-jump cue bids as natural.

 

2. For example: 3C x P 4C is not a slam try, it shows two suits and is looking for the best spot. Similarly, 3C x P 3H P 3S doesn’t show a huge spade hand, it is something like 5332 with some extras (without extras pass 3H or overcall 3S). 3D x P 3H P 3NT shows no more than an immediate 3NT overcall, but shows doubt (might be, say, 3325 with a diamond stop). The only exception is that a huge hand with spades can sometimes afford to double then jump in spades.

 

3. If partner’s bid was not game, a new suit is natural and forcing if also not game, e.g. 3H 3S P 4C (exception: if we have already shown weakness and partner is limited then a new suit is not forcing but is encouraging e.g. 3C P P 3H P 3S can be passed).

 

4. For example 3H (4H) (S+minor) P 5D is ‘pass or correct’ (to play in 5D or 6C). We have some more complex agreements if the next hand doubles but let’s not go there from here…

 

5.I don’t think this one needs any notes.

 

6. (3H) 3S P 4H agrees spades, doesn’t promise a heart control, 4C/4D are natural. (3S) 4H P 4S agrees hearts, 5C/5D are natural.

 

7. This is the difficult one. What is a ‘firm statement’? Here are some cases where I think it is clear, and a couple which aren’t.

 

The following are firm statements & set the trump suit:

i)An opening bid at game level or higher (but see below for the possible exception)

ii)A jump overcall or response at game level or higher

iii)A jump to game in response to a take-out double (consequence of 2b)

 

The following are suggestions and do not set trumps

i)An overcall at the lowest possible level, even if that’s game

ii)A take-out double followed by a non-jump suit bid

iii)A change-of-suit response to partner’s opening or overcall that is not game

iv)A non-game pre-empt (including 3NT which is a type of non-game pre-empt in a minor)

v)A minimum response to a take-out double, even if game

 

The following need discussion

i)A 4S response to partner’s 4H opening or overcall. Possibly the meaning should depend on vulnerability, but I hate that sort of agreement as it is too easy to forget.

ii)A change of suit after partner’s strong jump non-game overcall (e.g. 2H 3S P 4C).

iii)A jump non-game response to a take-out double (3C x P 4D: does this set diamonds? I think not)

[whereagles]

Hum... Rubens advances? Saves you a lot of trouble defining when stuff is forcing or not, no?

[Finch]

I'm not sure Rubens advances are often played at the 3, 4, 5 or 6 level?

[Chamaco]

But I thought I would try and articulate our style, and I thought other people might find this helpful, so here are some 'rules'.

Thank you very much for sharing.

 

This sort of contribution is particularly helpful for intermediate/advancing (not "advanced" :) ) players like myself.

[whereagles]

I'm not sure Rubens advances are often played at the 3, 4, 5 or 6 level?

The higher the preempt, the more useful Rubens advances become...

 

(1♣) 1♠ (pass) ..?

 

you have zillions of bids available here. Compare with

 

(3♣) 3♠ (pass) ..?

 

now you have much less space. In normal overcall systems, most people don't even know if 4♥ here is forcing or not. With Rubens advances you bid 4♦, which can be

 

a. sign-off in 4♥ (advancer passes overcaller's 4♥ rebid)

b. spade support + heart cue (advancer goes back to 4♠)

c. strong red two suiter with better hearts (advancer next bids 5♦)

 

As you see, much more flexibility, just when you need it.

 

I think most people agree Rubens advances are technically superior to natural responses to overcalls. The problem is they require some memory work. Actually.. it's just a little bit of work, but you know how LAZY people can be :)

[cherdano]

Thanks for this list, Frances! A lot of this sounds pretty natural to me, and I would expect much of it without discussion when playing with a pickup expert.

 

Of course, 6 and 7 are the grey areas. I am not sure about your rule iii) setting trumps, e.g.: (3♥)-X-5♣-5♦: Couldn't this be a correction after having doubled with, say 4=2=6=1 shape? See also the BPO Poll 006B where the panel doubled 3♠ with 3=4=5=1 and most panelists (including apparently an imposter "Jeffrey and Frances") wanted to correct 5♣ to 5♦.

For similar reasons, I agree that your example of (3♣)-X-4♦ doesn't set trump.

 

Your other example (2♥)-3♠-4♣ is also a good one, I would expect this to be natural with my partners, but I would not be absolutely sure about it.

 

By the way, I would certainly be curious about your 4NT and forcing pass rules.

 

Arend

[cherdano]

Btw, whereeagles, I disagree that Rubens advances at this high level are clearly superior. And to claim that they solve all your problems is almost ridiculous, you still have to agree whether (3♥)-3♠-4♣ is forcing, what a takeout double can be, etc. etc.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

Btw, whereeagles, I disagree that Rubens advances at this high level are clearly superior. And to claim that they solve all your problems is almost ridiculous, you still have to agree  whether (3♥)-3♠-4♣ is forcing, what a takeout double can be, etc. etc.

I have never claimed Rubens advances "solve all your problems". You have to be more careful with what you write. If you don't want to bother being careful, I suggest you simply don't write it at all.

 

As for the superiority of Rubens advances, I will stand for it against anyone. If you want to argue against it, fine. But please let's stay on-topic because

 

(3♥)-3♠-(pass)-4♣

 

is not a situation of Rubens advances, and you know it.

[Al_U_Card]

See also the BPO Poll 006B where the panel doubled 3♠ with 3=4=5=1 and most panelists (including apparently an imposter "Jeffrey and Frances") wanted to correct 5♣ to 5♦.

I thought that equal level conversion only applied to doubles of 1 level bids.....

[vang]

Btw, whereeagles, I disagree that Rubens advances at this high level are clearly superior. And to claim that they solve all your problems is almost ridiculous, you still have to agree  whether (3♥)-3♠-4♣ is forcing, what a takeout double can be, etc. etc.

I have never claimed Rubens advances "solve all your problems". You have to be more careful with what you write. If you don't want to bother being careful, I suggest you simply don't write it at all.

 

As for the superiority of Rubens advances, I will stand for it against anyone. If you want to argue against it, fine. But please let's stay on-topic because

 

(3♥)-3♠-(pass)-4♣

 

is not a situation of Rubens advances, and you know it.

uh oh, you are the one with an useless and offtopic* reply whereeagles. a good, long and worked post about an interesting subject and your reply telling us that rubens advances do exist. thanks, we knew.

 

*in case you forgot, the topic is not rubens.

[whereagles]

uh oh, you are the one with an useless and offtopic* reply whereeagles. a good, long and worked post about an interesting subject and your reply telling us that rubens advances do exist. thanks, we knew.

 

*in case you forgot, the topic is not rubens.

Mind your own business, will you? Thanks.

[cherdano]

Here is an example:

(3♦)-X-4♦-4♥-4♠

 

Is this a spades one-suiter with slam interest, or a hand with 4♠ and longer clubs, offering a choice of games? "Strain before level" would argue for the latter. I think this is what I would prefer, but I have no idea whether that would be standard.

 

Opinions?

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

Here is an example:

(3♦)-X-4♦-4♥-4♠

 

Is this a spades one-suiter with slam interest, or a hand with 4♠ and longer clubs, offering a choice of games? "Strain before level" would argue for the latter. I think this is what I would prefer, but I have no idea whether that would be standard.

 

Opinions?

 

Arend

Yes I would definitely play it as the latter.

[han]

There was nonsense here, I misread the auction.

[joshs]

Here is an example:

(3♦)-X-4♦-4♥-4♠

 

Is this a spades one-suiter with slam interest, or a hand with 4♠ and longer clubs, offering a choice of games? "Strain before level" would argue for the latter. I think this is what I would prefer, but I have no idea whether that would be standard.

 

Opinions?

 

Arend

I have always played that the 4 level cue-bid in these auctions sets up a game level scramble, unless the subsequent auction makes that interpretation logically impossible:

 

E.G. (3D)-x-4D-4H-4S is just a choice between spades and clubs, not a slam try.

 

Note if the xer had: AQxxx Kxxx x Axx he should bid 4H not 4S playing this style, catering to partner having hearts and clubs.

 

It also slightly restricts your choices with KQx Kxx xxx Axxx, since a cue bid doesnt solve any problems. You choices really are

a. pass

b. 5C

c. 4D then 5C (which is only a slam try if partner happens to bid 4H)

 

Except at Unfav, I would definitely pass. At Unfav its a very difficult decision.

 

Josh