Pass, double, bid?

[jillybean]

Why should 3♣ be treated the same in both a competitive and non-competitive auction?

The point is just basic logic here. If you make a forcing bid at the three-level or above, it is very difficult to stop short of game. Partner can't bid notrump below 3NT (which is game). If you don't think there is any chance of making 3NT when partner is bidding it, then why are you making a (forcing) call that encouraged partner to bid it?

 

If you do think that you will often make 3NT when partner bids it, then aren't you likely to do even better when partner actually has a fit for your suit? Partner raising you to the four-level is good news. It's weird to say: "if we have no fit, I want to play in game, but if we have a fit I would rather just play a partial."

 

So the reasoning is that a forcing three-level bid is forcing to game. This applies regardless of whether there's competition.

 

However, it's certainly true that in a competitive auction we often have fewer calls available. It may be necessary to "stretch" a bit and force to game on a hand where ordinarily we would prefer not to. This is because a lot of our temporizing calls that might let us out below game have been taken away by the opponents' bidding.

 

In any case, bidding 3♣ here may have been pushy. We are forcing game with only 10 hcp and no known fit. You get a mix of opinions as to whether this pushy bid was the right call (it is not like we can show a "club invite" any more after the opponents bid 2♠). But in any case, once you made this call the auction is forcing to game from which it follows that pass of 4♠ is forcing.

I didnt make myself clear, my question was why should a new suit at the 3 level be gf in both competitive and non-competitive auctions, in competitive auctions why not play it as nf? If partner supports my bid, great.

Forcing pass isnt applicable (its not being played here) as it isnt understood or played by all B/I

[han]

I think I still do not understand your question, which non-competitive auction are you comparing the auction with? 1S-(2D)-3C is not the same as 1S-3C, however you play that.

 

I'll answer the following question instead: why should you play 1S-2D-3C as forcing?

 

As cherdano stated, you don't HAVE TO play 3C as forcing, but since basically everybody in North American does it would be a good idea for you to do so. The main reason that 3C is forcing is that otherwise you would have to find another bid with gameforcing hands, which would lead to problems. Of course, playing it as forcing sometimes leads to problems when you have a weak hand with clubs but the idea is that having problems when you are weak is preferable to having problems when you are strong. I hope that makes sense.

 

As for why you should play it as GF when you play it as forcing, awm and cherdano have done such a good job that there is little left to add.

[vuroth]

Forcing pass isnt applicable (its not being played here) as it isnt understood or played by all B/I

Probably something that would be nice to see in a sticky'd thread, someday.

[jillybean]

I think I still do not understand your question, which non-competitive auction are you comparing the auction with? 1S-(2D)-3C is not the same as 1S-3C, however you play that.

1♠:2♦

3♣ (sayc)

 

lol I had many that I used to pass so they must exist

[han]

Forcing pass maybe sound complicated but it starts just with common sense.

 

The idea is that when it is clear that it is our hand, then we shouldn't ever let them play undoubled. For example, if partner opens 1H and we make a gameforcing 2/1 bid (say 2C), then we are heading for game and we shouldn't let the opponents play 4S undoubled because we have the vast majority of the points. That doesn't mean that it is absolutely impossible that they make 4S and we can't make anything (never say never at bridge) but it is very unlikely.

 

So once you accept that we are not going to pass it out, we should focus on the two remaining options: double or bid on. Then the meaning of our calls are clear:

 

Double = let's play here. Doubled.

Bid on = Let's bid on.

Pass = I'm not sure, what do you think?

 

Now, where it gets complicated is to figure out exactly when pass is forcing, and world class players won't always agree on this.

 

But pretty much everybody will play forcing passes after we have forced to game. So in the auction given in this thread, we have the options of doubling 4S for penalty, bidding on (no way) or passing, which lets partner decide whether we should defend 4S or go to the 5-level. Almost everybody thinks our hand says going to the 5-level is a poor idea, so we should double.

[han]

I think I still do not understand your question, which non-competitive auction are you comparing the auction with? 1S-(2D)-3C is not the same as 1S-3C, however you play that.

1♠:2♦

3♣ (sayc)

Excellent example! Once you accept that both bids are forcing you'll see that the logic for playing these as forcing to game is the same.

[Lobowolf]

I didnt make myself clear, my question was why should a new suit at the 3 level be gf in both competitive and non-competitive auctions, in competitive auctions why not play it as nf? If partner supports my bid, great.

This treatment has some adherents; it's called "negative free bids." If you're playing this, then a double would either be a garden variety negative double, or a signal that you actually have game forcing values (after you bid against over partner's minimum response).

 

Negative free bidders are in the minority, though.

[han]

Also, some auctions are more suitable for negative freebids than others (such as this one). I'd say negative freebids at the 2-level are more managable than negative freebids at the 3-level.

[jillybean]

I think I still do not understand your question, which non-competitive auction are you comparing the auction with? 1S-(2D)-3C is not the same as 1S-3C, however you play that.

1♠:2♦

3♣ (sayc)

Excellent example! Once you accept that both bids are forcing you'll see that the logic for playing these as forcing to game is the same.

In a non competitive auction, I see!

 

but since basically everybody in North American does it would be a good idea for you to do so.

thankfully last time I checked, the world extended beyond NA

[vuroth]

Double = let's play here. Doubled.

Bid on = Let's bid on.

Pass = I'm not sure, what do you think?

How strongly is all of this tied to length to your length in their suit? With 3 or 4 in their suit, and I pretty likely to double? With say a void in their suit, am I odds on to bid on? Or should I pass, hoping partner can slam in a double?

 

Obiviously HCP and especially aces will be key if I'm looking to defend, but how should I be swayed if I have say, 0, 2 or 4 of their suit?

[P_Marlowe]

Double = let's play here. Doubled.

Bid on = Let's bid on.

Pass = I'm not sure, what do you think?

How strongly is all of this tied to length to your length in their suit? With 3 or 4 in their suit, and I pretty likely to double? With say a void in their suit, am I odds on to bid on? Or should I pass, hoping partner can slam in a double?

 

Obiviously HCP and especially aces will be key if I'm looking to defend, but how should I be swayed if I have say, 0, 2 or 4 of their suit?

2 card is the most dangerous holding.

 

If you have 0 card, you haveno looser in their suit,

if you have 3 cards, most likely, partner will have at

most 1 card, hence you have at most one looser.

 

If you have two loosers in their suit, you should be

wary to bid on or to encourage bidding on.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

1♥ (2♠) 3♣

 

I like to bid and Im not alone in this. At the right vulnerability and with little more than a 6(5) card suit its normal to overcall. Interference is common and I think it could be too restrictive to play new suit at the 3level is game forcing in these auctions.

I'm sure other players have devised methods to handle this, 3x nf and double to force game perhaps.

 

I'd like to hear from those who have played 3x nf here and how you cater for gf hands.

[mikeh]

1♥ (2♠) 3♣

 

I like to bid and Im not alone in this. At the right vulnerability and with little more than a 6(5) card suit its normal to overcall. Interference is common and I think it could be too restrictive to play new suit at the 3level is game forcing in these auctions.

I'm sure other players have devised methods to handle this, 3x nf and double to force game perhaps.

 

I'd like to hear from those who have played 3x nf here and how you cater for gf hands.

Kathyrn

 

We all like to bid, but most of us accept that the vocabulary we have available simply doesn't offer enough options, especially in competitive auctions, for us to be able to bid every type of hand where we have something we'd like to say.

 

There is a group that plays that responder's bids in competition are nf... this is known as a negative free bid. I don't know if anyone plays it nf after a weak overcall (there are compelling reasons not to do so when the opps have essentially suggested that at least one of them thinks the hand belongs to us), and relatively few players, at any level of skill/experience use them in any situation... and this is not difficult to understand.... negative free bids impose a huge burden on the rest of your competitive bidding methods.. a burden most players find is too heavy to warrant use of the gadget.

 

Use of the negative free bid makes bidding good hands difficult... you either have to cue bid or (I think this is the commonest method) start ALL good hands, without primary support for partner, and no desire to bid notrump, with double (or do something even more destructive of bidding space). There are significant problems with this approach, and I suspect that even ardent users of the methods agree on that. Negative free bids will increase your ability to compete for partscores, but will diminish your ability to accurately bid games or slams... if you prefer mps, then go for it.. but if you prefer imps, as most on this forum seem to do, then negative free bids are a bad idea, imho.

 

BTW, while one can use double for gf hands, this does NOT free up double for use ONLY with gf hands.... with say 3=2=4=4 and partner opens 1♥ and RHO bids 2♠, negative free bidders still need to say double with a competitive hand.. the free bid shows real length. You can see, I trust, how this becomes problematic, especially if LHO raises the level of the preempt.... opener is guessing if you have a normal negative double or a gf one-suiter, and you are in a diferent but equally ugly guess when it comes back to you... you may be starting to look for your fits at the 4 or 5-level!

 

The solution that the majority of experienced players adopt is to recognize that sometimes we have to pass with a hand where we'd like to bid, but where our methods don't permit it... after all, maybe partner can reopen... and, if not, maybe we haven't really missed anything.

 

I would go so far as to suggest that, for many improving players... players who have learned that aggression is often a good idea. their commonest mistakes involve failing to pass when they should.

[the hog]

Kathyrn

 

I probably should not post this in this forum, but there is a way to have your cake and eat it too, (albeit you do lose a little something along the way).

Some players use a 2NT bid after an opps jump at the 2 level as a puppet to 3C. So with an ordinary opening opener simply bids 3C, which can be passed or corrected to a non forcing 3 bid. If it is 3 of opener's suit it just shows a weakish raise. With a better (gf) hand, opener does not accept the puppet. A rebid of 3 of his own suit is forcing.

Thus an immediate 3 level bid is gf. What do you lose? A natural 2NT bid. You can possibly stick this in with a sputnik X. This works ok.

[P_Marlowe]

1♥ (2♠) 3♣

 

<snip>

 

I'd like to hear from those who have played 3x nf here and how you cater for gf hands.

The usual method is to put the strong hand in the hand,

which make a neg. X, direct suit bids are nonforcing.

Please keep in mind, that nonforcing does not mean

garbage. (*)

 

The advantage is, you get your suits in fast, hence you

have it easier to find your fits.

 

The downside is, if you have a strong hand, you have to

go via a neg. X, which is better than going via a cue bid,

since if you would go via a cue, you would burn a whole

level.

The problem with putting the strong hand into the neg. X

is, that you may get preempted, just assume they bid 4S

after you make the neg. X.

 

This is more a problem playing IMPs, but it is a problem

although a manageble problem.

But the main problem i see, and that is the issue Han and

Cherdano refer to, is, that NF is not the standard treatment

in North America, I used to believe, that it is the main treatent

in Germany, at least among good players, but I am not sure

anymore.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: (*) There is a 3rd way, you can switch to transfer after

interference (search the net for Rubens Advances), but this

treatment is definitely not B/I stuff, I would not even say

Adv. stuff.

[cherdano]

But the main problem i see, and that is the issue Han and

Cherdano refer to, is, that NF is not the standard treatment

in North America, I used to believe, that it is the main treatent

in Germany, at least among good players, but I am not sure

anymore.

I know NFB are popular in Germany, but on this auction (over a weak jump overcall) I would be surprised if many play it.

[P_Marlowe]

But the main problem i see, and that is the issue Han and

Cherdano refer to, is, that NF is not the standard treatment

in North America, I used to believe, that it is the main treatent

in Germany, at least among good players, but I am not sure

anymore.

I know NFB are popular in Germany, but on this auction (over a weak jump overcall) I would be surprised if many play it.

Most likely wrong wording.

 

I wanted to say, that I am not even sure anymore,

that in Germany NFB is the main treatment for a change

of suit on the 2 level after an overcall.

 

At least my impression was, that lots of good players

switch back to forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

I have yet to meet someone who plays nfb after 1x (2♠) or similar auctions.

 

For me it is possible to play them at the second level if you have a good discussion about the meaning of X, pass, 2 NT, cuebid, direct bids and jumps.

 

I doubt that it is worth to adopt this apporach and the time you need to spend on this to make it work.

 

But, we had the discussion here about good/bad 2 NT.

So, if you want to compete with goods suits which are not good enough for a gf bid, try what Ron has announced and use 2 NT for the constructive but nf hands.

[P_Marlowe]

I have yet to meet someone who plays nfb after 1x (2♠) or similar auctions.

 

For me it is possible to play them at the second level if you have a good discussion about the meaning of X, pass, 2 NT, cuebid, direct bids and jumps.

 

I doubt that it is worth to adopt this apporach and the time you need to spend on this to make it work.

 

But, we had the discussion here about good/bad 2 NT.

So, if you want to compete with goods suits which are not good enough for a gf bid, try what Ron has announced and use 2 NT for the constructive but nf hands.

Hi,

 

I am pretty sure Gromöller - Kirmse do.

 

I was surprised to hear this in the seminar, but this was

my impression, I may of course be wrong.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

Hi Roland

 

I am Wayne.

 

Nice to meet you.

 

I play negative freebids on all auctions where we are bidding a new suit in competition at the two or three-level.

 

In spite of the prevailing standard opinion this method offers a number of advantages:

 

1. Even with the opponent showing a weak hand the most common hand strength for responder is around 9-10 hcp. In a simulation with opener having a standard 1C opening - around 11-19 hcp and the overcaller having 6-10 responder was in the range 7-11 over 50% of the time;

 

2. Not everyone plays the jump overcall as weak - especially when they are vulnerable. In this case the most common strength of responder is around 7-8 hcp. In a similar simulation with 2S being 11-15 hcp 56% of the time responder was in the range 5-9 hcp;

 

3. Possibly the best method is to vary according to the strength of the 2S overcall. In practice almost everyone prefers to play one method independent of the opponents strength;

 

4. Negative free bids make it easier to compete for a part-score on these hands with the most frequent strength;

 

5. More importantly negative free bids make it easier to bid games when partner has a good fit and minimum values for our long suit. The hands that are suitable for negative free bids often have good playing strength which offers some safety when no fit is found and excellent prospects of game when there is a fit;

 

6. True game force hands (13+) with a five-card suit only occur with about the same frequency as a good negative free-bid with a six-card suit. Shading the values for a forcing free bid increases the frequency but with the cost of creating many more forcing pass situations where it is uncertain that the hand truely belongs to our side. This is especially true in a partnership that opens light.

 

There are certainly problem hands for negative free bids. I don't believe the problems are significantly worse than the problems for standard bidders. In the end everyone has the same number of bids available on a particular auction. If you utilize all of those bids for sensible hand types then your method will not be significantly more or less effective than someone else who finds a different sensible solution for the same problem.

 

Kathryn's question of whether it is better to bid differently in competition is a good one.

 

The approach forcing method works well when the opponents do not interfere but it is far from clear to me that this same approach is better in a competitive auction.

 

We have put a reasonable amount of work into our competitive auctions. As I have suggested I don't think the differences are great. However Negative Free Bids are a style that I really like and enjoy playing.

[vuroth]

The solution that the majority of experienced players adopt is to recognize that sometimes we have to pass with a hand where we'd like to bid, but where our methods don't permit it... after all, maybe partner can reopen... and, if not, maybe we haven't really missed anything.

 

I would go so far as to suggest that, for many improving players... players who have learned that aggression is often a good idea. their commonest mistakes involve failing to pass when they should.

I figured it would come down to partner reopening. One of the mental hurdles to overcome as a B/I is trusting partner to reopen, espcially if I'm not always sure that I'd reopen myself.

 

As for failing to pass when I should? Tell me about it... ;)