New suit on the 2-level after overcall

[Gerben42]

I am wondering how people play sequences like:

 

(1♦) 1♥ (p) 2♣

 

and

 

(1♠) 2♣ (p) 2♥

 

Is this forcing or not?

What would a jump in a new suit (3-level) be? Natural and (non)forcing, i.e. the other hand, or a fitjump?

 

Note that I chose two sequences that are not Rubens transfer sequences.

[mikeh]

I play them as forcing and I don't know anyone who doesn't. I'm not stating that to imply that 'no-one plays them non-forcing'...only as a statement that in my relatively limited world, the forcing meaning seems universal.

[awm]

I've seen either forcing or non-forcing constructive around here. Personally I prefer the non-forcing treatment for the first example, since one-level overcalls can be pretty lousy and there are a lot of hands where you'd want to respond in case partner has a maximum but have no real interest in getting higher opposite some random 8-count with decent hearts. I prefer the second example forcing because a two-level overcall promises real values (and a bit narrower range) for me than the one-level bid.

[skjaeran]

Both would be forcing for me.

[gordontd]

I play them as constructive but not forcing. To force, one has first to cue-bid.

 

At the one-level and the three-level I'd play them as forcing.

 

A jump in a new suit would be a fit-bid.

[mgoetze]

I would normally assume forcing. I recently played with someone who wanted them to be non-forcing, about 8-11. I wanted to play Robson-Segal. We noticed that this is not really compatible, as there are no forcing bids without a fit left. I would be very happy if someone could propose a solution for this problem, until then I'll prefer forcing. ;)

[Lurpoa]

yes forcing, definitively _ unless a passed hand

 

2♣ can be a 4card

2♥ is 5 card

 

a jump in that position is a weak 5 card, prempt and competitive

[Phil]

I've played them forcing for years and found myself passing with good 6 card suits and 7 counts. More recently, I've been playing a jump shift in response to an overcall if 3rd chair does not bid as a good hand but NF, although over a 2 level overcall they can sensibly be used as forcing. This assumes we are at the 3 level and not higher. Playing this way, I think you can play NF or NF/constructive much more comfortably.

 

Fit jumps are fine, but they are more valuable in competitive auctions. When 3rd chair passes, there is a good chance its our hand.

[Fluffy]

The second one is forcing for me, but my 2 over 1 overcalls are really sound.

 

 

The first one I play as non forcing, but my definition is "forcing unless you overcalled with crap". Because it is not totally forcing, 3♣ is now forcing.

 

 

About what is standard aroudn me, I think 98% players don't even know. But they will pass the second one often.

[blackshoe]

Non-forcing constructive, for me. I agree with Fluffy, I think a lot of players around here haven't actually thought about it.

[gnasher]

I play new suits as forcing and jump new suits as fit. I'm sure that fit jumps are right, and I'm sure that opposite a two-level overcall new suits should be forcing.

 

Facing a one-level overcall, I think there's a good case for playing new suits as non-forcing. You almost never have a hand that wants to insist on game opposite a simple overcall. If I did have such a hand, I could live with having to guess which game to play in, treat a doubleton as support, or risk a non-forcing new-suit bid.

[Siegmund]

NF constructive for me.

 

I can't recall a partner who explicitly discussed the difference between these two sequences (after a 1-level overcall vs. after a 2-level overcall), incidentally -- in the case of your first auction, NFC has been nearly universal when I've filled out a card at a partnership desk.

 

With my regular partner the jump shift is a fit bid, but I wouldn't assume that without discussion.

[andy_h]

I play 1/1 is forcing, 2/1 is NF but constructive, 2/2 etc are forcing. Although I'm starting to like 3/1 as forcing when 3rd hand has passed since it's very useful when it comes up and doesn't create awkward auctions if I have to start with a cue-bid with LHO bidding again. It just means I'm giving up FSJ when I can just put those hands in one of my raises.

[P_Marlowe]

NF, but NF does not mean crap.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

I have always played (1♦) 1♥ (p) 2♣ as non-forcing. The 1♠ shows some spades and some values, the 2♣ shows a hand that is more or less worthy of a 2♣ bid even if partner had not come in. Such hands come up fairly often and I would not want to give up this natural meaning.

 

By default, I treat (1♦) 2♣ (p) 2♥ as non-forcing and this seems to be the way it is usually intended. I am far from certain that this is best. I think that somewhere in Mike Lawrence's Complete Book of Overcalls (and I believe he has an update that I haven't bought) he prefers forcing but accepts that most people play it as non-forcing. Maybe I'll get the update for myself as a Christmas present.

[han]

I play both as NF and the jump is forcing. Playing the first auction as forcing strikes me as odd unless you play sound overcalls.

[han]

I would normally assume forcing. I recently played with someone who wanted them to be non-forcing, about 8-11. I wanted to play Robson-Segal. We noticed that this is not really compatible, as there are no forcing bids without a fit left. I would be very happy if someone could propose a solution for this problem, until then I'll prefer forcing. ;)

 

Proposed solution: don't play Robson Segal.

 

I think that the bridgematters website has a nice interview with Eric Rodwell. I couldn't say it any better than he did.

[mgoetze]

Proposed solution: don't play Robson Segal.

 

Thanks Han, that sure helped. ;)

 

Anyway, I understand from your other post that you forgo fit jumps in these auctions. How do you define 2NT?

[fromageGB]

For me it's definitely forcing if I haven't passed. I have no other method of making a forcing bid, as a cue bid would be a transfer.

 

For others around here I think it is a mixture of all three - forcing, non-forcing, and no agreement. Just recently the opponents' bidding stopped in a making partscore, with a good fit and game values, because responder thought it was forcing and opener didn't. Unfortunately for me, the game unavoidably goes off with wasted values, finesses wrong.

[mgoetze]

Proposed solution: don't play Robson Segal.

 

I think that the bridgematters website has a nice interview with Eric Rodwell. I couldn't say it any better than he did.

 

Well, I reread the interview (it's been a year or so), but I don't feel enlightened.

 

BridgeMatters: Negative Free Bids in competitive auctions—do you like them in standard or just with a strong club base?

 

Eric Rodwell: It is something that I only play with a couple of partners. It is difficult to play because you have a lot of trouble clarifying the better hands. If you just put everything in an omnibus multi-meaning negative double, and then have the eventual three level jump raise by the opponents, you are just going to have terrible trouble sorting it out. Playing standard, I definitely don’t like them. I just want to be able to make my forcing free bid. The only time I play them is playing a strong club system where my partner’s hand is limited. As for . . . Negative Free Bids, I recommend not using them.

 

So basically I should only play NFBs in conjunction with a strong club or the like. But what are the ". . ." NFBs he recommends not using?

[straube]

He's recommending against NFBs after we open and an overcall. e.g.....

1D (1S) 2C should be forcing

 

He isn't talking about auctions after opponents open. E.g...

1D (1S) P (2C)

 

I'm guessing his reason for liking NFBs after a strong club is that we have a lot of interest being in the auction but need to start finding fits before we get preempted out of them.. In any case, he has the ability to show suits in forcing and nf ways against low level interference.

[awm]

In my experience, negative free bids work really well when opener has a weak notrump and not so well otherwise.

 

In a strong club system with moderately strong notrump (i.e. what Meckwell play), the 1♦ opening is extremely often a weak notrump. This frequency is much higher than for either 1m bid in a standard system, because you exclude the strong hands (16+ would open 1♣) and because you include all weak notrumps regardless of minor suit distribution. Perhaps in a standard-ish system where 1♦ is unbalanced and all weak notrumps open 1♣ you get close enough to the same frequency to make NFB worthwhile. Also if you play Polish club, you almost have to play negative free bids after 1♣-(interference), which again works out okay because 1♣ is so often a weak notrump.

 

Personally I prefer transfer free bids opposite these kinds of openings, for much the same reason (I think transfer free bids are slightly better than NFB in general).

[MrAce]

I played both FORCING and NF but Constructive with different partners. The best solution imo is to play transfer responses to partner's overcall. it gives much more flexibility to both overcaller and responder.

 

This also works when we open and they overcall. I see more and more top players in BBO vugraph playing it.

[cherdano]

I play them as forcing and I don't know anyone who doesn't. I'm not stating that to imply that 'no-one plays them non-forcing'...only as a statement that in my relatively limited world, the forcing meaning seems universal.

Indeed it does mostly seem a statement about the limited nature of your world - non-forcing is Bridge World Standard.

[JLOGIC]

I play them as forcing and I don't know anyone who doesn't.

 

Hi