QGame

[ArtK78]

A hand I posted recently http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry836172 provoked a discussion that seems to imply that, playing 2/1 GF, one must bid game after a 2/1 bid is made. This is certainly understandable if the game is 3NT or 4 of a major. But what about 5 of a minor? Is a 2/1 response forcing to game unconditionally even when the only possible game is in a minor suit?

 

Many years ago, I attempted (unsuccessfully) to learn Ultimate Club, the relay system played by Ron Rubin, Matt Granovetter and Mike Becker in the late 70s and early 80s. In the book setting out the system, there was a concept of QGame, and bids that were forcing to QGame. QGame meant 3NT or 4 of the agreed suit. So, if the agreed suit was a minor suit, "game forcing" sequences were forcing to 4 of the minor.

 

In the thread that developed after my post, all of the posters assumed that if you were playing 2/1, then a sequence that starts out 1♥ - 2♣ was absolutely game forcing - meaning that the auction could not end in 4 of a minor. For example, many posters flat out stated that, in 2/1 GF, the sequence 1♥ - 2♣ - 3♣ - 4♣ was 100% forcing and was a slam try.

 

Is that opinion universally held? Is it absolutely clear that the 4♣ bid is forcing? Clearly, if the bidding sequence were 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ - 4♥, the last bid is a signoff. Of course, 4♥ is game, and 4♣ is not game. But it is QGame.

 

EDITED to change 1♦-2♣ to 1♥-2♣.

[helene_t]

Yes, of course there are some pairs that agree otherwise, but absent other agreements you should assume that GF really means GF. We can make an exception when we escape to 4m after an SOS redbl after 3NT, but that's the only exception I would assume undiscussed.

 

As for

1♦-2♣

3♣-4♣,

assuming that 2♣ and 3♣ were both forcing but not GF, I think PhilKing has a nice general principle that says you can sign off in 4m if you first made a try for 3NT (by bidding some other suit at the 3-level after 3♣), but the given sequence is a slam try.

 

My personal opinion, fwiw, is that 1NT becomes a bit overloaded if everything else (except for natural raises) are GF, so probably the jump shifts (possibly also the 2NT response) should not be Bergen or SJS but be used to unload the 1NT response.

[mycroft]

It's something you need to discuss, certainly. I have usually played (given my Eastern Canada training) that a 2/1 sequence (and 1♦-2♣ is not always a "2/1 sequence") is forcing to game - except that if we have clearly looked for 3NT *and decided against it*, we can stop in 4m.

 

Now the benefits of that are quite high - 5m is much more difficult to make on moderate values than 4 of a suit, especially when we already know that there's a suit that will lose all the cards we have in it (and we've likely told the opponents what suit that is). The downsides are the same as all "almost GF" calls - sometimes you can't make the correct call, because it's passable, so you have to lie about your hand; and unless the sequences are *carefully* delineated, you will have "I thought it wasn't passable because..." auctions. Both of those can be just as zeroing at MPs as a hopeless, but forced 5m, and tend to lose double digits instead of the 5 or 6 you win back for +130 into -50/100. So it's a balance of probabilities, as is almost everything in the auction.

 

Around here, they play "a 2/1 is GF, any 2/1, no exceptions, get to Game" at least short of the absolute top rank. It's easier, at least - and at least around here, they have field protection for their "hopeless 5m"s and their "I don't have a bid for my 1=3=3=6 10 count" after 1♦ and their buried heart fits after 1♠.

[ArtK78]

It's something you need to discuss, certainly. I have usually played (given my Eastern Canada training) that a 2/1 sequence (and 1♦-2♣ is not always a "2/1 sequence") is forcing to game - except that if we have clearly looked for 3NT *and decided against it*, we can stop in 4m.

 

Now the benefits of that are quite high - 5m is much more difficult to make on moderate values than 4 of a suit, especially when we already know that there's a suit that will lose all the cards we have in it (and we've likely told the opponents what suit that is). The downsides are the same as all "almost GF" calls - sometimes you can't make the correct call, because it's passable, so you have to lie about your hand; and unless the sequences are *carefully* delineated, you will have "I thought it wasn't passable because..." auctions. Both of those can be just as zeroing at MPs as a hopeless, but forced 5m, and tend to lose double digits instead of the 5 or 6 you win back for +130 into -50/100. So it's a balance of probabilities, as is almost everything in the auction.

 

Around here, they play "a 2/1 is GF, any 2/1, no exceptions, get to Game" at least short of the absolute top rank. It's easier, at least - and at least around here, they have field protection for their "hopeless 5m"s and their "I don't have a bid for my 1=3=3=6 10 count" after 1♦ and their buried heart fits after 1♠.

Sorry - the sequence in my other thread was 1♥ - 2♣, not 1♦ - 2♣. I edited my first post in this thread to change it.

[gszes]

The "problem" is one of perception/dogma. It is plain downright a ton more difficult to make something at the 5 level than it is at the 4 level when one is using the same "values" as are needed to make 3n or 4M. This inconvenient fact is what makes Q games a "good/bad" idea and the elimination of 4m invitational a "good/bad" idea. I say inconvenient because so many that play 2/1 gf (including 5m) pretty much ignore this fact. Bridge is a game and those that feel it is not worth differentiating btn 4c invitational and 5c probably do so because they feel it enhances their slam bidding and any trade offs are small compared to the much larger gains of being able to bid slams properly. Good and bad are terms relative to the thinking of individuals and hopefully partnerships. The best you can do is try to find partners that think in a similar fashion and good luck:))))) Or you can become a mentor and pass on your wisdom to aspiring players that will "always" agree with you:)

[suokko]

Forcing to game has only one exception in my book. We can pass 4m in a FG auction if we have looked for a stopper and failed to find it. In any other case 4m is clearly forcing. The example 1♥ - 2♣ - 3♣ - 4♣ is clearly forcing because 4♣ bidder decided not to look for stoppers making my exception not to apply to that sequence.

[Zelandakh]

In my system I designate some sequences as GF and others as UGF. UGF means that it is not possible to play 4m whereas GF allows that under certain circumstances, basically similar to PK's idea but developed independently. It is a little more difficult in a natural system that one that is based on limiting strength but I think the same concepts should apply.

[PhilKing]

I like to play the following (and various similar auctions) as NF:

 

1♠-2♥-2♠-3♣-3♠

 

1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-3♥-4♣

 

 

In the second auction, responder has ♠xx ♥Kx ♦Qx ♣AKJTxxx or similar. Obviously, it does not have to end the auction.

 

The "rule" is that someone bids a suit 3 times and neither player has bid 2NT.

[rhm]

You can make as many exception as you like.

My experience is that the advantages of these exceptions are in the end balanced by their disadvantages.

What all these exceptions do is to complicate a simple concept for little gain and these exceptions hamper your slam bidding.

Exceptions also tend to produce misunderstandings. I like the feeling knowing this bid can not be passed and there is no post mortem discussion about it.

 

Also I do not like to stop on a dime. I am rather be a little bit more conservative when holding a minor suit oriented hand

 

Rainer Herrmann

[KurtGodel]

Used to play this as absolutely game forcing. After having auctions that were heading for 3NT only to discover that we were missing a stop and then having partner bid 4m and being socially endplayed into raising to a game you are pretty sure won't make most of the time, we decided that perhaps we can be flexible.

 

It's quite interesting where you get into the situation where you are probably forced to make a call that is losing long term to preserve partnership trust (if you pass 4m and partner was looking for slam he won't talk to you for a week).

[mikestar13]

2/1 absolute GF is simple. If there are exception they need to be a) clearly agreed b) relatively few in number, and c) easy to remember.

 

The exceptions, where 4m can be passed in a GF auction might be:

 

1) 4m can be passed in a failed stopper ask auction.

2) 4m can be passed when it is an escape from 3NTX.

 

IMHO, these two exceptions might be worthwhile, any others are quite likely to be a mistake.

[mike777]

I like to play the following (and various similar auctions) as NF:

 

1♠-2♥-2♠-3♣-3♠

 

1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-3♥-4♣

 

 

In the second auction, responder has ♠xx ♥Kx ♦Qx ♣AKJTxxx or similar. Obviously, it does not have to end the auction.

 

The "rule" is that someone bids a suit 3 times and neither player has bid 2NT.

 

nonexpert here but:

 

1) auction one could pard not open a very sound weak 2 bid or 3bid or pass?

2) If pard is that weak in hcp could they not pass or open a verysound weak 2bid if 6 cards? tht makes auction 2 stronger, much stronger.

 

 

1s=2c

2s weaker

---

1s=2c=2h=stronger

----

pass even weaker.

 

 

granted this makes low hcp with dist hands an issue that pard must know.

[PhilKing]

nonexpert here but:

 

1) auction one could pard not open a very sound weak 2 bid or 3bid or pass?

2) If pard is that weak in hcp could they not pass or open a verysound weak 2bid if 6 cards? tht makes auction 2 stronger, much stronger.

 

 

1s=2c

2s weaker

---

1s=2c=2h=stronger

----

pass even weaker.

 

 

granted this makes low hcp with dist hands an issue that pard must know.

 

I did not intend to say or imply that anyone had a low point count. Take the second auction: say you have:

 

♠AQ9xx

♥Kxxxx

♦Kx

♣x

 

What do you think you can make? Partner has no major fit and does not have a slam try in clubs (he can jump to 4♣ over 2♥).

 

♠K

♥Qx

♦Jxx

♣AQJ9xxxx

 

You need some luck to make four. And if partner is stronger, but without enough to jump to 4♣ on the second round he can bid five now.

[mike777]

ok It seems fair to play if responder rebids his minor it is NF or if responder returns to openers first suit, in this case with 2s over 2h as nf.

 

1s=2c

2h=3c(nf)

or

1s=2c

2h=2s(nf)

 

of course this means we are not playing 2/1gf.

 

Of course this is rather old fashion bidding but seems playable with agreement.