Ugly

[Guest Jlall]

The forcing 2S should be a "power force", inv+ based on hcp and defensive tricks, close to an opener also in terms of defensive tricks

In an ideal world yes, but the world is not ideal. You've got to bid the hand you are dealt, and 2♠, although forcing as I play it, is significantly better than double.

 

Roland

Couldnt have said it better.

[cherdano]

Hi Mauro,

 

if you promise me that the bidding will proceed as described by you, allowing a rebid of a non-forcing 3♠ after double, I think I would be happy with it. But I am afraid either opponents (4♥) or partner (5♦) will preempt me from doing that, so I think I have to make a descriptive bid immediately. With this shape, I will rather lie a little about my strength than suppress my nice 6-card suit.

 

I am not too worried about lack of defense either. I have trump ace, maybe a useful diamond ruff, and maybe a slow trick or two in the black suits if we don't have a fit.

 

Arend

[Chamaco]

Hi Mauro,

 

if you promise me that the bidding will proceed as described by you, allowing a rebid of a non-forcing 3♠ after double, I think I would be happy with it. But I am afraid either opponents (4♥) or partner (5♦) will preempt me from doing that,

If you are afraid of opps preempting, then it0's better to use Negative free bids.

 

Negative freebids are used exactly for that: bid your shape ASAP with invitational- hands.

 

But if one uses "standard aproach", he should accept that with a constructive hand and long suit, double is the bid. If we do not like it, that's fair enough, we can change methods: after all, noone n this Forum seems to like anything "standard" :-)

But, if you agre "standrd", you play "standard": a 2/1 here overbids by 1 quick trick the hand....

[Winstonm]

2S.

 

This hand brings up the trouble with NFB - what do you do after a double and then they jump to 4H. I'd rather bid my suit now, thank you.

 

This is a matter of evaluation, I believe. This hand is much better than it's HCPs imply.

 

WinstonM

[Winstonm]

Although hard and fast rules are nice, they don't work very well in competition - in the real world where opps preempt you out of your chair, you have to use some judgement as well as discretion and you must give pard a little leeway for his actions once the bidding gets jacked up. That's why I believe 2S here is a standout - it has the best chance to get our side to its best contract. Isn't that the point of bidding?

 

WinstonM

[HeartA]

2S.

 

This hand brings up the trouble with NFB - what do you do after a double and then they jump to 4H. I'd rather bid my suit now, thank you.

 

This is a matter of evaluation, I believe. This hand is much better than it's HCPs imply.

 

WinstonM

What are you talking about? Do you know what NFB means? (or I misread your message?) With NFB, it is a clear-cut to bid 2♠. Only withOUT NFB, there is disagreement for double or 2♠.

 

Though I am not totally diagree with 2♠ (without NFB), this hand is not as good as it looks. If pd's hand is ♦ one suiter (singleton or void in ♠), this hand is nothing except ♥A.

[Winstonm]

Quote HeartA: What are you talking about? Do you know what NFB means? (or I misread your message?)

 

Non-forcing free bids is my understanding. I assume you misread my message. The point I made was that if the opponents continue with the heart onslaught with a 4H bid, it is awkward to now have to introduce spades on something like: KJ8xx, Kxx, xx, AQx. This can happen if playing NFB when you have to start the better hands with double. Not only have the opponents preempted you, but you have preempted yourself out of a valuable round of bidding by doubling.

 

The hand in question: Doesn't matter to me if playing NFB or not, it's a 2S bid either way.

[Chamaco]

2S. 

 

This hand brings up the trouble with NFB - what do you do after a double and then they jump to 4H.  I'd rather bid my suit now, thank you.

1) Using NFB one is in trouble when opps preempt and he holds a good hand and a suit not so good to bid it directly at the 3 level.

 

2) using 2/1 forcing in competition, instead, one is in trouble if they raise at high level and you hold a long suit with a nonforcing constructive hand and you have to double

 

-------------------------

 

Basically, you are in trouble in both cases when your system tells you to double with a long suit and they preempt you.

 

However, in both systems, there are indeed hands where you have to double.

So what shall we do ?

Shall we ban doubling with a long suit even when systems tells it is right, just because we are worried of preemption ?

 

I think that once one chooses a system (or has to stick to a "standard" in undiscussed pship), he should accept the bids the system tells even if he does not like it.

 

Therefore, NOT using NFB, holding about 8 hcp without 2 QT, the bid is either double planning to bid the suit.

 

There are plenty of bids that are vulnerable to opps preemption, yet people still use it, because they are part of their agreed system.

 

FURTHERMORE, THERE IS YET ANOTHER PROBLEM IN BIDDING 2/1 FORCING HERE:

pard may play us for a quite stronger hand and drive to an unlikely slam.

 

If we bid a 2/1 forcing with these hands, even when it works fine, pard will never know how strong we are when we next bid a 2/1 in competition, if it can be as low as a distributional 8 count (which- by system - should belong to double + new suit): so, many times, both slam biding AND forcing pass issues in high level competion will be VERY distorted.

[Walddk]

6-card majors are not suited for a negative double. If you have any excuse whatsoever, bid it instead. Those of you who prefer double followed by 3♠ are worse off than those who bid a direct 2♠ (F1).

 

Opener's likely rebid in either case is 3♦ with the hand I hold, so it must be a lot better to introduce spades at the 2-level rather than at the 3-level. If we double, partner expects nothing more than a 4-card suit, but if we bid, at least he knows that we have 5+.

 

That's a clear advantage and the reason why, in my opinion, 2♠ is better than double - also if 2♠ is forcing.

 

Roland

[Chamaco]

6-card majors are not suited for a negative double. If you have any excuse whatsoever, bid it instead. Those of you who prefer double followed by 3♠ are worse off than those who bid a direct 2♠ (F1).

 

Then I think 2-level negative double should be explained in a different way.

 

A negative double at the 2 level shows either of the folllowing:

 

a. a side 4 card major, usually balanced hand

 

OR

 

b. a long major that cannot be bid because of lack of hcp.

In this case the major will be bid at the next turn.

 

 

In both cases, a negative double at th 2-level guarantees 8 hcp (or and Ace and a K)

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

One may not like this agreement and it's ok.

But this is the "standard" agreement, and if bridge is a partnership bidding game, under such agreement, bidding a 2/1 FORCING here is like opening a hand with 8 hcp in the 1st/2nd seat, when my pard expects 11-12+.

 

Both actions may occasionally work, but they are one-sided and certainly not partnership actions: if opps compete, pard doubles, and we get a poor score because our hand has more offense than defense, he will be right to complain.

[Walddk]

The comparison with opening on an 8 count when partner expects 11/12+ is not valid in my view. I agree that I am perhaps 2 hcp shy of a normal 2♠ forcing bid, but a 6-5 shape clearly compensates.

 

If my shape had been 5-3-3-2 it's a different story. Now I can live with double if I have no more than 8 hcp.

 

Roland

[Chamaco]

The comparison to opening on an 8 count when partner expects 11/12+ is not valid in my view. I agree that I am perhaps 2 hcp shy of a normal 2♠ forcing bid, but a 6-5 compensates.

 

If my shape had been 5-3-3-2 it's a different story. Now I can live with double if I have no more than 8 hcp.

 

Roland

Roland, I agree that 65 is great and improve our hand: but it improves it ON OFFENSE , NOT IN DEFENSE.

The Quacks in our long suits are likely not to score a trick in defense.

 

Bidding 2S we are promising more defense.

That's all my point: we do not have the defense that pard will expect if we get to a high level decision (eg forcing pass and bla bla bla).

because of this, I'd rather risk 4S directly rather than go slowly via 2S, although this risks missing the club fit.

[Walddk]

Roland, I agree that 65 is great and improve our hand: but it improves it ON OFFENSE , NOT IN DEFENSE.

I will not begin to worry about what I have on defence. I have a hand suited for declaring. I will feel much more comfortable about passing 3♦ if I bid 2♠ first, than pulling 3♦ to 3♠ later.

 

Roland

[Chamaco]

Roland, I agree that 65 is great and improve our hand: but it improves it ON OFFENSE , NOT IN DEFENSE.

I will not begin to worry about what I have on defence. I have a hand suited for declaring. I will feel much more comfortable about passing 3♦ if I bid 2♠ first, than pulling 3♦ to 3♠ later.

 

Roland

That's fair enough, but you have to consider what will happen if opps bounce over your 2S.

 

All methods lead to a playable contract (not the best at MP, but plausible at IMPS) if opps shut up.

For all methods, the problems arise when opps jump raise to 4-5H.

 

And in that case WE SHOULD INDEED WORRY OF LACK OF DEFENSIVE TRICKS WE PROMISED.

Because by bidding 2S we have distorted the ODR ratio of our hand, and pard does not know our hand is great in offense but so-and-so in defense, and there is much less room to explain it.

 

 

1D-(2H)-2S-(4/5H)

 

 

In these auctions you have advantages /disadvantages vs doubling:

 

PROS

You gave part of your shape. You have more chance to introduce clubs.

 

CONS

Pard expects you have more defense, he plays you for more defensive tricks.

If he doubles you are likely to set the contract, but most likely your side has game on and you are RED vs white.

Pard cannot picture your ODR, and it's harder to cooperate.

[Walddk]

Do you seriously think that I will be in a better position if I double first and then get 4♥ from LHO? Surely not. Do you now want me to jump into the pool without knowing if there is water in it and bid 4♠?

 

Now I am fixed with chains around both feet.

 

Roland

[Fluffy]

pass, 2♠ or 4♠, I can quickl see how any of them can turn into disaster, but have to pick one of them anyway, 4♠ to me.

[Winstonm]

Chamaco: Bidding 2S we are promising more defense.

 

 

I appreciate how ardently you argue your position. However, there are those of us who believe differently.

 

That's what makes a horse race, eh?

 

WinstonM

[han]

Mauro,

 

I also appreciate the efforts you make to convince us that double first is correct. I don't buy it, but you raise some interesting points. From my perspective you put too much emphasis on HCP's and not enough on playing strength.

[han]

I must say that I also don't believe Rolands argument that negative doubles don't work with 6+ majors. For instance, with AQJxxx xx xxx xx, I would make a negative double over 1H-(2D). I think that this is not good enough to bid 2S on, but the auction 1H-(2D)-Dbl-2H-2S would describe this hand perfectly (of course, it get's harder if the opponents bid again).

 

I would be interested to know if you agree with this Roland.

[Deanrover]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa6h976dakqj3ckq6&w=skt873hktdt8642c4&e=shqj8543d975ca953&s=sqj9542ha2dcjt872]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

Pass 1♦ 2♥ Dbl

Pass 3♦ Pass 3♠

Pass 4♠ Pass Pass

Dbl Pass Pass Pass

[the hog]

I guess the opposition were pretty weak. This is a pretty poor double. Swop partner's C ace for the KQ and the contract is cold.

[Deanrover]

+790 btw, courtesy of my brilliant declarer play <_<

[han]

The worst bid is definitely 3D, which shows a minimal hand. North has a prime 19-count, a 3H bid would be in order imo.

[Fluffy]

+790 btw, courtesy of my brilliant declarer play :)

I am afraid I am not that brilliant and woud collect -400 with my 4♠ bid :_(

[luis]

+790 btw, courtesy of my brilliant declarer play <_<

I am afraid I am not that brilliant and woud collect -400 with my 4♠ bid :_(

I got to this thread late but I must say I really consider 4♠ a bid that I might make at the table.

Maybe WE are not that brilliant!