Partnership discipline

[apollo1201]

Interested to know your thoughts about that. It was IMPs, green vs red opps. But I am more interested in the general philisophy.

 

Partenr opens 1♣, RHO passes, and you have

 

Jxx

QTxxxx

xxx

x

 

I decided to bid 1♥. Promising 5-6 minimum, that I obviously didn't have.

 

On that, LHO also passes and partner bids a GF 2♠. Usually 5+♣, 4+♠ and some 20 HCP or more. She could have a GF "by herself" (i.e. not taking into account my 5-6 HCPs) 2-suiter that she preferred opening at the 1 level (to ease description, save space, be more prepared if opps preempt...), or could even have a 3415 too strong to splinter.

 

2♠ is absolutely forcing, but...answer easier at MPs I guess...so what now?

 

And if partner "only" reverses with 2♦ (in that case, she can't have 4-cd ♥ support)?

[KingCovert]

Well, given the set of agreements, you must bid 3H. It's really not a choice. I never would have bid 1H with this hand... I'd have made a weak jump shift, and if I don't play weak jump shifts... Well... I'd stop playing this system, it sounds deeply flawed.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd need to see the hand opposire to know how we'd bid it, (if I'd been first in, partner wouldn't have had the chance to open,this is an easy 2♥ for us). Particularly opposite a potentially short club (which I don't play), I'd respond 1♥ but I hate the 2♠ bid in the way you play it. We use 1♠ as nat, F if you had a response, 2♠ as a completely different hand type and 2N with a rarely broken puppet to 3♣ for the monster which opener then clarifies. You really need to use 2N as a puppet (breakable with REALLY extreme shape) over 2♠ so opener can clarify.

[HardVector]

It's tempting when you make the first mistake to make the second and pass 2s. The problem is not on this hand, but on the next one where partner wants to force to game. You've now shown that you are going to pass 2s, so they are going to bid 3s now...or maybe 4. Now your auction is off the rails and YOU are guessing what to do when you actually do have some values.

 

The whole problem with bidding with this hand is the erosion of partnership trust. Now, if you are playing weak jump-shifts, you have an easy 2h bid after 1c...and for those of you who are unaware, THIS is what a weak jump-shift looks like, not a 6-9 pt hand.

[ehui]

If you play 2NT as the artificial bid for weak hands after reverse, that should be the choice. Partner then relay to 3♣ and you bid 3♥ to show a weak hand with a long suit.

[apollo1201]

FWIW, we realized WJS in H is not as effective as in’S, so we use it for 5S-4(5)H weak hands (I think it is called reverse Flannery in UK/US). With 2S WJS (less than a weak 2 opening).

 

Partner had a standard GF hand AQxx x AKx KQJxx and duly scored in our column after I passed. Needless to say, my pass came as a shock to opps and partner. Who sympathetically laughed when I tabled my hand.

 

So no trust breach but informative deal on how far we bend rules and understand each other.

[sfi]

There is a standard line of thinking that you should always honour your partner's forcing bids, even if you have shaded a previous call. This is all very good advice and it helps build trust so that partner will feel they can rely on you in future.

 

However, it isn't always the way to win. Kit Woolsey eloquently made the case for backing your judgement and being able to pass forcing bids when you deem it right. He did point out two caveats if you are going to do this:

1. You have to have sufficient information to be reasonably sure that pass is the right action. Simply feeling guilty about your previous call is not sufficient reason.
   
2. Partner has to be able to allow you to back your decisions. He says that he wouldn't play with someone that didn't, but most of us don't have the luxury to be so choosy about who we play with.
   

 

It's worth pointing out that his is a minority view and an approach you would like to have discussed before actually passing a forcing bid.

[sfi]

Looking at the actual hand, I would bid over 2S. Partner shouldn't bid 2S with some random 19 count - the bid should be reserved for those hands which really don't want partner to pass - so I expect we'll have play for game somewhere. For instance, I would chosen 1S on opener's hand with the assumption that 1S is as forcing as 1C was. If partner bid 1H with insufficient values, they could pass 1S. But with a real responding hand, they should bid again.

 

So my bidding would have gone 1C - 1H; 1S - pass.

[etha]

4♠

[Cyberyeti]

Looking at the actual hand, I would bid over 2S. Partner shouldn't bid 2S with some random 19 count - the bid should be reserved for those hands which really don't want partner to pass - so I expect we'll have play for game somewhere. For instance, I would chosen 1S on opener's hand with the assumption that 1S is as forcing as 1C was. If partner bid 1H with insufficient values, they could pass 1S. But with a real responding hand, they should bid again.

 

So my bidding would have gone 1C - 1H; 1S - pass.

 

Same, game is not good opposite ♥KQJxx and out let alone what you have, 2♠ is too much.

[pescetom]

It's tempting when you make the first mistake to make the second and pass 2s. The problem is not on this hand, but on the next one where partner wants to force to game. You've now shown that you are going to pass 2s, so they are going to bid 3s now...or maybe 4. Now your auction is off the rails and YOU are guessing what to do when you actually do have some values.

 

The whole problem with bidding with this hand is the erosion of partnership trust.

 

I agree with this and disagree with Kit Woolsey here. Partners should be able to trust in obedience of forcing bids, otherwise they aren't going to bid effectively in future. Most of us already make partner's life difficult enough with mistakes and unexpected choices without intentionally violating core agreements.

[Vampyr]

There is a standard line of thinking that you should always honour your partner's forcing bids, even if you have shaded a previous call. This is all very good advice and it helps build trust so that partner will feel they can rely on you in future.

 

I agree with this. It is not this hand you are so concerned about, but the next one.

 

I don’t play Cyberyet’s methods, but we do play that 1♠ is forcing. Should we make it “virtually forcing”? I don’t know, but anyway I have no problem with a 1♥ response here.

[msjennifer]

Sir. (1),I shall never bid 1 heart.NO WAY. (2) I can not understand why 2S is a game force WITHOUT ANY HCP .on his own.Such a hand would be opened 2C will it not? (3)Granted even viif 2S it is a one round force then having made the mistake of responding 1H earlier I dare not bid such a poor heart suit which bypasses 2NT,3C and 3D on the way at 3 level and hence I shall PASS the 2S bid as opener has failed to open a self sufficient game forcing hand with a 2C opening.By the way, I just might use a LEBENSOHL type 2NT bid and then a 3H forced bid over 3C by opener .However I seriously doubt if such a treatment iwill be agreeable to all. (4) Having committed the mistake of a 1H over bid earlier I shall be forced to show my six card heart suit AT THE TWO level when opener bids 2D(and not 2 S) since it has been agreed to as a one round force.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree with this. It is not this hand you are so concerned about, but the next one.

 

I don’t play Cyberyet’s methods, but we do play that 1♠ is forcing. Should we make it “virtually forcing”? I don’t know, but anyway I have no problem with a 1♥ response here.

 

Our logic is that we don't penalise partner for improving the contract, so 1♠ is forcing if you had anything close to a real response,this hand isn't anywhere close so pass is allowed.

[Cyberyeti]

Sir. (1),I shall never bid 1 heart.NO WAY. (2) I can not understand why 2S is a game force WITHOUT ANY HCP .on his own.Such a hand would be opened 2C will it not? (3)Granted even viif 2S it is a one round force then having made the mistake of responding 1H earlier I dare not bid such a poor heart suit which bypasses 2NT,3C and 3D on the way at 3 level and hence I shall PASS the 2S bid as opener has failed to open a self sufficient game forcing hand with a 2C opening.By the way, I just might use a LEBENSOHL type 2NT bid and then a 3H forced bid over 3C by opener .However I seriously doubt if such a treatment iwill be agreeable to all. (4) Having committed the mistake of a 1H over bid earlier I shall be forced to show my six card heart suit AT THE TWO level when opener bids 2D(and not 2 S) since it has been agreed to as a one round force.

 

It's the sort of 20-21 unbalanced hand where partner's presumed 5 count for his response is likely to be enough to make game decent. I don't agree with it on the actual hand.

 

And you can't pass 2♠, you deserve partner to be holding AKxx, AKx, x, KQJxx where 4♥ is cold.

[mikestar13]

Not playing weak jump shifts, I would pass 1♣ but having bid 1♥ I would honor the force. Had a hand once ♠AKQxxx♥AKQxxx♦A♣-- and all I needed was some kind of major suit fit. I opened 1♣ (Strong, artificial and forcing), and partner holding ♠Jxx♥x♦xx♣xxxxxxx judged to violate system and pass. (Not saying I chose the best opening, but I was new then.) I can make a case for passing a forcing but limited bid, but not 2♠ in OP's auction.

[msjennifer]

It's the sort of 20-21 unbalanced hand where partner's presumed 5 count for his response is likely to be enough to make game decent. I don't agree with it on the actual hand.

 

And you can't pass 2♠, you deserve partner to be holding AKxx, AKx, x, KQJxx where 4♥ is cold.

Sir.Kindly excuse me but I have said I shall prefer to bid 2NT (Lebensohl extended)asking opener to bid 3C over which I shall bid 3H. .Of course I have made it clear that such a treatment may not be acceptable to most if not all..Thanks.

[Cyberyeti]

Sir.Kindly excuse me but I have said I shall prefer to bid 2NT (Lebensohl extended)asking opener to bid 3C over which I shall bid 3H. .Of course I have made it clear that such a treatment may not be acceptable to most if not all..Thanks.

 

The thing about passing was meant for the OP. Getting as high as 3♥ is an invite for partner to either bid a terrible 3N, or for you to play a horrible 3♥, much better to be in 1♠.

[Tramticket]

Our logic is that we don't penalise partner for improving the contract, so 1♠ is forcing

 

We came to the same conclusion for a different reason. We found over time that we NEVER pass 1S. So it was better to define it as forcing and stop worrying.

[Cyberyeti]

We came to the same conclusion for a different reason. We found over time that we NEVER pass 1S. So it was better to define it as forcing and stop worrying.

 

The way you've chopped my post when quoting completely reverses its meaning, and I haven't given the reason why we make it forcing, which is because we play all our jump rebids as a particular hand type 2 good 5+ suits but NOT a great hand, NF but rarely passed.

[PhilG007]

Interested to know your thoughts about that. It was IMPs, green vs red opps. But I am more interested in the general philisophy.

 

Partenr opens 1♣, RHO passes, and you have

 

Jxx

QTxxxx

xxx

x

 

I decided to bid 1♥. Promising 5-6 minimum, that I obviously didn't have.

 

On that, LHO also passes and partner bids a GF 2♠. Usually 5+♣, 4+♠ and some 20 HCP or more. She could have a GF "by herself" (i.e. not taking into account my 5-6 HCPs) 2-suiter that she preferred opening at the 1 level (to ease description, save space, be more prepared if opps preempt...), or could even have a 3415 too strong to splinter.

 

2♠ is absolutely forcing, but...answer easier at MPs I guess...so what now?

 

And if partner "only" reverses with 2♦ (in that case, she can't have 4-cd ♥ support)?

 

I passed throughout I always get nervous when partner bids my singleton suit as its usually early warning there is a misfit.

I've learned though long experience that misfits should be played as at low a level as possible.

I take the view that since I have a singleton in partners suit,he will equally have a singleton in mine. The problem with bidding on this hand is that

you've changed the suit which is forcing which obliges partner to bid again. It would be OK if he bids a second suit asking you

for preference but what do you do if he simply rebids his clubs? You pushed up the level of the bidding when there was no justifiable

reason for doing so...certainly not holding 3 points. You have a very weak hand and so its vital you let partner know this as soon as possible by passing

his opening bid.

[Cyberyeti]

I passed throughout I always get nervous when partner bids my singleton suit as its usually early warning there is a misfit.

I've learned though long experience that misfits should be played as at low a level as possible.

I take the view that since I have a singleton in partners suit,he will equally have a singleton in mine. The problem with bidding on this hand is that

you've changed the suit which is forcing which obliges partner to bid again. It would be OK if he bids a second suit asking you

for preference but what do you do if he simply rebids his clubs? You pushed up the level of the bidding when there was no justifiable

reason for doing so...certainly not holding 3 points. You have a very weak hand and so its vital you let partner know this as soon as possible by passing

his opening bid.

 

You need to acknowledge that passing can be good or bad here, you're not going to enjoy passing out 1♣ opposite say Kxxx, AK, AKx, Qxxx where your hand is at least 4 tricks better in hearts. You're much more likely to make 3♥ than 1♣.

[PhilG007]

You need to acknowledge that passing can be good or bad here, you're not going to enjoy passing out 1♣ opposite say Kxxx, AK, AKx, Qxxx where your hand is at least 4 tricks better in hearts. You're much more likely to make 3♥ than 1♣.

 

I accept that passing can be a double edged sword but that its better to err on the side of caution.rather than risk taking Quixotic speculations.

I've also learned the hard way not to put cards into partners. hand. As like as not,they won't be there(!) I still maintain that passing and awaiting

developments is the correct strategy in this situation. LHO is in the pass out seat and may well come into the auction rather than allow 1♣ to go

unchallenged in which case partner,if he holds a strong hand is more than likely to come back with a rebid further describing his hand.

[GrahamJson]

It seems to me that the main reason for dredging up a 1H response is in case partner has a big hand. It therefore seems illogical to pass when partner confirms that he really does have a huge hand.

[KingCovert]

The last few posts illustrate just a couple of the reasons why I don't play 2/1 or similar systems (at least not in serious partnerships). I've never understood why anyone would play a system where your strong opener is only utilized for 1/225 hands. That puts so much strain on the rest of your system for the remaining 224/225 hands... And really, minor suit openings are borderline artificial in systems where major suit openings show 5+. If you want proof of this reality, look no further than the fact that reverse flannery is this partnerships agreement over a minor suit opening. Not playing weak jump shifts over a minor suit opening in a system that needs it the most due to the wide range in possible strengths... Why? Because this system isn't tailored to establishing fits early in auctions. Why? Because this system doesn't narrow the range of strengths of the opener fast enough (fast enough being with the FIRST bid), so there are competing interests on continuation bids that must be considered when agreeing on your responses...

 

For a "standard" system, I can't fathom how there is so much confusion over the meaning of bids sometimes... Not in this particular example... But you get the point, hopefully. I realize this isn't so constructive, but maybe it provides some insight as to the considerations that are necessary when forming agreements in 2/1?