new suit response to pre-empts

[AL78]

I've been thinking more about pre-empts and responses to pre-empts, in particular whether new suits are forcing. How do people play a new suit at the two level when their partner opens a weak 2 (e.g. 2♥ (P) 2♠). I get the impression some people play it NF and some play it as forcing, one works well when responder is weak(ish) with a long spade suit, and the other works well when responder is strong with a long spade suit. How about opposite a three level pre-empt?

[LBengtsson]

Forcing always here. What is the idea of having a new suit here as NF? The pre-empt suit is 99.9% going to be 6+. It may not play well opposite a stiff, but the hand probably does not play well anywhere, especially a level or two higher. Either you use 2NT (Ogust) to determine the quality of the pre-empt suit, or ask for a feature.

 

Some players after a 3 level pre-empt will use a new suit to show controls, but that is not the norm imo. A new suit below game level is forcing and shows a good suit 6+, usually with some fit with opener's pre-emptive suit. There are opportunities after a 2 level pre-empt to show various hands, either with a new suit, or by way of 2NT (Ogust) first then bidding a suit, all by partnership agreement.

[Gilithin]

It is possible to play new suits as constructive and non-forcing but that is a minority position. The standard meaning is forcing, usually looking for the best game but occasionally being a weak hand with a big fit for opener's suit. For specifically 2♥ - 2♠, it is usual to play as invitational+, in which case auctions like 2♥ - 2♠ -- 3♥/♠ are non-forcing.

[DavidKok]

Over weak two's I play new (non-jump) suits as NF. To establish a force we have to jump or go through 2NT (usually the better option).

Over 3m I play a new suit as NF if we are not vulnerable, and game forcing if we are vulnerable. Over 3M a new suit is GF regardless of vulnerability.

 

The 3-level agreement doesn't matter that much, it rarely comes up and when it does you don't stand to win or lose a lot. The NF new suits over weak two's are very helpful though, and I wouldn't go back to forcing unless a (pickup) partner strongly prefers them.

 

The most important question is which criteria you use for your preempts. If your 3-level preempts are dinosaur style 'I would be happy to table this dummy in 3NT, usually 7(+) cards' you've lost the race before the agreements even have a chance to come up. The more you weaken your preempts the less valuable game-forcing bids become, and the more valuable NF constructive bids become.

[pescetom]

It is common around here to play constructive and non-forcing, occasionally with some UI to suggest strong hand or fit :)

I prefer a standard RONF approach, but I agree with DavidKok that this is correlated to a relatively conservative preempt style.

[helene_t]

You can play transfers, that allows you to bid both weak and strong hands with any suit except for the cheapest one.

[mycroft]

Standard, as they say, is forcing. There are so few times that a hand that says "I can only play in this suit, partner" will actually be better in another suit as a rescue (even if standards for preempts have been slipping for decades) that the upside of being able to pre-bail from an 800 into something that hopefully won't get doubled isn't worth the downside of missing games when partner has the forcing hand (and being able to play in 3 of "I can only play in this suit" when it turns out you don't have a fit for partner. But you'll probably make 3 because partner has cards).

 

In fact, in my partnerships, even after 2suit-X, I play "new suits are lead-directing raises, XX is 'partner, I know where to play, and it's not here'" (others play 2NT as the get-out; our weak 2s are such that the hands that have an action redouble are so few as to not want to give up the opportunity of playing 2 of my suit). It just doesn't come up very often.

 

Yeah, 2♦= into 2M= (which only matters if you're playing a natural 2♦).

 

Transfers are a neat idea, but it puts the strong hand down when you have a fit, and trick 1 with the weak hand, the defence knows we're going for downtricks (and likely how).

 

An exception? I play EHAA occasionally. Median preempt suit is KQxxx/AJxxx (using lots of simplifications in my simulator, but it feels right. Note that one of the simplifications is that 8xxxxx > AKQJT), and could very easily be 85432 (of course it could be AKQxxxxx, which might just override the bailout). By agreement, new suits are NF, non-constructive, "I think my suit will play better than yours". But then again, nothing in EHAA 2-bid responses makes any sense playing normal - because it makes *opener* captain (don't ask).

[Douglas43]

We play non-forcing at the two level. We mainly play pairs and particularly over 2♦ it's well worth being able to switch to a major with a misfit and a seven card suit. We have a general agreement that new suits at the three level are game forcing.

As I understand EBU requirements, a non-forcing change of suit must be alerted.

 

Added: EBU Blue Book para 4H2(d) says you must alert:

(d) A non-forcing new suit response, to a non-forcing suit opening at any level, below game,unless responder has previously passed, bids over a natural NT overcall, or makes a double jump

[Cyberyeti]

We play non-forcing at the two level. We mainly play pairs and particularly over 2♦ it's well worth being able to switch to a major with a misfit and a seven card suit. We have a general agreement that new suits at the three level are game forcing.

As I understand EBU requirements, a non-forcing change of suit must be alerted.

 

We play constructive and NF and alert. I would suggest the more random your weak 2s can be, the more you need to play NF.

[Douglas43]

On a quick check, SAYC has RONF - new suit forcing SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) Bridge Bidding System (bridgebum.com). Standard English (as taught under auspices of EBU at the time) had two level responses NF - 2009-06.pdf

[Gilithin]

Standard English (as taught under auspices of EBU at the time) had two level responses NF - 2009-06.pdf

It is still the official EBU position to recommend 2 level responses as constructive, non-forcing and 3 level responses to be game forcing, as can be seen by the current (2014) system file, by the pre-completed Benji convention card, or Sandra Landy's 2009 English Bridge article, all to be found on he EBU website. The one exception listed there is Neil Rosen's 2012 English Bridge article where he recommends all new suit responses to be non-forcing, but that article is perhaps not aimed at the typical club player, also suggesting the use of a shortage ask rather than the more common Feature or Ogust conventions.

[pescetom]

The one exception listed there is Neil Rosen's 2012 English Bridge article where he recommends all new suit responses to be non-forcing, but that article is perhaps not aimed at the typical club player, also suggesting the use of a shortage ask rather than the more common Feature or Ogust conventions.

How exactly did the shortage ask work?

[Douglas43]

How exactly did the shortage ask work?

 

Here's a link to Neil Rosen's article https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ebumagazine/2012-12.pdf#page=26

Sandra Landy's is more mainstream, and is linked from my previous post.

The EBU has a lot of material linked from this page (in the "educational articles" box)

[pescetom]

Here's a link to Neil Rosen's article https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ebumagazine/2012-12.pdf#page=26

Thanks.

 

I guess if one is going to take a Feature Ask approach, it does make a lot of sense to probe for shortages over a majors preempt.

 

The article makes an unabashed claim that this method is superior to Ogust, but I think that is only true if you accept the straightjacket of a narrow range of suit quality (in this case either 1 or 2 top honours). Those willing to open 2♠ with JT9xxx x KJx xxx (or unhappy / not allowed to open 1♠ with AKQxxx xx xxx xx) are probably better off with Ogust.