Shape is everything?

[han]

You hold Axxxxxx xx Kxx x, partner opens 1D, RHO overcalls 2C. Is this enough for a 2S bid (forcing, not playing NFB!)? If not, what is your call? If it is, can you make the hand any worse and still bid 2S?

 

I don't think the form of scoring and the vulnerability matter much, but if it does feel free to mention it.

[mike777]

You hold Axxxxxx xx Kxx x, partner opens 1D, RHO overcalls 2C. Is this enough for a 2S bid (forcing, not playing NFB!)? If not, what is your call? If it is, can you make the hand any worse and still bid 2S?

 

I don't think the form of scoring and the vulnerability matter much, but if it does feel free to mention it.

Lawrence recommends playing 1d=2c=3s to show 7 card spade suit and around 7-10 NV and 8-11 vul.

 

A jump shift shows a marginally worse hand than 2s and rebidding 3 spades.

[temp3600]

I would bid 4♠, because of the ♦Kxx. I would probably double and then bid spades with Axxxxxx Kxx xx x.

I like the 2♠ bid to have 10+ HCP, rather than 10+ points including distribution, so to me this hand is too weak for 2♠.

[Double !]

Hmmm

3 controls, + 7 hcp, + 10 for 2 longest suits, + 6 for difference between longest and shortest suit = 26 ZARS

I have an opening bid. :D

I would bid 2S, can rebid the 7-bagger if Ihave to, plus my Kxx is in P's suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

no.

 

I would make a neg. X and bid spade

on the cheapest level on my next turn.

 

This will show my hand pretty well, not

the 7th spade, but the 6th spade.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Chamaco]

In my opinion, a "free" 2S should show an invitational hand or better in terms of BOTH offensive power AND defensive potential.

 

Invitational hand in terms of offense is about 8 losers = the hand has 7.5 losers so it's ok.

 

Invitational hand in terms of defense = 1.5 defensive tricks = the hand also complies with this.

 

So in my opinion, bidding 2S is OK.

 

BUT, let us assume that, instead of

Axxxxxx xx Kxx x...... (hand 1)

 

the honors are interchanged:

Kxxxxxx xx Axx x...... (hand 2)

 

Now, the number of losers (and offensive strength) is the same , BUT we are not so sure anymore that Kxxxxxx will constitute a 1/2 defensive tricks if opps buy the contract (likely to be ruffed)..

So, with hand 1, 2S seems ok to me, but with hand 2, I'd start either with double then bid spades or follow Mike777 suggestion to use Lawrence's approach (bid 3S to show a shapely hand not worth a 2/1).

[Fluffy]

I play 3♠ 2-6, so it is clearly too strong for that, speciallyon the sight of 3 cards in partner's suit, so I would just bid 4♠

[inquiry]

Good enough for 2♠ or 4♠. In fact, I bid 2♠ because I have some mild slam ambition if we have ♠ fit.

 

Change diamond King to Queen, I will try 4♠

[P_Marlowe]

I have some mild slam ambition if we have ♠ fit.

???

[inquiry]

I have some mild slam ambition if we have ♠ fit.

???

Give partner

 

KQxx Ax AQxxx xx for example.. After all I said MILD.

[han]

My online partner passed with this hand and later bid 3S over their 3C bid. I didn't expect such a good hand so we missed game.

 

After the tournament we were talking about this hand. At first I said that the hand seemed good enough for a negative double, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked 2S. After all, you have game opposite as little as Kxx xxx AQxx xxx. Now that I see that even Chamaco bids 2S (while he often doesn't even if the rest does), I am convinced that 2S is the right call.

 

I like the 3S treatment that Lawrence suggests, but I also like support jump shifts, and I don't like to make exceptions to rules (any jump shift in competition is a SJS). With this particular partner I had no agreements at all, so 3S was certainly out.

[Winstonm]

2S.

 

I really don't want to play in 2 undoubled clubs if the auction goes:

1D-2C-P-P

P.

 

And partner holds:

 

Kxx, xx, AQxx, QJxx

 

IMO, a direct bid here is simply a 1-round force. It does not imply defense; it does not imply offense; it implies a hand worth bidding - partner must bid again so I'll catch up on strength next round if needed.

 

Winston

[Finch]

IMO, a direct bid here is simply a 1-round force. It does not imply defense; it does not imply offense; it implies a hand worth bidding - partner must bid again so I'll catch up on strength next round if needed.

 

Winston

It's not quite a simple as that.

 

There is a well-defined sequence where you make a negative double then bid spades at the minimum level next round. That shows a weak hand with long spades. Bidding 2S shows a better hand with spades.

 

I certainly would not pass on the hand. I would either double and rebid spades or bid 2S at once. I think it is close.

[Rebound]

I agree it's close but I think the clear consensus is 2♠.

[luke warm]

another example of why i prefer nfb... isn't that what you have?

[mike777]

another example of why i prefer nfb... isn't that what you have?

Well I think this hand is way too good for a nfb of 2spades. Prefer 3spades or 4spades.

[luke warm]

why? if so, you need to define for your partnership a bid such as 3S since 2S is 8+/11 and double is 12+ or a normal neg dbl

 

is this hand an invitational spade hand? if it is, does it fit within the nfb definition? is it a game force hand? if so just bid game or, with nfb, double

[mike777]

Why? Because I expect partner to pass a nfb 90%+ of the time, hence the name negative free bid. Heck I could have KJxxxx and out. Does that mean I play nfb with a wide range, yes. x and rebid a new suit=game force.

 

I think this hand has too much playing strength so my choice would be 3s, showing 7 spades or 4spades as a shutout bid.

 

If I understand your style, it seems the same as standard ala Lawrence, forcing but not promising a rebid? 8-11 hcp?

[han]

I think that Luke's style is not forcing but a pretty good hand.

 

Is it playable to bid 2S with 4 counts and 11 counts?

[luke warm]

nfb is not forcing and is usually 8-11...

[Chamaco]

Now that I see that even Chamaco bids 2S (while he often doesn't even if the rest does), I am convinced that 2S is the right call.

The reason why I am usually more prudent is that I like that a 2/1, even in competition, resembles a normal 2/1.

 

That means setting up the Forcing pass agreements at high level, if they bounce.

 

If one decides to play this way, that means that a 2/1 should have a defensive power close to an opener, in terms of quick tricks.

So I would not bid a 2/1 in competition with, say, a side ace and QJTxxxx(x) on the side.

 

Now, since there are sequences devoted to show one-suited hands with marginal values, I prefer to use those sequences when my defensive strength is low, and a direct 2/1 when I have defense.

 

In other words, pard , when he doubles a 4-level contract should count on 1.5 tricks at least.

 

Of course all is different playing NFB :-)

[Chamaco]

Why? Because I expect partner to pass a nfb 90%+ of the time, hence the name negative free bid.  Heck I could have KJxxxx and out. Does that mean I play nfb with a wide range, yes. x and rebid a new suit=game force.

 

I think this hand has too much playing strength so my choice would be 3s, showing 7 spades or 4spades as a shutout bid.

 

If I understand your style, it seems the same as standard ala Lawrence, forcing but not promising a rebid? 8-11 hcp?

 

I think that the most common style I could see from strong players is to use a NFB as a constructive bid, up to invitational values, not as a wide-ranging nuisance bid.

 

But it's true that at my local club, many players using NFB seems to intend it more as a nuisance bid (but in my opinion, they lose when their hand is indeed constructive).

[Finch]

I play NFB with one regular partner, and forcing-but-not-promising-a-rebid with another. There is a very wide range of hands that bid 2S whether it's forcing or not - the bottom end of a NFB is a little lower (KQ109x would be enough NV) and of course the forcing hand includes all game forces. But it's surprising how often it doesn't matter whether it's forcing or not.

 

This hand is a good example - I would bid 2S whether it's forcing or not.

[mike777]

I think that Luke's style is not forcing but a pretty good hand.

 

Is it playable to bid 2S with 4 counts and 11 counts?

good posts,

 

I will change NFB to 7-12 in general, more leeway with highly dist. hands.

x with 13 in general.

pass with weaker hands and let pard reopen with x.

 

Otherwise in standard setting, Lawrence's approach seems workable.

 

In any event prefer 3s or 4s with this one.