[kenberg]

The following hand presented a recurring problem. With a little bit of luck I survived.

---

If you think it is clear that I should just bid 5♣ then vary the hand a little. My point is that I want to play in game, and I want to consider that maybe the game should be bid in spades. My interest, on this hand or some such hand, is how to handle this.


With no special agreements, I bid 2♠. I don't regard this as forcing but I trusted that someone would bid something as indeed they did. Lho bid 4♥, two passes, then I bid 5♣ making.


What are your thoughts on agreements? If you want to comment on my judgment with this particular auction, feel free, but I am considering proper agreements:
2♠ could be played as forcing. I don't, do you?
Possibly bidding 3♠ (directly over 2♥) could be played as fit showing. But it seems to me that 3♠ would be taken as either forcing or very highly invitational with very good spades. Whatever the merits of fit showing jump shifts by advancer after a 1 level overcall, it seems weird after a 2 level overcall.
I could just keep on as I am. I seldom get dropped here, and partner with his stiff spade was not planning on dropping it, but it can happen.

Is there a clear consensus about how to handle this?




Ken

[TWO4BRIDGE]

As you said, you can handle this one with a fit-showing-jump to 3S ... if you have this agreement in competition.

[WGF_Flame]

We didn't discussed this in details but we agreed to play rubensohl here from 2NT up which might give a good solution to this problem.

[gwnn]

3♠ as fit showing is not weird at all. I don't see why it would be. This is a problem hand:

• 2♠ is usually played as non-forcing, as it should IMO, so making it like you did is a little gambling, it can be passed out when we had a slam available (admittedly unlikely and dramatic scenario)
  
• 3♥ showing a fit is OK but it loses spades
  
• double (ostensibly showing spades+diamonds but can be a good hand with spades only) is my usual solution but we have not even begun to describe our hand and the only way it pays off is in a masterminding sort of way - we find out enough about everyone's hands that next round we can make an accurate decision
  
• so without a fit jump available we're screwed
  
• so what do we do with that invitational hand with 7 spades? 2♠ or double or 4♠ are all OK in my little opinion
  
• OK I'm closing this list now, I hope it wasn't annoying

[mtvesuvius]

Seems to me that this is better played as forcing one round -- Partner can rebid 3♣ as a Catchall response, and I think with hands where we are competitive in Spades, double covers those.

The biggest problem for me is what to do on hands like these, as well as:

---

Now what? Making a fit jump here distorts the hand badly, and this is effectively a GF hand. I think this type of hand is much more likely than a NF 2♠ call that double won't cover.

I prefer to play this forcing, although I doubt most people would agree

[kenberg]

WGF_Flame, on 2010-October-24, 14:11, said:

We didn't discussed this in details but we agreed to play rubensohl here from 2NT up which might give a good solution to this problem.

I need to think about this but I can see that it could be good. As I understand your suggestion, on this hand I would start with 2NT (trf/relay to clubs) and then, if the opponents stay out, bid 3♠ or perhaps 4♠. It would still work here, when they bid 4♥, since I would now bid 4♠. There would have to be some clear agreements that bidding 2NT followed by my own suit shows one of these choice of games hands. It needs thought, but I can see it as a possibility. I suppose 2NT followed by 3NT could also be something like "NT is OK if your suit is ready to run but if not then we need to be in clubs" or some other agreement.

Thanks. It needs thought but I like it.


Added:
I see that there is a reply from MtVes as well. Thanks. So far we have one for fit showing jumps, one for forcing, one for an interesting conventional idea. So much for consensus!

[gwnn]

The problem Adam is that usually you don't have that near-perfect 12 count, you have the same hand with a singleton club and with 9 points, out of which two or three are wasted in hearts.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-October-24, 12:40, said:

As you said, you can handle this one with a fit-showing-jump to 3S ... if you have this agreement in competition.

There is another Convention which the Fit-show-jumps are a part of.
And that is Rubens Transfer Advances ( which you may have noticed I've mentioned in a few threads recently ).

A relatively new twist in the convention is a "Cuebid-DBL"... much like Robson/Segal Cuebid DBLs.
They are NOT Responsive DBLs but are like a "stolen bid DBL" in the Transfer Advance system.

For example with the given hand the auction could go:
1H - 2C - 2H - DBL*
p - 2S - p - 3C

where DBL* = transfer to 2S ( since the Responder's 2H raise interfered with Advancer using 2H! as a transfer); and the subequent Cl raise of partner's suit would show a limit+ raise with a Sp side suit.

--The difference between the cubid-DBL auction and the FSJ is that the transfer auction would NOT guarantee 5 cards Sp, whereas FSJ would.

--Advancer with a weaker hand could pass partner's "simple accept" of 2S.

--Any new suit ( or cuebid ) by Advancer after Opener completes the transfer would be GF.

[kenberg]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-October-24, 17:15, said:

For example with the given hand the auction could go:
1H - 2C - 2H - DBL*
p - 2S - p - 3C

where DBL* = transfer to 2S ( since the Responder's 2H raise interfered with Advancer using 2H! as a transfer); and the subequent Cl raise of partner's suit would show a limit+ raise with a Sp side suit.

--The difference between the cubid-DBL auction and the FSJ is that the transfer auction would NOT guarantee 5 cards Sp, whereas FSJ would.

--Advancer with a weaker hand could pass partner's "simple accept" of 2S.

--Any new suit ( or cuebid ) by Advancer after Opener completes the transfer would be GF.

Of course in this hand the auction would go:

1H - 2C - 2H - DBL*
4H -

Now where are we? Assuming that the double showed spades and said nothing about clubs, I believe partner would double 4H and I would pull to 5C.

As with most all conventional bids, it would require some thought and discussion, but I will add it to the list of possible agreements.

It was naive of me to think that at some level most everyone had decided that agreement X is the way to go here. Hope springs eternal....

[peachy]

kenberg, on 2010-October-24, 12:16, said:

The following hand presented a recurring problem. With a little bit of luck I survived.

---

If you think it is clear that I should just bid 5♣ then vary the hand a little. My point is that I want to play in game, and I want to consider that maybe the game should be bid in spades. My interest, on this hand or some such hand, is how to handle this.


With no special agreements, I bid 2♠. I don't regard this as forcing but I trusted that someone would bid something as indeed they did. Lho bid 4♥, two passes, then I bid 5♣ making.


What are your thoughts on agreements? If you want to comment on my judgment with this particular auction, feel free, but I am considering proper agreements:
2♠ could be played as forcing. I don't, do you?
Possibly bidding 3♠ (directly over 2♥) could be played as fit showing. But it seems to me that 3♠ would be taken as either forcing or very highly invitational with very good spades. Whatever the merits of fit showing jump shifts by advancer after a 1 level overcall, it seems weird after a 2 level overcall.
I could just keep on as I am. I seldom get dropped here, and partner with his stiff spade was not planning on dropping it, but it can happen.

Is there a clear consensus about how to handle this?

Ken

I like new suit forcing by unpassed hand. Bidding a new suit indicates tolerance or sometimes fit for the overcalled suit, or if lacking that, ability to play the new suit one level higher, or enough values to play game somewhere. Constructive auctions are hard enough when we have to start with an overcall. Let's not tie our hands with agreements that make constructive auctions impossible. Just my two cents.

[mcphee]

It is a matter of understanding what a 2C over call shows. When I have a hand like this opposite a 2 level o/c clearly it makes sense to play 2S as F. This providing you do not have a fit showing jump available with the intention of reaching some game should partner bid 4C. 2S allows a bit more room to try for 3N, if not a C slam. A 2 level o/c is not KQJxxx of C and out, so sadly we are playing game this hand, it is simply a matter of where. New suits after 2 level o/c should be F. The focus at imps is games and slams, not part scores and going for numbers. What sort of hand would ever want to bid NF?

[ArtK78]

I have always played that a new suit at the 3 level in response to an overcall was forcing, but not a new suit response at the 2 level. So, 2♠ here would not be forcing.

I am willing to live with 2♠ non-forcing on this hand. It will almost never be the final call in the auction, and, if it is, it may be OK. On the other hand, if you knew that the next call that you would make on this hand over 2♥ would be the final call of the auction, your first choice might not be 2♠. But if your agreement was that 2♠ was non-forcing, I would still choose it over any club raise.

I agree with Two4Bridge that transfer advances to overcalls works nicely in this and many other situations. Transfer advances allow you to make a nonforcing 2♠ bid by doubling and passing the transfer. They allow you to make a constructive bid by transferring to spades and then raising clubs. And, in the auction that actually occurred, they allow you to bid spades and then clubs at the 5 level over 4♥. In short, you are at worst no worse off and in many cases much better placed than if you were using nonforcing responses, forcing responses or fit showing jumps.

The only downside of transfer advances to overcalls is the extra space it gives to the opponents. But that seems to be a small price to pay for the advantages that they provide to your side.

[Fluffy]

I always played that a new suit at the same level as the overcall is forcing, but with a 1 level difference it is not. So 2♠ here is forcing, but it wouldn't be on the biddign 1♣-1♥-2♣

[mfa1010]

I'm a big believer in NF bids in competition here. I think it is bread and butter. The opponents bid and raise to 2♥ and we want to compete with 2♠ over that. It is a little silly if we can't rest in 2♠ then.

I'm used to playing transfer advances after they raise. The biggest downside is not the extra space for the opponents but the loss of the takeout double. This loss is so great that it is far from clear if transfer responses are worth it.

Many strong hands that ideally want to bid a forcing 2♠, but can't do that because it would be NF, can bid like this instead:

1) Bid 2♠ anyway. Even though it is NF, partner can bid if he has something. So minimal goodish hands can often live with 2♠ being NF.

2) X and then bid spades (3♠ or 4♠). This handles mtvesuvius' hand. Show spades but still some flexibility.

3) Cuebid and then bid spades. This stresses the club fit and thus shows more clubs and less spades than (2). This route could be considered with OP's hand type.

[mfa1010]

There is also 3♠ fitbid as an option.

[kenberg]

There are varying degrees of non-forcing. In the auction
1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 2♠
my view is that the club bidder is supposed to have something and the spade bidder is supposed to have something. If I, the spade bidder, had short clubs, long spades, but little of value i pass. If partner gets doubled then I'll think about bidding my spades.
So as I play it, 2♠ is NF but pretty decent. Partner will probably consider passing only when he has two spades and a minimum 2♣ bid. If he has three spades I think we can all agree he will raise spades. If he has one spade then assuming his 2♣ was reasonably sane he should be able, using my values, to handle 3♣. So, as I think of it, mostly a pass will be on two spades and minimal values.

Is this wise? I dunno, and I see some very good players have different views.

As to transfers:

Here is a possible problem with the transfers, although probably it can be ironed out. Consider the auction at our table:
1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 2♠
4♥

Whether my bid was 2♠ or a trf bid of X, partner, if he has three spades, has to know if I might be making this call on not much in values. As I play the 2♠, partner should feel free to bid 4♠ anytime he has three of them. I don't think it will work so well to have the trf sometimes be big, sometimes small. Partner with three spades will not be able to bid 4♠ because he does not know your values, the trf bidder will not be able to continue because he does not know of the fit. 4♥ may or may not be going down. This fantasy is on a different hand of course.

I have never played these transfers, so I am not on very solid ground discussing them. As noted, I am interested.

[phil_20686]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-October-24, 14:27, said:

Seems to me that this is better played as forcing one round -- Partner can rebid 3♣ as a Catchall response, and I think with hands where we are competitive in Spades, double covers those.

The biggest problem for me is what to do on hands like these, as well as:

---

Now what? Making a fit jump here distorts the hand badly, and this is effectively a GF hand. I think this type of hand is much more likely than a NF 2♠ call that double won't cover.

I prefer to play this forcing, although I doubt most people would agree

People play 2s here as NF by an unpassed hand? that is literally a relevation to me. I have literally *never* seen this method played in britian. Is it not just normal to play 2s as forcing one round and 3s= fit jump?


Try robson and segal's book for ideas on competitive bidding, it is probably the most important bridge obook on competitive bidding every written. an authorised download is available here:

http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/

EDIT: its called partnership bidding at bridge and is in the second clump of stuff.

[gwnn]

Are you sure R/S say that it's forcing? I think not, but unfortunately I'm from a very old computer now and I can't look it up.

[bucky]

Fluffy, on 2010-October-25, 07:00, said:

I always played that a new suit at the same level as the overcall is forcing, but with a 1 level difference it is not. So 2♠ here is forcing, but it wouldn't be on the biddign 1♣-1♥-2♣

This makes sense to me. When partner makes 1-level overcall which can be as light as 7-8 HCP, you rarely have a hand that would be strong enough to want to unconditionally force the auction. When partner makes a 2-level overcall, it is a different matter. That being said, I can see merits of it being non-forcing as well. Either one can work well on a particular deal, so it becomes a matter of frequency. Perhaps form of score has some influence too.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2010-October-29, 10:39, said:

People play 2s here as NF by an unpassed hand? that is literally a relevation to me. I have literally *never* seen this method played in britian. Is it not just normal to play 2s as forcing one round and 3s= fit jump?

I, on the other hand, have often seen this method played in Britain, and I think it's normal in the circles where I play for 2♠ to be non-forcing.

Quote

Try robson and segal's book for ideas on competitive bidding, it is probably the most important bridge obook on competitive bidding every written. an authorised download is available here:

http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/

EDIT: its called partnership bidding at bridge and is in the second clump of stuff.

So far as I can see, Robson and Segal avoided discussing whether this particular category of sequence is forcing (possibly because it didn't show a fit, and was therefore considered unworthy of discussion).

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-October-29, 16:49