[inquiry]

Winstonm, on Nov 8 2005, 03:00 AM, said:

1) Is opener's suit rebid at the 1 level forcing:

1C-1H-1S-

He says this is 100% forcing in "expert standard". I say he is nuts. Who gets your vote?

A) Expert standard or standard nuts?

2) The second auction is exact:

1H-1S-1N-2H.

He says this is the same as a 1H-2H auction except you have spades. Again I say he is nuts. This is a limit raise. Who gets the nod here?

This is the dreaded pseudo-forcing. Responder can pass only if his 1♥ was a joke (along the lines of 0 to 4 hcp). Note, it is NOT a good idea to bid 1♠ with a hidden heart fit on the grounds that 1♠ is forcing.

So here, I vote he is closer to right (actually, neither right as I think it should be psuedo forcing...some would argue that psuedo forcing means non-forcing making you right... so ok, you are right, but even if 1♠ is not "forcing" it is "never" (well almost never) passed.

Quote

2) The second auction is exact:

1H-1S-1N-2H.

He says this is the same as a 1H-2H auction except you have spades.  Again I say he is nuts.  This is a limit raise.  Who gets the nod here?

This one is harder to answer without knowing what you are playing. Playing xzy, this one is miildly encouraging at best. Why? Because you can bid 2C then rebid 2H or 3H on hands with any interest at all. If playing simply nmf, then I think this should be constructive (not sure I would go as far as limited). So for me, he is right if you play xzy, you were right if you do not.

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Nov 8 2005, 02:46 PM, said:

2) Not forcing to me. I would bid this way on QJTxx xxx xx xxx. To answer the question about what to do in competition if it comes back to you at 3D, pass since you have nothing. 3H would be limit as you can't bid 3H with a hand that was too weak to bid 2H.

Justin,
make your example hand a bit stronger.
Would you pass even holding

QJTxx AJx xx xxx ?

This is not an invitational hand, it plays about one trick less than a limit, and if he 3H bid shows an invitation, here we cannot bid 3H.

I am inclined to think that bidding an immediate constructive 2H would avoid this headache, what do you think?

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Nov 8 2005, 01:36 PM, said:

2. Your partner raises an interesting question and one that I have struggled with a lot... I spent a bunch of time trying to look at different structures over 1♥ openings. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to have the direct and indirect raises show radical differences in playing strength. Instead, use the 1♠ advance to show shape so that partner can evaluate the placement of his honors / shortness.

♠ KT3
♥ KQT763
♦ 5
♣ AQ2

looks much better after a 1♠ advance than

♠ 5
♥ KQT763
♦ KT3
♣ AQ2

The trouble with a 1♠ advance instead of a ♥ raise comes when opener doesn't rebid 1NT. Now he can't tell genuine support from genuine preference from false preference.

Eric

[han]

Both are entirely up to partnership agreement.

I prefer to play (1) as forcing but passable. Sounds like a contradiction but it isn't.

I prefer to play (2) as a weak preference. As I play XYZ over all of these auctions I don't need 2H to be a limit raise, and it seems useless just to make an exception for this particular auction.

With a pick-up partner I would try not to pass (1) and I would not bid (2).

[kenberg]

Several folks have mentioned that the 1S rebid is forcing but passable. Of course even cuebids, legally, are passable but I assume something else is meant here. One responder suggested that 1S can be passed with 0-4 hcp. That's an agreement I can understand. Forcing but passable I have trouble with. My preference with partners is that if I make a bid that we have agreed is forcing, then he doesn't pass. Am I weird? Why not just describe it as passable if it can be passed? I think everyone agrees that it seldom is passed, but if it is passable, why call it forcing? There are some politicians who could make good use of this skill with words. In fact they do.

Ken

[awm]

I play (1) as definitely not forcing. In fact I pass this quite frequently, especially at matchpoints. With game strength opener will rebid 2♠, so the 1♠ rebid is up to around 17 or a bad 18. This means I'll pass with 0-7 or 0-8 or so. At matchpoints sometimes even with 9. The typical pass hand is something like:

Kxx
Kxxxx
xxx
xx

Surely the spade moysian at the one level will play okay. And what are my other options but pass? 1NT on three small diamonds when partner is hardly likely to have a stopper? Rebid a weak five card heart suit when partner would've often raised with three? Preference to what could be a 4-2 club fit at the two level? Even if we add the club king, I would tend to pass at MPs, although I would be forced to manufacture a bid at IMPs for fear of missing game.

Sequence (2) is a non-forcing preference, because 2♣ (inv checkback) followed by 2♥ would show a limit raise and still stop at the two-level. Typically this will be a very weak hand with three card support and five spades (with a good hand I must raise directly, because if opener rebids a minor I will be stuck). Also possible is doubleton heart with a side singleton.

While I've certainly met people who play (1) as forcing and (2) as limit raise, I think my choices here are fairly standard ones.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

1. Is a matter of style. If I had not discussed this auction with partner, I would consider it forcing. In close decisions, you bid if 'partner might think' that his bid was forcing.

I have played this both ways. Whatever way partner likes to play. I felt very comfortable playing it as a one round force in KS since we opened with some very heavy one bids.

2. With less than 8+-10 dummy points, I prefer to make a direct raise to 2Hs holding 3 card support playing standard methods.

I play 1Y-1Z-1NT-2C* is a semi-forces 2D to play 'or' it becomes an invitation bid 'if another bid is made.'

1H-1S-1NT-2C*-2D*-2H would show 10+ values.

My 1Y-1Z-1NT-2D* is a game force 'unless' either partner bids 2 of openers major.

I also play that 1H-2S shows 0-9HCP and a rebid of spades 1H-1S-any-2S shows 9+-11HCP and a six card suit(only five cards 'if' your AKQ10x suit 'looks' like a six bagger?)

My Big Club version opens 10+/11-15 and partner holding 12HCP should not force us to bid game with a possible 22-23HCP and no great fit.

The 5=2=1=5 example hand bids 1H-1S-1NT-2H which does not invite because the 2C* toy was not used. If the hand was 5=2=5=1 I might use the 2C* toy to relay/puppet to 2Ds and pass. We use an option to skip the transfer to 2Ds holding 3 card support for partner. Skipping over 2Ds to bid 2M would also show extra values since we tend to raise directly with suitable 3 card minimum hand types.

The dreaded 1H-1S-(3D)-p-p-3H shows 9-11 with less you pass here. You should have raised to 2Hs earlier to avoid a problem.

My methods would be to bid 1M-2M showing 10-11 dummy points. They have to bid 3D or pass and partner has a pretty good idea of what we hold. We also get to play both short and long suit games tries over our constructive single raise.

Regards,
Robert

[Elianna]

awm, on Nov 8 2005, 01:58 PM, said:

I play (1) as definitely not forcing. In fact I pass this quite frequently, especially at matchpoints. With game strength opener will rebid 2♠, so the 1♠ rebid is up to around 17 or a bad 18. This means I'll pass with 0-7 or 0-8 or so. At matchpoints sometimes even with 9. The typical pass hand is something like:

Kxx
Kxxxx
xxx
xx.

And everytime you do pass, I get annoyed, see your hand, look at my hand, and get unannoyed.

[luke warm]

i don't see how 1S can possibly be forcing... what else does opener bid with a 4=1=3=5 12/13 count after 1c : 1h? the way i play this guarantees 5 clubs anyway and i'd almost always pass with 3=5=2=3 at matchpoints, maybe i'd bid 2c at imps

on #2, i'm with han (and others), there's no reason for 2h to be anything but an offer to play, not when xyz or 2 way cb exist

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Nov 9 2005, 12:51 AM, said:

i don't see how 1S can possibly be forcing... what else does opener bid with a 4=1=3=5 12/13 count after 1c : 1h?

The idea is that using 1S forcing SOMETIMES you lose a safe spots but MOST other times, the strong opener can clarify better.

Even when the 1S would be best, often it is possible to find a safe spot.

This of course implies that responder to 1m responds with 6+ hcp and does not routinely respond 1M with 5 cards and 2-3 hcp.

I do not have any strong feelings for or against the use of 1S as forcing here.
I just think it's a matter of agreement, although indeed, "original SAYC" defines it as NF ( but that means nothing: most experts just couldn't care less of SAYC definitons LOL).

Of course this is a non-issue playing strong club as we do, Jimmy :-)

[Gerben42]

About auction 1:
I've had good results passing this. BTW if a bid is forcing you cannot pass. If you can pass the bid isn't forcing. Sounds logical to me.

About auction 2:

If you are playing a 2/1 style where 1♥ 2♥ shows a good raise you need a bid for a bad raise with ♠ length, something like:

QJxxx
Qxx
xx
xxx

In this case you have to bid auction 2 on these kinds of hands, so 2♥ now shows a bad raise.

[Winstonm]

There are practical reasons to play 1C-1H-1S as forcing, but IMO it is not a Standard agreement. It depends solely on your agreement regarding responding style. If you automatically respond with Qxx, Jxxxx, Jxx, xx to a 1C opener, then it only makes sense that a 1S rebid can be passed; however, if your requirements for a response are stronger, then you can afford to play 1 over 1 over 1 auctions as forcing to 1N.

The second aution is described by the Encyclopedia of Bridge as showing 9-11 and heart support, else bid 1H-2H immediately. I'm not saying the EoB is always right but I do think it strives to show Standard treatment.

Some points are made that 1H-2H playing 2/1 is constructive so 1H-1S-1N-2S should be less than constructive with spades - why should this be the case when over 1H one can bid 1N forcing with a weak raise?

It seems logical to me that even in 2/1 that:
1H-2H is the bid to make when holding support without spades.
1H-1S-1N-2H is the bid to make when holding the same hand with spades.
1H-1N-2C-2H is the bid to make with anything less that may or may not have spades - unless a matchpoint specialist who is determined to try to find the perfect partscore contract, isn't it better to limit your hand as quicky as possible instead of introducing a "nebulous" 1S bid - bidding 1S IMO should have a reason - holding a weakish hand with 3-card support for opener's major is not a reason to to bid spades - it is a reason to support and limit as quickly as possible.

Thanks for all the debate.

Winston

[Chamaco]

Quote

There are practical reasons to play 1C-1H-1S as forcing, but IMO it is not a Standard agreement. It depends solely on your agreement regarding responding style. If you automatically respond with Qxx, Jxxxx, Jxx, xx to a 1C opener, then it only makes sense that a 1S rebid can be passed; however, if your requirements for a response are stronger, then you can afford to play 1 over 1 over 1 auctions as forcing to 1N.

Indeed, I agree with this point.
But this discussion could go on forever , because "standard practice" seems to be to pass with Qxx, Jxxxx, Jxx, xx, at least if the definition of "Standard" is based on the Encyclopaedya (as you use in the next hand)

Hence, if the 1 over 1 response promises something, then it is again more logical and not so risky to adopt the style of using 1S as forcing.

Winstonm, on Nov 9 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

It seems logical to me that even in 2/1 that:
1H-2H is the bid to make when holding support without spades.
1H-1S-1N-2H is the bid to make when holding the same hand with spades.
1H-1N-2C-2H is the bid to make with anything less that may or may not have spades - unless a matchpoint specialist who is determined to try to find the perfect partscore contract,

Your analyis is not considering hands with DOUBLETON support: there are MANY weak/constructive hands with doubleton support (unsuitable for a direct constructive raise because the direct raise promises 3 trumps) that do not want absolutely to play 1NT , so it must be possible to preference back to 2M without this bid is seen as a limit raise.

Of course this is all academic in "expert standard", where limit+ responder hands will rebid an artificial Checkback.

.

[Winstonm]

Your analyis is not considering hands with DOUBLETON support: there are MANY weak/constructive hands with doubleton support (unsuitable for a direct constructive raise because the direct raise promises 3 trumps) that do not want absolutely to play 1NT , so it must be possible to preference back to 2M without this bid is seen as a limit raise

Of course this is all academic in "expert standard", where limit+ responder hands will rebid an artificial Checkback

True enough but left out for a reason - the bidding changes without support.

Take this hand: KJ9xx, Qx, x, Jxxxx. Partner opens 1H. You respond 1S and he rebids 1N. A lot of factors now come into play. If partner cannot hold a singleton spade for his bid then 2S becomes a reasonable choice of rebids unless he would always raise with 3 small - but even then the 5/2 spade fit may play as well as the 5/2 heart fit.

Your point is well taken that checkback is mostly used nowadays and I use it myself in this auction: 2C would be checkback with invitational or better hands so that means a new definition of the stated auction - what is the purpose, with checkback in place, of bidding 1S and then 2H over 1N? What is the logical reason for this bid? In other words, what should it mean?

Winston

[Chamaco]

Quote

Take this hand: KJ9xx, Qx, x, Jxxxx.  Partner opens 1H.  You respond 1S and he rebids 1N.  A lot of factors now come into play.  If partner cannot hold a singleton spade for his bid then 2S becomes a reasonable choice of rebids unless he would always raise with 3 small - but even then the 5/2 spade fit may play as well as the 5/2 heart fit. 

Could be, although there is no certainty.
Also, let's keep in mind that modern style is to rebid 1NT by opener even with a singleton in pard's suit, so that 2-level rebids tend to show more suit-oriented shape in terms of strength/texture.
In this style, the 2S rebid would be awkward

But make it
Jxxx, Kx, x, Axxxxx

and the rebid is troublesome regadless of the above issue.
Such hand type over a 1H opener does not want to pass, but cannot introduce the long minor, nor rebid spades, and I would guess that the play in 1NT is likely to be more awkward than in 2H.

Rebidding 2C here (if natural) would show 5+ spades, so it does not feel right.

Quote

Your point is well taken that checkback is mostly used nowadays and I use it myself in this auction: 2C would be checkback with invitational or better hands so that means a new definition of the stated auction - what is the purpose, with checkback in place, of bidding 1S and then 2H over 1N?  What is the logical reason for this bid?  In other words, what should it mean?

I would use it as a weak preference, typically doubleton support, with a 2-suited hand and shortness in a minor, such as the hand I mentioned above (Jxxx, Kx, x, Axxxxx).

[Winstonm]

I would use it as a weak preference, typically doubleton support, with a 2-suited hand and shortness in a minor, such as the hand I mentioned above (Jxxx, Kx, x, Axxxxx).


I believe in this theory playing 2/1:

1H-2H should be a hand that might accept a game try if the perfect fit so "construcutive" covers a lot of hands that hold 4 trumps but not a lot of HCP - even with Bergen raises in place. xxxx, Qxxx, x, Axxx as an example. If partner makes a spade SSGT I accept so would bid 2H over 1H.

1H-1N Forcing NT is used on any 3-card raise that would not accept a game try.
Therefore, with Jxxxx, Qxx, Kxx, xx I bid 1N. This means that I would also
bid 1N holding: Jxxxx, Qx, Kxx, xxx. The 1N force is used to "separate"
hand types - the downside is that 2S may play better than 2H - the upside
is partner will still reverse into spades and I've limited my hand and can
simply raise. Trade off.

Theory wise it might be best to use 1H-2S to cover some of these holdings in order to better define all the rest - hmmmm....that's something to consider.

Winston

[Chamaco]

Winstonm, on Nov 9 2005, 04:31 PM, said:

1H-1N Forcing NT is used on any 3-card raise that would not accept a game try.
Therefore, with Jxxxx, Qxx, Kxx, xx I bid 1N. This means that I would also
bid 1N holding: Jxxxx, Qx, Kxx, xxx. The 1N force is used to "separate"
hand types - the downside is that 2S may play better than 2H - the upside
is partner will still reverse into spades and I've limited my hand and can
simply raise. Trade off.

Theory wise it might be best to use 1H-2S to cover some of these holdings in order to better define all the rest - hmmmm....that's something to consider.

Winston

You might consider the use of Kaplan Inversion:

1H:1S = equivalent to 1NT forcing.
Denies game values, tends to deny 5 spades unless weak 3 card raise in hearts

Opener will rebid 1NT (Nonforcing) only with 4 spades (to find the possible 44 spades fit), if not, he rebids a 3+ card minor or rebids the 6+ heart bagger

1H:1NT shows 5+ spades, unlimited.


I ignore whether this is currently allowed or banned by ACBL.

[Winstonm]

Seems to me that if you use 1H-2S as a fit-showing limit raise with spades all the other hands become easier.

1H-1S-1N-2H is less than a limit raise - kind of Kaplanesque anyway without the twists.

1H-1S-1N-2C Checkback and denying 3-card heart support.