[joshs]

fred, on May 30 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

I use a cuebid response to a negative double as forcing to game.

I thought this was "standard", but apparently it is not

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The cue bid as a game force is standard.

[Echognome]

I don't dispute that. But for whatever reason, supposing you are a passed hand and you bid however you bid (as here when you bid 3♦). If partner chooses not to bid again, wtp? Partner has forced YOU to game. You are the limited hand. I'm not saying this is the best or the most ideal way to play, but I don't find any great issue with it either.

If it's the hand I am thinking of, then I knew we had the values for game or thereabouts, but I didn't really like my hand for game (so maybe I shouldn't have bid 2♠ to begin with). I guess I had buyer's remorse. Anyway, since we were playing BAM, I decided to rest in a playable part-score.

I'm certainly not claiming that I was correct in my bidding. I do think it's an interesting question. If partner forces YOU to game, then is it ok for PARTNER to stop below game? I imagine the relevant situations are few and far between. The only other example I can think of is if partner makes a GF relay and then decides (due to a misfit, e.g.) that it might be better to play in part-score. Note that I expect these to be rare enough that they are not part of the agreements and often partner will not have the opportunity to sign off. I also expect these to happen in a straight captain-crew situation, not one where we are both deciding on the level.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on May 30 2006, 11:42 AM, said:

I don't dispute that.  But for whatever reason, supposing you are a passed hand and you bid however you bid (as here when you bid 3♦).  If partner chooses not to bid again, wtp?  Partner has forced YOU to game.  You are the limited hand.  I'm not saying this is the best or the most ideal way to play, but I don't find any great issue with it either.

If it's the hand I am thinking of, then I knew we had the values for game or thereabouts, but I didn't really like my hand for game (so maybe I shouldn't have bid 2♠ to begin with).  I guess I had buyer's remorse.  Anyway, since we were playing BAM, I decided to rest in a playable part-score. 

I'm certainly not claiming that I was correct in my bidding.  I do think it's an interesting question.  If partner forces YOU to game, then is it ok for PARTNER to stop below game?  I imagine the relevant situations are few and far between.  The only other example I can think of is if partner makes a GF relay and then decides (due to a misfit, e.g.) that it might be better to play in part-score.  Note that I expect these to be rare enough that they are not part of the agreements and often partner will not have the opportunity to sign off. I also expect these to happen in a straight captain-crew situation, not one where we are both deciding on the level.

You might have bid 3♦ with more than a minimum, safely, because you 'know' partner won't pass since he just forced to game. That is the problem.

If you can think of some auction where one player forces to game and his partner makes a bid that MUST show a minimum, then you might have my attention with your theory that the game forcer should be able to change his mind.

This sort of thing happens more often in relay systems. JoshS and I were recently trading stories. I had opened something like QJ AQ x AQxxxxxx with a strong club, relayed, and found partner 2470. I relayed with 4♣ and he bid 4♦ showing two controls. I passed him there and unsurprisingly we were too high already, but it was only going to get worse if I bid any game. I think that was ok because partner had limited his hand (in terms of controls anyway).

He gave me an example that was even more spectacular. It went a strong 1♣, 1♥ response showing spades, 1NT rebid showing a minimum strong club, three suited with short spades. He passed that as responder since he had stretched to bid 1♥ to begin with based on good spades and nothing outside. I don't know the exact hand, but again that seems ok to me. I suppose my conditions would be:

1) You are a bare minimum, or even more likely slightly subminimum having stretched already
2) You are the 'captain' of the auction
3) The auction has revealed a bad misfit
and the case that can't exist in the hand that started this thread...
4) Partner has limited himself to the point where you either lack or just barely reach the values for game.

[fred]

It shouldn't matter if partner is a passed hand or not.

Presumably partner can make a negative DBL of 1S on as little as 7 HCP (or even less if he has good shape).

Opener might have a marginal game force opposite a minimum negative DBL, but he has no way of knowing that responder actually is minimum. For most partnerships a passed hand could still have 10 or a bad 11 HCP. There is enough difference between a minimum and a maximum negative DBL by a passed hand that even if opener's GF is marginal opposite a minimum, a maximum will be enough to ensure that the values for game are present.

And I think it is wrong to worry to try to cater to the combination of marginal game force opposite minimum negative DBL. This exact combination is rare and worrying about it (perhaps by forcing the negative DBLer to jump or cuebid if he is not minimum) will ruin your auctions when this combination does not exist.

For sure sometimes you will get too high when both opener and responder are minimum. That's life. As someone wisely said in a recent thread, if you don't go down in game sometimes you are not bidding enough.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

pclayton, on May 30 2006, 05:21 PM, said:

Perhaps its a matter of semantics, but IMO the cue by opener promises another call. So, 3D IS forcing, but it doesn't promise any strength either.

Comments?

I think you hit the main point here.

1NT - 2♦
2♥

Here 2♦ is a forcing bid, opener is forced to bid. I think we agree that 2♥ is not forcing here.

1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(p)
2♠-(p)-3♦-(p)
???

Here 3♦ does not cause a forcing, but it is part of a forcing sequence caused by 2♠. If 2♠ is only forcing one round opener can pass. If opener forced to game than he is forced to bid and he created this forcing with his 2♠ bid.

[Kalvan14]

IMHO, advancer should always double 1♠ with 4 cards in hearts, and strive to bid 2♥ with 5 cards and any reasonable hand, say 9-10 HCP [the more so if he's a passed hand]. Priority is given to identifying a possible fit in the other major, and even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF.
The risk of bidding 2♦ with 5D + 4H is that LHO might jump to 3♠. Now you are in a bit of a quandary. How do you explore for the 4-4 hearts fit? This approach has also the advantage of making clear that 1m-(1♠)-2om denies 4 cards in hearts.

Going back to the posted auction: 2♠ is forcing to game (or at least to 4m: but I quite dislike sequences which give away a clear GF to keep the possibility of stopping on a dime in 4m). Therefore 3♦ is part of a forcing auction, and the bidding cannot stop there

[mikeh]

Kalvan14, on May 30 2006, 06:29 PM, said:

even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF.

One of the fascinating and occasionally frustrating aspects of reading BBF is the realization that almost no generality can go unchallenged (I couldn't write that without the 'almost' without being internally inconsistent).

A number of players in this part of the world do indeed play that 2/1 is on in competition. I have played that method myself for years, in certain partnerships. Do I think it best? No. But some fundamentalist 2/1 players swear by it

[Echognome]

Having thought about this hand some more, I have come to two conclusions.

1) I would have been much happier starting with 3♥ and leaving it up to partner.

2) I wouldn't have had a good bid if I had changed one card in my hand. Give me:

xxx AQx AQxx AQx

Now I open a system 1♣ and it goes (1♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

What am I to bid now?

So supposing I bid 2♠ as I had and partner bids 3♦? Do I now bid 3♠? Is partner going to show me a full stopper or a half stopper if I do? Do I bid 4♦? That is going to make sure I get to 5m when that's not necessarily correct. Do I start with something other than 2♠? I.e., everything is flawed.

[Kalvan14]

mikeh, on May 30 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on May 30 2006, 06:29 PM, said:

even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF.

One of the fascinating and occasionally frustrating aspects of reading BBF is the realization that almost no generality can go unchallenged (I couldn't write that without the 'almost' without being internally inconsistent).

A number of players in this part of the world do indeed play that 2/1 is on in competition. I have played that method myself for years, in certain partnerships. Do I think it best? No. But some fundamentalist 2/1 players swear by it

I stand corrected. It's true that even the most obvious truths (or what we consider the most obvious truths) may not be such for someone else.

Believe it or not, couple of days ago I was berated by partner for not doubling
1♥ by RHO with 15 HCP in a 6-3-3-1. The nitwit passed with 2 aces and a couple Js and i scored 1♠+5 [defense was not best, and all finesses worked ]. It was utterly impossible to convince him (not that i tried too hard)

[FrancesHinden]

Echognome, on May 30 2006, 05:42 PM, said:

If partner forces YOU to game, then is it ok for PARTNER to stop below game? I imagine the relevant situations are few and far between. The only other example I can think of is if partner makes a GF relay and then decides (due to a misfit, e.g.) that it might be better to play in part-score.

The problem with this is when partner has extra values that he hasn't shown because he knows you are in a game force. Even when he's already shown a minimum, he can sometimes have extra values 'in context'.

I've done this twice that I can think of, and have regretted it both times.
The first we played 2NT+5. Not a success on a combined 34-count (partner had lied about his 'minimum' and was planning to mastermind the auction because he had a very strange hand with enormous extra values... he know I couldn't pass out 2NT so it couldn't hurt). This got me a well-deserved telling-off.

The other time I had a two suiter which I decided to drive to game opposite an opening 1S bid to get both suits bid; when I found out there was a mis-fitting minimum opposite I broke discipline and passed out 3S. Partner sympathised with my actions, game wasn't great, but he then played the hand brilliantly and made 10 tricks with the aid of some good card reading and a trump squeeze.

[helene_t]

Opener could have:
- a one-suiter too strong for 3♣. Since 3♣ already shows extra's, this hand wants to fore to game.
- an 18-19 balanced without a stopper. Again, he wants to force to game.
- a ♣♥ two-suiter too strong for 3♥. Opposite a passed hand he might as well have bid 4♥ but anyway, he wants to force to game.
- a ♣♦ two-suiter. It's a matter of agreement if a 2♦ rebid by opener would have been forcing - if it would not promise extras, a 2♠ rebid that is not forcing to game might be less awkward than 3♦ when he does have extras.
- maybe a 16-17 balanced hand without a stop (playing a weak NT)

So ultimately I think it depends mainly on your agreements about 4♦4♣ and 4♦5♣, and maybe on your notrump range. Playing American (?) style, i.e. ♦♣ hands with less than reverse strength usually open 1♦ , the answer to the original question is clearly "Yes". Otherwise it may have technical merrits to play it non-forcing but to me it makes life to complicated. Certainly assume forcing with a pick-up p.

[cf_John0]

Hannie, on May 30 2006, 07:42 AM, said:

Do you play the following auction as forcing?

1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(p)
2♠-(p)-3♦-(p)
???


What kind of hand do you expect responder to have?

Both minors of 4♦/4+♣,and with negative dbl HCPs.

[jchiu]

If partner did have both minors, then he has at most a singleton spade. Since it is rather obvious to show ♣ support with 0=4=5=4 distribution, a weak hand, and some concentration in diamonds, a 3♦ bid that shows both minors is quite unnecessary. The original responders (Roland and Frances) hit this nail on the head.