[Echognome]

I have seen this sort of sequence played different ways. I don't know if it changes based on bidding room available, but let me ask my fellow BBFers their opinion.

The base type auction is opening - interference - double - pass; rebid - pass - bid.

My question is whether that 2nd bid by responder is played as forcing or non-forcing.

A couple of examples:

Auction 1:
1♣ - (2♠) - Dbl - (Pass)
3♣ - (Pass) - 3♥

Is 3♥ a hand such as a 2=6=4=1 that just wants to compete?

Or a hand such as a 3=4=3=3 with no spade stopper and game values?
(for example ♠xxx ♥AKQT ♦QJx ♣xxx, or does this hand simply bid 3♠?)

Or something like a 2=5=4=2 with bad hearts?
(for example ♠Qx ♥Qxxxx ♦AQTx ♦Kx)

Auction 2:
1♦ - (3♣) - Dbl - (Pass)
3♦ - (Pass) - 3♥

Is this a 5=5=1=2 that just wanted to compete?

Or is it a 4=4=2=3 with game values and no club stopper?
(here the hand cannot afford to cuebid below game)

If we treat these auctions differently whether or not a cue-bid is available, then how do we treat auctions where the cuebid becomes no longer available.

For example: 1♥ - (2♣) - Dbl - (3♣); Pass - (Pass) - 3♦

[HeartA]

I assume you don't play NFB. In both cases, 3H just shows H and (at most) invitational value.

[Echognome]

HeartA, on Nov 2 2006, 09:49 PM, said:

I assume you don't play NFB. In both cases, 3H just shows H and (at most) invitational value.

Indeed I mean standard. I'm not asking what it means when playing negative free bids.

As a follow-up, what do you do with the alternate hands if you play the bids as NF?

[mikeh]

I have always (at least as far back as I choose to remember) played that sequences such as Auction no. 1 shows long ♥ (at least 6 on this auction) with insufficient values to have bid 3 (forcing)♥s over 3♣. It contains NO inference re the ♦ suit.

With the 3=4=3=3 no stopper gf, I'd cuebid.

with the bad 5 card ♥ suit and sufficient values to bid, I bid, and I don't really care much about suit quality...ok, I do care, but I recognize that there really isn't anything I can do about it. On Tuesday, I held Qx KQ8xx Kx Jxxx after RHO bid 3♦ over partner's 1♣. I felt I had an easy 3♥, which is a game force. I would have made the same bid with Kx Q8xxx Kx Kxxx: hate to, but I can hardly negative double and passing is not likely to be best.


Auction 2 is the tougher: I'd play the sequence as emphasizing ♥: it would be nice if it offered a genuine choice between the majors, but it is how I'd bid a 4=6 too weak to bid 3♥ directly. So opener should not pull to ♠ very often: I would think that he'd need 3 decent ♠s and a stiff ♥ to even think of doing so.

And with the 4=4=2=3 gf hand with no stopper: kick RHO hard to stop him preempting you. Otherwise, raise to 4♦.

Note this situation will, in real life, be uncommon. Neither of you has a stopper (surely he'd stretch to bid 3N with long strong ♦s and a stopper, and you as responder lack sufficient support (opposite a rebid suit) to be comfortable. It can certainly happen, and when it does you'd maybe like to be able to describe this hand below game, but it means giving up a natural, valuable meaning for the sequence.

Sometimes methods deal us bad results. Live with it or quit bridge: changing methods to accommodate the last bad result is only going to drive you nuts.

[mike777]

1minor=(2s)=new suit at 3 level

Lawrence plays new suit bid at 3 level as forcing to 3nt or 4 level of the new suit bid. That means:

1c=(2s)=x=p
3c=p=3h(is nonforce).

[Impact]

Echognome, on Nov 2 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

HeartA, on Nov 2 2006, 09:49 PM, said:

I assume you don't play NFB.  In both cases, 3H just shows H and (at most) invitational value.

Indeed I mean standard. I'm not asking what it means when playing negative free bids.

As a follow-up, what do you do with the alternate hands if you play the bids as NF?

When I used NFB we played:-

double and then cue= balanced without stop
double and then new suit= single-suited GF

immediate cue= 2-suiter GF!!


the reasoning is to separate the hands which are competitive/Invit ie negative double with 4unbid Major typically from the GF hands.

It is hard for traditionalists to get their heads round the concept as it decreases some flexibility in auctions but provides far greater certainty in many more auctions.

Although it worked well I have switched (for 5 years) to transfers where the intervention does not exceed 3D - which have significant advantages...

regards

[inquiry]

Mike gave the correct technical answer, and that is exactly how i play it too.

You did ask, however, what is standard, so let me tell you what bridgebrowser says. This auction occurred 246 times in one large database. The 3H bidder averaged 10.54 hcp +/- 0.16 with a minimum of 5 hcp (5 times) and a maximum of 19 hcp (1 time). The most common hcp was 9 (50 times, followed by 10 (47 times) and then 11 (30) and 8 (23).

By far the most common shape was 5431, 5433, 5332, then 5521. I guess these shapes are a lot more common than the 6 card suits, but I was a little surprised by this.

An interesting finding, is that some of the 3H rebidders were 4333 and 4432. None of these players (13 times) played 3H or 3S. They held
8 hcp - twice
11 hcp - 5 times
12, 13, 15 hcp - once each
14 hcp - three times

One problem with bridgebrowser, we don't know which of these partnerships were playing negative free bids, etc.

The second auction, gave similar results but was far less frequent. The average hcp for the 3H rebidder was about the same (10.91 +/- 0.26) with minimum being 2 hcp (once) and 6 (twice) and a maximum of 20 (once, also once each for 17, 18, and 19). 11 hcp was the most frequent, followed by 12 then 10, 9, 8, 7. There was very few 13 hcp and had a small peak at 14 and 15. The doubler tended to be more two suited (54, 55) than for auction one.

I doubt that helps, but there were 10 4432 hands that rebid 3H, four of them had four diamonds and four hearts, six four-four in the majors. One of them had only 6 hcp... :-)