[foo]

mike777, on Jul 24 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 24 2007, 01:12 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 20 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

North,Both,IMP,
2,J62,AQT8652,32

1H=X=?
Your call and plan?

Unless you play Negative Free Bids (NFBs), a 2 level bid of a new suit in a Contested Auction shows 5+ cards in suit and the playing strength of 10+ HCP. Such a 2level bid is 100% forcing if Advancer passes.

This hand has 10 playing points in support of ♥'s, and that ♦ suit is 9 of them.

I'm bidding 2D and then supporting ♥'s.

Foo,
You may wish to double check the BW site that is listed in this thread.
If I understand BWS 2d is not forcing.

Of course you may still choose 2D and assume the bidding will never die there.

BWS is a system based on consensus amongst polled players.
Unfortunately, that seems to mean NFBs got the nod.

In SA, 1H-pa-2D is forcing.
In SA, 1H-2D;foo-H Raise shows an Invitational hand with support and a side ♦ Suit.

The meaning stays the same in SA when the auction becomes contested.
In SA or 2/1, 1H-X-2D is also forcing. !not! GF, but forcing for 1 round if Advancer passes.

Why? because =unless playing NFB's= Responder's bid of a new suit at the 2 level still shows 10+ playing points.

...and the reason is =exactly= hands like this. Note how the "problem" on this board goes away if you know that Responder's new suit at the 2level shows 10+ playing points.

If I am playing a system where 2D does !not! shows 10+ points and therefore is nf, I will do whatever I have to "manufacture" a forcing call.

My choices under those circumstances include
XX followed by a ♥ raise
2N! Showing a LR+ in H's. (see comment below)
3D if Fit Showing (I usually want 4 card support, but I'm cornered here)

All these choices distort the hand. 2D showing 10+ playing points followed by a ♥ raise is the best way to describe our hand.

Playing 2D as nfb here results in system problems.

[hrothgar]

Quick question regarding nomenclature:

I'm not used to the expression "Negative Free Bid" being applied to auctions following a takeout double.

My understanding is that Negative Free Bid traditional referred to auctions such as

1X - (1Y) - 2Z

or

1X - (2Y) - 2Z

I had always assumed that the name had some kind of linkage to a Negative Double. If you are playing Negative Free Bids than you typically need to shift game forcing single suited patterns into the Negative Double.

[ralph23]

foo, on Jul 26 2007, 08:21 AM, said:

In SA or 2/1, 1H-X-2D is also forcing. !not! GF, but forcing for 1 round if Advancer passes.

♣♦♥♠

No, a 2/1 response after a double is non-forcing in SAYC.

http://www.swangames.../SAYC/sayc.html
"If RHO makes a takeout double:
Suit bids at the one level are forcing for one round.
Suit bids at the two level are not forcing and usually show six cards and less than 10 points."

http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...tem%20Notes.pdf (old version)
The ACBL Standard Yellow Card System Booklet
http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf (new version

See also William S. Root, Commonsense Bidding (a basic & fairly recent American text)

Also see "Bridge Base Standard" (either basic or advanced) on this site, which use standard and which state 2/1 after a X is NF.

Regular 2/1 is the same. People do play this differently, I have come to learn, esp. apparently in the UK, but SAYC is NF after the X.

[foo]

I did a quick poll amongst my friends and discovered that although some of us =play= 1banana-x-2apple with the same strength requirements as 1banana-(foo)-2apple, this is an idiosyncracy. It is !not! Standard.

Standard after a T/O X is different than after an overcall and basically shows a hand that looks like the lower range of a Weak Two or 3level preempt bid.

For my money this makes WJS in competition useless since then there'd be two bids for the same kind of hand, but there you go.

Under such circumstances, I'm making a Fit Jump with the OP hand.

[ochinko]

foo, on Jul 27 2007, 09:50 AM, said:

I did a quick poll amongst my friends and discovered that although some of us =play= 1banana-x-2apple with the same strength requirements as 1banana-(foo)-2apple, this is an idiosyncracy. It is !not! Standard.

Standard after a T/O X is different than after an overcall and basically shows a hand that looks like the lower range of a Weak Two or 3level preempt bid.

For my money this makes WJS in competition useless since then there'd be two bids for the same kind of hand, but there you go.

Under such circumstances, I'm making a Fit Jump with the OP hand.

I play it even simpler than the standard.

Any new suit from an unpassed hand after an intervention is forcing, and doesn't deny fit.

Any new suit after a double is non-forcing and denies fit.

[helene_t]

In Robson-Segal methods, 3♦ is a fit-bid, right? I think I would do that, then. If the only fitbid is 4♦, I'd rather bid a non-forcing 2♦ or maybe a weak 3♦ or 2♥.

Added: I have two messages to partner but probably only time to convey one of them before LHO bids space at a level beyond my safety. Unless I pretend to have a 4-card hearts.

I like Wayne (Cascade)'s case for 2♥ but on the other hand, if I show my diamonds with a weak 3♦ at least I will get to know whether that encouraged p to double 4♠ or not. If I bid 2♥ I'll have to listen to whatever uninformed decision p makes over 4♠, that won't make my next decision easier.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2007-July-27, 07:36

[ArtK78]

Calling Jxx a "fit" is pretty strong. I would expect better.

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

Calling Jxx a "fit" is pretty strong. I would expect better.

Yes, that's why it's an MSC problem.

[hrothgar]

My own suspicion is that a 3♦ or 4♦ fit showing jump won't really factor into the core "debate" in the MSC.

1. As folks have already noted, BWS doesn't use fit jumps in this auction.

2. Even if a fit jump were available, most partnerships require a much better suit as support. Hxxx is far from uncommon as an agreement.

If fit jumps are mentioned, I expect it to be a throw away line. (Furthermore, if anyone does vote for a 3♦ bid, I expect that they are doing so as a weak jump shift)

This is not to say that the notion of fits won't be important. I readily expect to see a fair amount of debate between people who want to bid 2♥ and immediately show a fit and people who want to bid 2♦ and show their suit.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't fit jump because the support isn't good enough, as Richard said. At the same time, the fact that these hands with 3 card support seem waaay more common than hands with a good sidesuit and 4 card support make me wonder if this is really the best way to play them. If allowed with 3 card support, the frequency increase would certainly be large.

In any case, for my money I am not going to fail to bid diamonds on this hand. That seems way more important to partner for any decision he makes than showing the meager heart support.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

I wouldn't fit jump because the support isn't good enough, as Richard said. At the same time, the fact that these hands with 3 card support seem waaay more common than hands with a good sidesuit and 4 card support make me wonder if this is really the best way to play them. If allowed with 3 card support, the frequency increase would certainly be large.

But if opener has a fit for your side suit he may not be able to draw trumps before opps start ruffing it. Of course this depends on trump quality as well. So maybe it a fit jump should be allowed with a good 3-card support.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

I wouldn't fit jump because the support isn't good enough, as Richard said. At the same time, the fact that these hands with 3 card support seem waaay more common than hands with a good sidesuit and 4 card support make me wonder if this is really the best way to play them. If allowed with 3 card support, the frequency increase would certainly be large.

For what its worth, I did some simulations about the frequency of different fit jump styles a few years back. I wanted to compare the relative frequency of the more traditional fit jumps (requiring a 5-4 pattern) with other styles based on 6-3 pattern. (The study was done in the context of a raise structure over a MOSCITO style major suit opening, so the numbers would obviously differ from a 5 card major based opening followed by a takeout double or an overcall)

As I recall, things were pretty much a wash. Issues like suit quality requirements and the like ended up overwhelming shape. (I ended up going with the 6-3 patterns because I was reasonably happy lumping the 5-4s into either an invitational raise or a value raise. In contrast, I was never that happy treating the 6-3 patterns as either a 3 card raise or a NNF 2/1)

If you decide to start allowing a fit jump on a 5-3-3-2, you'll dramatically increase the frequency (especially if you don't exlude the 5-4s), however, I'm not sure whether you'll be happy with the results. I don't think that opener is going to be well positioned to know what to know. This sounds more like a blame transfer to me.

[ralph23]

foo, on Jul 27 2007, 01:50 AM, said:

For my money this makes WJS in competition useless since then there'd be two bids for the same kind of hand, but there you go.

It's really a consequence of the old old rule that "All good hands (10+) redouble after partner's one-of-a-suit opening is doubled for takeout."

The old old rule was modified in "modern standard" (if there is such a thing) to say "Oh, one-over-one responses can still be good hands."

But you're right in that 2♦ and 3♦ after partner opens 1♠ - (x) are somewhat duplicative. It's a matter of degree I suppose ... after all in standard american, opening 2♠ and 3♠ are also "somewhat duplicative" ---

[foo]

Richard,
Did you investigate the frequency of a FJS promising
a= 4+ support, a stiff/void, & a 5+ card suit
VS
b= 3+ support, a stiff/void, & a 5+ card suit
??

I'm not mentioning suit quality requirements because they should be the same for both and therefore don't matter.
(FWIW, my suggestion for minimum suit quality would be something like a suit 5+ cards long, headed by the A or K, whose length + honors add to 7+: AJxxx, Axxxxxx, Kxxxxxx, etc. This also assumes that most of the hand's values are concentrated in the trump suit and the side suit. Hands with values more or less scattered evenly should not make bids like FJS which are suggestive of value concentration.)

[han]

I'll start with 2D, hopefully I will be able to bid 3H next. I think that 2D (NF) followed by 3H is a much better description of this hand than 2H followed by 3D.

It is not unlikely that the auction will be above 3H when it comes back to us, but then I don't mind having shown diamonds instead of hearts. Will partner be able to compete sensibly if we bid 2H? I don't think so. If partner bids after we have shown diamonds then I'm pretty sure that it will be right.

I will not make a support jump with Jxx support.

Isn't it time that BWS starts using transfers over 1X-Dbl?