[BrianEDuran]

White all, you hold

Scoring: MPs

---

Partner opens
1♠-(2H) to you?

Your playing 10-13 in this seat and color, which you open with most 5 card suits
5 card major, 2/1GF
It MPs and you and your partner rarly let the opponents play in 2H or lower contracts
Playing Negative doubles, and new suit by unpass hands in comp forcing for one round.

Whats your call?

[pclayton]

3♣ - Yes I hate it, but I hate the other calls worse. Also - its pretty hard not to treat a new suit at the 3 level as a game force.

I'm glad you posted this hand. I've always thought good/bad 2N works great in situations like this, but I've never seen g/b listed in any literature.

In one partnership I play 2N as the mixed raise a la Robson, and in the other its just natural.

Good problem.

[Flame]

BrianEDuran, on Sep 23 2004, 04:51 PM, said:

Partner opens
1♠-(2H) to you?

Your playing 10-13 in this seat and color, which you open with most 5 card suits

1sp=10-13 hcp ?
I think our game chances arent too good, so in mp i wont bid 3c, i think pass will get us to the best place. double has the plus of showing high cards, but this plus can turn into an ugly penaly double on 3h by partner which im not sure i like.

[Flame]

pclayton, on Sep 23 2004, 05:07 PM, said:

I've always thought good/bad 2N works great in situations like this, but I've never seen g/b listed in any literature.

I know some people play g/b on 1h-(2sp) for example the_hog does, maybe 1sp-(2h) isnt too differnt. I play 2nt on both cases to show fit with good odr, not sure its a good idea.

[luke warm]

pclayton, on Sep 24 2004, 12:07 AM, said:

I've always thought good/bad 2N works great in situations like this, but I've never seen g/b listed in any literature.

i know it's in cohen's lott book, and i *think* it's in bergen's volume 2 'better bidding' book... maybe not this specific treatment, i don't remember

[whereagles]

Let me see if I get this straight...

Pard RHO us
1♠....2♥....??

is this correct? If so, if 1S promises a 5 card, I'd bid 2S here. If 1S could be 4 cards, then I'm screwed. I guess I'd pass and trust partner will be able to do something clever...

[the hog]

Perfect hand a 3C negative free bid. Else you need th treatment that 2N forces 3C from a min partner. Won't distort the auction by bidding 2S of course.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Sep 23 2004, 11:02 PM, said:

Perfect hand a 3C negative free bid. Else you need th treatment that 2N forces 3C from a min partner. Won't distort the auction by bidding 2S of course.

You need to include another option in the poll (other). Because here is a typical hand that shows the advantage of transfer advances type bids. And I disagree with Ron, this hand isn't "perfecct" for negative free bid, as it is a little heavy and it has perhaps adequate support for a spade contract. This hand is Well is more suited for misho;s (and he forces me to say my) Equality method. This is litlte more than transfer advances. On this particular auction, 1S-(2H)-? we play DBL is either a balanced hand unsuited for a 3NT bid, or a transfer bid showing clubs. Partner doesn't have to complete the transferm however, with the transfer, I can anything from a typical negative free bid hand up to slam going hand as the bid is 1RF. But we do not use them for "WEAK SIGNOFF", that is, this bid shows enough stregnth to make the bid with modest fit to the level bid.

So out bidding would be...

1S-(2H)-DBL-(assume pass)
?

• 2S - less than 3 card club support, or nice spade suit but minimum
  
• 2NT - heart stopper, willingess to play NT
  
• 3C - 3+ clubs (nice to know we have fit), and not a lot extra
  
• other - nice hand

Over 2♠ I would raise to 3♠, invite
over 2NT I would bid 3NT
Over 3♣, I would probably pass
Over 3♦, we are going to game at least, as this shows extras, but not necessary diamonds.

Ben

[EricK]

With the given conditions I pass.

Although this could work out badly, it seems less likely to than the overbid of 3♣ or the off-shape X or the support showing 2♠.

Quite commonly, the bidding will continue (P) X (P), and now I can bid a good 3♣ (2NT would be Lebensohl).

In my experience, pass is often right with 3 small in the opp's suit.

Eric

[luke warm]

welcome back ron... and i agree, 3c is a perfect non-forcing nfb

[flytoox]

If you play negative, then there are other problems you may have. So i dont see playing NFB as the way out.

What do I bid here? I think i will pass. i know it is not a good bid. but it is least evil to me.

Hongjun

[Free]

I have doubts between pass and 3♣. They're both not perfect.

Pass, partner WILL bid again, but if he bids 3♦ we're screwed
3♣, possible ♠-fit lost

After some thought I'd probably bid 3♣...

[Fluffy]

This looks perfect for a rubenshol 2NT, but since probably I am not playing it I´ll try a take out double. On the given problem I guess someone was expecting partner to reopen, but I don´t expect anything from partner except a couple of revokes/season .

[EricK]

Free, on Sep 24 2004, 11:04 AM, said:

I have doubts between pass and 3♣. They're both not perfect.

Pass, partner WILL bid again, but if he bids 3♦ we're screwed
3♣, possible ♠-fit lost

After some thought I'd probably bid 3♣...

If partner is going to rebid 3♦, then you are screwed even more if you have made the overbid of 3♣.

Eric

[the hog]

"And I disagree with Ron, this hand isn't "perfecct" for negative free bid, as it is a little heavy and it has perhaps adequate support for a spade contract."

Points:

1). As with anything of this ilk, whether a hand is perfect or not depends on partner's expectations. As the bidding is forced to the 3 level, you need decent values. I do NOT regard this hand as heavy for that bid and neither would my parntner.

2). Passing is absurd. If pd is minimum you have a decent C contract. If pd is a little better, you may well have 3N on. Passing is NOT a way to find these contracts as too much can go awry - next hand could bid 3H, pd could bid 3D, and worse still, if you are playing good/bad partner could bid 2NT and convert your "forced" 3C.

3) Note that over this SPECIFIC sequence you have a number of options depending on what you play

* 2N Rubensohl.
* 2N forcing 3C as a hand that wants to play in 3 minor.
* 3C as a negative free bid
* X followed by C as a place to play
The sequences above depend on your methods

It is obvious that the -ve double is the worst of these options, particularly if next hand raises or if partner bids D at a high level.
It is also obvious that Rubensohl is the BEST of these methods. However Rubensohl accidents are spectacular, so much so that even its inventor, Australian Bruce Neill, is no longer playing it. Rubensohl is best left to very serious practiced partnerships.

So this leaves 2N forcing 3C or 3C as a negative free bid, whatever your methods.

(PS. Thanks for the welcome home, Jimmy. I can thoroughly recommend Bali to anyone - great place, great people.)

[luke warm]

the nfb isn't a command for partner to pass... at the 2 and 3 levels it's simply not forcing ... at the 3 level it should show between 8+ and 12-

as for bali, i plan on winning the powerball tomorrow nite... then you can bet i'll be there

[paulg]

This is certainly a nice hand for transfer advances, but unfortunately not something I currently play. I also use 2NT as either strong raise or natural (depending on partnership) and would not have considered this a potential good/bad/leb/rub position.

So like most people I'm forced to chose between pass, a negative free 3♣ bid, a forcing 3♣ bid, or the flexible "it means what I have" double.

Personally I have never been a fan of negative free bids and, as Ben points out, it's certainly not clear what it means at the 3-level - I guess regular users would know, but it seems to be aiming at a very small target. So my real options are pass, double or a forcing 3♣.

In my experience pairs who play 10-13 1NT also tend to open light. This, and the fact that you do not want to overbid at matchpoints, means that I do not want to bid a forcing 3♣.

But as I do want to compete the partscore I shall double and not worry too much about partner holding the 5341 shape (that EricK is rightly concerned about). The other reason not to pass is that I may not be able to do that in tempo.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Sep 25 2004, 12:01 AM, said:

It is also obvious that Rubensohl is the BEST of these methods. However Rubensohl accidents are spectacular, so much so that even its inventor, Australian Bruce Neill, is no longer playing it. Rubensohl is best left to very serious practiced partnerships.

I have to agree with this, when I first knew about lebenshol I wanted to paly it on ANY postion where opponents where on a competitive 2♥/♠, it was soon that I realiced it was giving me worse results than expected.

I discovered rubenshol very after leb, and I was already warned, those 2 conventions, as every conventions have to be kept under control, that means: you can specify exactly under wich sequences they apply, nowadays I have 5 positions where I play leb or rub, but they are all known and all the subsequent bids have beem studied, at least a bit .

[BrianEDuran]

Hi

Well nobody picked my suggested bid or 2S. While maybe I scared them off with the comment of the 4-2 fit, I did mention lower that we are playing 5 card majors.

In the post mortum at the bar (maybe we don't think as clearly as we should then) 3C was the favorite. In the club forum a negative double was voted for by most of the stronger players.

Still pondering over the weekend I went to one of my favorite books to see if there was any useful gems, "Competeive Bidding int he 21st Century" by Marshall Miles.

In a section called When Not to Use a negative Double, he gives the following hand.
QT
K76
A7543
852
His comments:
" Without the overcall, you would have bid 1NT, but what do you do now? Many players would make a negative double, but I think that is wrong. No matter what partner does now, you will have a problem. If he rebids 2S, should you raise? Depending on how well the hands fit , you could either be cold for game, or too high in 3S. If he rebids 3C with AJ63 (regardless of the rest of his hand), you don't belong in clubs, but if you take him back to spades, he may again be too high. Or he may thnkg you have a better hand for this sequence and bid a hopless game.

To me, this in not a negative double, but a clear-cut 2S bid if you open five card majors. You normally have three-card support fo a raise, but when partner has a minimum opening, 2S will be the best contact nine times out of ten. This is not as radical a suggestion as it may appear. If East had passed, you would have bid 1Nt and corrected a 2C rebid to 2S (and probably a 2H rebid to 2S to give partner another chance to bid, since partner would expect four-card support and a slightly better hand if you raised hearts). If you are will to let partner play in a 5-2 fit without competition, why not let him play in a 5-2 fit after and overcall?"

What do people think of his arguement on the hand he provides? Would you bid 2S? Do people think the same arguement applies to my given hand? Why not? Too strong? Six card suit? What would Miles do????

Brian

[inquiry]

BrianEDuran, on Sep 27 2004, 11:32 AM, said:

What do people think of his arguement on the hand he provides? Would you bid 2S? Do people think the same arguement applies to my given hand? Why not? Too strong? Six card suit? What would Miles do????

Well, someone bid 2♠, it was whereagles.

2♠ is better than a negative double or a pass or a forcing 3♣. Two spades is
a guess compared to a negative free bid or a rubenshol/lebhenshol 2NT (either could be right). 2♠ is not as good as a transfer advance double shows either clubs or a balanced hand not suit for one reason or the other for a jump to 3NT.

Now if you choice is between.. 2♠. negative double or forcing 3♣, 2♠ is clear winner.

If you choice is between negative double, 2♠ or a way to bid clubs without forcing (rubehenshol or NFB), then you paid your entry fee, you take your guess. Partner will pass a lot of 3♣ negative type bids with fair six card suits where 2♠. 3♠ or even 4♠ will make.

Both 2♠ and 3♣ (when NFB) seem an undbid to me. This is why I like misho's equality method on this hand, over my double (obstensively showing clubs), I can try to steer the contract to the right level and strain based upon partner's reply.

Marshel Miles would bid 2♠ I think. I woud bid 2♠ if equilty method was not available to me.

Ben