Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,
I like your test, but come to exactly the opposite conclusion on this hand.
Give partner, e.g. KQxxx-Qxx-Axx-xx (not even an opening bid IMO) and he likely would rebid 4, yet 6 is good.
The problem is he doesn't know about the big trick source in s to which his :Qxx contributes mightily.

That is why I think it is best to start with 2 and splinter in support of s next round.
A 5 card side suit which will produce 5 tricks when partner has just the Q needs to be shown IMO.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I passed but am a little surprised to find that the unanimous choice (so far–22 votes).

Perhaps I've been reading BWers too much.
I would have thought there might be some merit in opting to play 5m, perhaps via 4NT “pick a minor”.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The choices offered are kind of strange with only one choice allowed.
I would think that the meaning of virtually all calls (as long as they are not illegal meanings) are “a matter of partnership agreement”. So a partnership can agree to treatments which are played by few (if any) others.

But if the question is “what is the usual meaning of a 2 level new suit non-jump response after 1M-(DBL)-?) playing standard 2/1 GF methods”, then the answer is definitely NON-FORCING.
It used to be that the *only* non-raise strong response in such situations was redouble.
But now-adays, I think most play that new suit responses at the *1-level* are forcing after 1X-(DBL)-?.

But as some others noted, even saying that 1M-(DBL)-2X is “nonforcing” is not really enough to describe what sort of hands the partnership will expect for this call.

Could it be, say, 10 HCPs with a good 6 card suit, e.g.
xx-xx-KQJxxx-Axx after 1-(DBL)-2???
Certainly, one could call that hand “non-forcing” as it is not strong enough to insist on game opposite minimum 1 opening.
But I do not think that is the type of hand most mean for “non-forcing 2 level new suit responses” over RHO's take-out double. I think the same hand without the A would be closer to a maximum than to a minimum for most.
The exact meaning is affected by how jump shift responses (e.g. 1-(DBL)-3) are played. Many today play those as some sort of a raise–either a splinter or, more often, as a “fit showing” bid of invitational strength.

Not having a natural, weak jump shift available puts even more pressure on the range of the simple 2-level new suit bid. In fact, the range is probably too large to be playable.
This is why many play transfer advances over 1M-(DBL).
By transferring into the suit, one can show both weak hands with a long suit (transfer and pass) and invitational strength hands with a long suit (transfer and raise) as well as other useful hand types (e.g. transfer and correct to opener's major to show 8-10 with Hx in partner's suit and a 6 card side suit).
Opener always accepts the transfer with any hand that would have passed a “weak NF” response of 2 of the suit.
Only with a hand that would have bid again over a weak natural new-suit response will opener not accept the transfer (he will instead rebid whatever he would have over a natural, weak 2 level response).
Dec. 2
Craig Zastera edited this comment Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not expect partner to remove to 5 unless he had 6 s (OK, maybe some hands with 5 very strong s and very offensive orientation might do it).

Doubles at this high a level do not promise true support for all unbid suits and do not suggest removal without a very long suit and strong offensive orientation.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure I understand why a 3 jump rebid would be so bad.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not the “Bridge World Death Hand.”
That one is a strong hand with exactly *3 card support* for responder's major (after 1m-1M auction start), usually with a 6+ card minor.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not “patently false” as long as you recognize that there are other ways of handling a strong minor suit single suiter, e.g. transfers (or just using 2NT which I believe is what Robson suggests).

When the auction starts 1M-(2M Michaels), the key to winning the ensuing competitive auction is often diagnosing our “secondary fit”. That is, if we have big fits in 2-suits, that will argue for much more aggressive bidding then when we lack such a fit.

As Robson explains:
  "Over 1♥/1♠, the cue-bid is usually played to show a
two-suiter with the other major and an unspecified
minor. In such auctions (involving two-suited bids
where one suit is unknown) it is often the first
partnership who can gauge their second-suit fit, or
misfit, who will come out ‘on top’. That is why we
feel it is important that responder should be able
to describe his support (when support he has) as
accurately as possible. For only thus can he
really make his partner ‘boss’ of the auction."

He goes on to describe common auction continuations, e.g.
1 (2) 3 (4)
??
or
1 (2) 4 (4)
??
where opener will be left with a complete guess if he doesn't know about responder's long minor suit.

Using responder's 3m bids as “Fit Non Jumps” provide the solution to this very common type of competitive dilemma.
The cost of giving up the use of the competitive 3m response to show a strong single suiter without a fit (which apparently is not even how those bids are defined by many) is not very severe, both because those hands are less common and because there are alternative ways to handle them.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I neglected to specify, but our 2NT range is 20-21 HCPs.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Francis,
Did you read the passage I quoted from Robson?

He explains (a) that on a frequency of occurrence basis, it is much better to play 3m as “fit showing” after 1M-(Michaels)-? than to play 3m as “natural, strong”, and (b) if you happen to hold a strong hand with one minor (and no fit for opener's major) you either DOUBLE or agree to use 2NT to show a strong minor single suiter.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I personally do not play this way (FNJs for us), I think many, probably a majority play, for example, that after 1M-(2N unusual)-3OM is NF (something like a pre-empt or weak 2 in OM, quite possibly only 6 cards).

Playing that 1M-(2M Michaels)-3m is analagous to that style so that responder can show a pre-emptive type hand with a long minor suit.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The line you suggest is required for 13 tricks on a lead. I will agree that not everyone would find it “in real life.”
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shouldn't South get some share of the blame for failing to bid (e.g. show his suit) over East's double?
Nov. 29
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what “many experts” means.
It is certainly not part of Bridge World Standard which is based on concensus of “many experts.”
Here is one result from a BWS poll of experts relevent to this discussion:
"1516-1519:
After one of a minor - (1) - double
[showing at least four s], . . .
1516. Is responder limited to exactly four s?
A. no [18]
B. yes [82]"
Here the numbers (18 vs. 82) are the number of expert votes for each choice. It is clear that a large majority of the (polled) experts prefer the negative double after a (1) overcall to show *exactly four s*.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see that here.
But I seem to recall a similar MSC problem from awhile back where 2NT was (surprisingly?) popular despite lack of a stopper. I think the idea of those who liked it was that overcaller rarely has AKQ in his suit.

I'm not a fan of the “stopperless 2NT”, but I do find it preferable to the cue-bid (2 in OP problem) because I believe that call is generally regarded as establishing a game-force. The OP hand is clearly not good enough for a GF, so I regard a GF cue-bid as *worse* than a stopperless 2NT (which at least is not GF).

I had thought that some used the cue-bid to show (or at least to include) “18-19 balanced without a stopper”, but my research has not found support for that idea–it appears to me that most regard the cue-bid as GF.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike,
Quite sure.
See my quotations above from both “Bridge World Standard” documentation which clearly states that 3m by responder is NF after RHO overcalls partner's 1M opening with 2M Michaels), and my quote from Andrew Robson (part of a much longer discussion on the subject) where he advocates that 3m *by responder* should be played as “Fit-showing non-jumps” after partner's 1M opening is overcalled 2M, Michaels, by RHO).
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2 were not GF, that might be a good choice.
But I fear “expert standard” would interpret 2 as a GF.

That leaves a stopperless 2NT (18-19 balanced, NF) or a reverse into 2 short 1 as the only plausible choices.
The latter appeals to me, but I suspect 2NT would garner a fair number of votes in an MSC poll.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing Cappalletti (transfer responses) over 1M-X would be perfect with this South hand.

After 1-(DBL), South bids 2–a transfer to s.
His plan is to follow the expected 2 with 2 which shows a doubleton honor, *6* s, and around 8-10 HCPs.

Of course, on this deal, North will do something more dramatic over 2. Probably jump to 4 as this would have play even opposite something like x-QJTxxx-xxx-xxx
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only a lead (A if from West) holds a contract to 12 tricks.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I commented above, better not respond 3 unless you and partner have a firm understanding as to what that call means and whether it is forcing or not.

Standard (see above quote) is that it would be natural but NON-FORCING.

An alternative (see Robson quote above) is that it is natural, forcing, AND PROMISES A FIT.

And judging from some other comments above, it appears that some think it is natural and forcing (but not promising a fit).
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Always good to check.
Sometimes I find somewhat surprising results that are not obvious.
For example, simulations show that playing in 3NT with a 5-3 major suit fit and two balanced hands, particularly with a few extra HCPs (e.g. 28) is often a winner at matchpoints but generally (i.e. on average) not at IMPs.
Nov. 28
.

Bottom Home Top