Author Topic: Simple made less simple  (Read 8899 times)

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Simple made less simple
« on: June 01, 2018, 12:06:59 PM »
let’s revisit a topic that is so dangerously simple that we rarely bother thinking about it. Let’s talk about that pesky negative X where X shows only !H ‘s.

*Thank you to the students that brought this up.

Part 1
The Sequence

1st seat, white vs red
1m- (1 !S ) - X

Responder’s Hand
Will post later...

Just so we are all on the same page...

1) How many !H ‘s does X promise?

2) What is the minimum and maximum strength of the X?

3) If responder bids 2 !H ‘s directly, what is s/he promising in length and strength and is it forcing?

**please keep to these questions, we will discuss tangents and underlying mechanisms and the actual hand later.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 12:14:54 PM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2018, 12:39:58 PM »
1. The negative double asks partner to continue on the assumption that responder has exactly four hearts. Responder could possibly alter this later, but for the moment it shows exactly four hearts.

2. The maximum is unlimited. The minimum strength is that he should have enough strength to want to compete. This is needed because after 1m-(1S) responder will often have four hearts and could have anything from a weakish hand to a very strong hand. If a certain strength range is required, then when he is outside of that strength range he will have no way to show his four card heart suit.
Thus, with a flat 6 count and four hearts, a hand which I would have felt compelled to bid 1H on if my rho had passed, I will now, after 1S,  happily pass. With an 8 count and four hearts I will certainly X. With a lousy 7 count I will probably X but if it is really lousy I may well pass. With a 17 count and four hearts I still just X. What else? Bidding 2H would certainly show five hearts.

3. I play 1m-(1S)-2H as 5+ and forcing for one round. Grant and I were discussing this last night. I found a 1982 article by Alan Truscott where he describes playing this as non-forcing and he gives an example of how this worked well. He refers to this approach as "hyper-modern". Well, it was 1982. As it happens, in the discussion with Grant I said I thought that this approach was about 25 years old so this seems to fit. (Edit: Well, I guess 35 years is closer)  Here is the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/26/nyregion/bridge-hyper-modern-bid-seems-reminiscent-of-early-days.html

Myself, I do not care for this approach. Perhaps I am just not "thoroughly hyper-modern Ken", but I prefer not playing this way.  It is my impression, not certain, that these Negative Free Bids as they are called have caught on more in Europe than in North America. I don't know about South America or Australia etc.

I am reasonably confident (I will check it) that NFBs are alertable in ACBL land while, for example, Negative Doubles are not.  I am also close to certain that the bots play 1m-(1S)-2H as forcing and I think this is true in BWS as well. Again I will try to check. Watching vugraph I would say that some play NFBs, some don't.  So it's a matter of agreement, but undiscussed I would take the default meaning to be that 1m-(1S)-2H is forcing.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 02:19:14 PM by kenberg »
Ken

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2018, 01:06:07 PM »
I checked BWS  at https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html#VE

Part V.F is" Competition After Any Suit One-Bid". It says:

"A simple new-suit response over an overcall is forcing (by an unpassed hand). If at the two-level, it is forcing to the next level of opener's suit, and opener's raise of responder's suit is nonforcing."

So: In BWS after 1m-(1S) a bid of 2H is forcing to the level of 3m  (the next level of opener's suit).
And, if opener raises 2H to 3H, that is passable. That's pretty much my preference.
This way, 2H is at least a decent hand with at least five hearts.

BWS is of course not the be all and end all. Nothing is. But it is a consensus of experts for default agreements.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:08:09 PM by kenberg »
Ken

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2018, 01:25:24 PM »
I checked the bots. They play 1m-(1S)-2H as forcing.

http://tinyurl.com/yb52tgbp

You can click on the bids to see the meaning.

And, consistent with BWS, they apparently play that opener's raise of 2H to 3H is non-forcing.

None of this addresses whether NFBs are a good idea or a bad idea. But my opinion is that they have not become all that widespread, including at the expert (eg BWS) level. Some play them, some don't. I am in the "don't" group, along with BWS and my friends the bots.



« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:30:02 PM by kenberg »
Ken

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2018, 01:41:17 PM »
What we have touched on so far is that the X promises at least 4x. Whether that is upgraded or not down the road is immaterial. For instance, we may have a hand that X’ed but due to insufficient values and/or adverse vulnerability does not want to force partner 1rd above 2 !H by utilizing the 2 !H bid directly over 1 !S in the sequence m-(1 !S ) - x/2 !H but still contains 5x and uses the negative x. At the same time we want to allow for the possibility that the negative X is controvertible at which point min values take precedence over length. One must think that while the neg X promises a modicum of !H ‘s perhaps, in this sense is utilized more like a takeout with no real intent to bid over say opener’s 1N or pass (impossible to bid over if no further action from opps).

Pavlichek, Cohen, Wiki vs  BWS appear to differ. We can look at the dates the posts were made but as Ken pointed out there is variation and of course we should assume we are seeing some evolution of ideas across time. Should we stop and simply accept the latest prescriptive mechanism posted as the definitive of the bid’s meaning?

I would hope that the average bridge player would not stop here. Ken’s first post sheds light on perhaps there is another variable influencing the meanings. Perhaps the prescriptive static writing defining the meaning combines the two mechanisms for simplicity sake. Certainly there is the negative X but the second mechanism of freebids, of which there are several types, influence how we employ the first. Ah ha! We find more variation and possibilities.

We could discuss further what freebids are available (feel free to search). We can now turn our attention to the most dominant (majority) treatment combination being used and think about what this means in the larger system. Ken and I were not sure about this but we think that nffb’s are used more abroad than ffb’s in the states. If anyone knows any better please share your voice in the discussion. With this in mind and in consensus with BBO and BWS (the latter above) we will focus further on this combination of mechanisms.


Part 2 to be posted shortly.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:52:05 PM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2018, 02:57:41 PM »
I find navigating the LC site very difficult. At https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/minor-openings   I found my way to

"
In Competition

After an overcall, a cue-bid shows a limit-raise or better [example: 1? (1?) 2?]. A Jump-raise is weak [example: 1? (1?) 3?]. Notrump bids retain the same range as without an overcall.

After a Double, Redouble is 10+ and 1-level responses are forcing one-round.

A jump-raise after a double is weak, while 2NT shows a limit-raise.
"

That doesn't address it.

Further down we find

"For a complete LC Standard card and a prettier version of these articles, visit Bridge Winners"

I clicked on the BW link and it took me to BW but not specifically anything of LC. So I found LC articles on BW, all 58 of them. I haven't read them yet. I like LC well enough but I really have had trouble finding specific articles. So far I have not found where he adresses NFBs.



As to Wikipedia, they describe NFBs but they don't make any recommendation, they are not in the recommending business.

On to Pavlicek. It is much easier to navigate than LC.
http://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm#32
If you go down to After a Suit Overcall we find that
A new suit at the 1 level shows 6+ highs and is forcing.
A new suit at the 2 level shows 9+ highs and is forcing.

So far he does not seem to be recommending NFBs

However, at the top he does say that this is obsolete as of Feb 2015. I have not yet found the updated system.

Off to play f2f. Today, with him, 2H is forcing. More later.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 03:04:32 PM by kenberg »
Ken

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2018, 03:35:14 PM »
Sadly enough, We are missing the point and yes we didn’t find the links I used but really that doesn’t matter. The real point is that there are two mechanisms employed in a static writing  :) . The posts don’t suggest ffb’s nffb’s or etc;  one or the other or to meld it all into one doesn’t do justice to truly understanding. Google on but we will move onto Part 2 shortly.

There is variation, evolution and no this isn’t academia. Cite ur sources and each builds on the other, except that there are multiple sources from many geographic places leading to multiple methods and basic info that isn’t absolute truth (basic research). Anyone recognize this basic pedagogy and the problem gets bonus points. There is a name for it :)

This is about dialogue not discussion, from a cognitive semantic perspective there is a difference.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 04:21:48 PM by ggriffin0 »

Masse24

  • IACAdmins
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +13/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2018, 07:01:33 PM »
1.) Four  !H are promised. But it could be more, and if so, it will be a weak hand, too weak for a 2 !H response.

2.) Maximum strength? Unlimited. Minimum strength? You will likely get some different answers on this, ranging anywhere from 6+ to 8+ HCP.

3.) Bidding 2 !H directly shows 5+  !H and a pretty standard floor is 10+ HCP. It is forcing for one round. It is also unlimited in strength. It is not weaker than double. In fact, the minimum requirement is higher than that for a negative double.
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln


ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2018, 08:10:40 PM »
***thanks  to the two members that posted me on bbo stipulating that the Socratic method does NOT work here.

As to Todd’s point #3, which skips to Part #3, is fascinating. That comparison is based on the particular combination of forcing freebids AND negative doubles. Rightly correct but we are not there yet. It is an important point that both bids are unlimited? One forces 1 round the other well we will see what pans out. We’ll get back to this...Part 3 :)

I see we have 3 more links to suggest a certain point of view that attempts to combine the two mechanisms. This is excellent  and good stuff, but the key here IS NOT about being RIGHT, it is about understanding the myriad possibilities available and the two mechanisms, one of which influences the meaning of the other, then we can truly understand. From another perspective, I suppose I am espousing a point of view indicating that sometimes bridge articles do a disservice mostly because of allotted space or time considerations. Bridge players are not judgmental are they? Anyone can do a search, read through a bridge library and glean the answers. Often times we should just stop and THINK why does something work this way. Is it the only way? It is because it is, is prescriptive and not really an answer. So in turn, these articles attempt to bring us another level or set of levels deeper even if only to find that we have had the correct answer in the first case. But the end result is different it is what it is is more now, it has a rationale, a set of options to be tweaked and an intuitive understanding undergirding the tenets. To this end, we are not simply making judgements, nor are we flipping bids or cards. We are DISCERNING.

Part 2
As responder holding each of these hands, what do you bid IF we are playing in the prescribed sequence?

m-1 !S - ?

1) Qx AK10x xxx QJxx (assume qjxx is Other minor)

2) kxx AKQJ xxx xxx

3) Qx KQxxx AKx xxx

4) xx AKxxx KQx J109

5) xx KQxxx KQx xxx

Seems simple right?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 09:11:12 PM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2018, 08:50:38 PM »
On 1 and 2 I double, on the others I bid 2H.

On 2,3,4 I expect to play in game somewhere, on 5 we will be in a partscore unless partner shows some extra values, on 1 it's too early to say. I expect to be taking another bid on 1 but it will depend a lot on what happens next. It's unlikely that I will let the opponents play undoubled.

I took a brief look at the links Curls put up. The third one was the one I had trouble opening, the Lawrence one opened quickly. I have not read them thoroughly. The Lawrence one addresses 1D-(2C)-X, this is part 5 of a series. Indeed this gets tricky. As always, or at least almost always,  I like the ML approach.

Socrates? Gosh, all hemlock.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 09:35:40 PM by kenberg »
Ken

Masse24

  • IACAdmins
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +13/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2018, 09:36:41 PM »
1.) Double
2.) Double
3.) 2 !H
4.) 2 !H
5.) 2 !H

Pretty standard stuff. And all of these responses are unlimited. At least up to the values that remain in the deck.
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2018, 11:19:22 PM »
I think, for me, the short version is this:
1m-(1S)-2H is forcing unless you and your partner agree that it is not.   If you do agree that it is not, then you need to alert the 2H as non-forcing. Perhaps, when playing NFBs,  the X should also be alerted, there are some online discussions about that.There is a discussion on Bridge Winners, at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/negative-free-bids-and-the-consequences, about some of the implications of NFBs.  For me, I just play 2H as forcing.

Some play NFBs, some don't, I doubt it would be easy to convert me to NFBs, I doubt it would be easy to convert an NFB player to 2H being forcing. And there is no need to seek such a conversion. The literature supports the notion that NFBs are alertable, that takes care of it.
Ken

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2018, 12:14:24 AM »
Part 3

Let us deconstruct the entire set of probabilities and what we think we know about the majority use of negative doubles WITH forcing freebids. With 5 limited sample hands let’s see if we can figure it out.


Some premises:
X is forcing although opener can convert.

2 !H is also forcing but for 1 rd.

There is a minimum range in the 6-8 range (depending on partnership and texture) for the negative X.

The minimum range for the 2 !H bid because of the forcing freebid is higher than the negative X.

Both bids are unlimited.

Both bids can lead to game OR part-score, one at 2 !H , the other a minimum contract of 3m.

Both bids can have 5x, one shows at least 4, the other promises 5.

Assuming we can agree with that and I am sure there are stipulations we haven’t quite solved the mechanism yet. Why? Simply because we have defined the bid doesn’t mean that we can use it to it’s full potential.

Unanswered Questions

How do we choose between the bids? What is the heuristic we employ? How does this affect later sequences? Does this last question inform how we make the choice of what sequence to use based on intent and aim (I.e. over-ride our initial understanding of the mechanism)?

I understand this is all basic but like all things bridge related even the simple can be complex. Once fully understood it becomes basic again :).


kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Simple made less simple
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2018, 12:34:19 AM »
Choosing between X and 2 !H

With only four hearts it is always X if there is enough strength to bid at all. Well, if someone with AQx in spades and four heart spots and 3-4-3-3 shape wants to take a flyer on 1NT instead of double, that's his business but he is on his own if he does that.

So with four hearts the choice is between Pass and X.

Now with 5+ hearts. If I am comfortable forcing to the 3 level, I bid 2 !H

If I am not comfortable forcing to the 3 level I either pass or X.  I am more inclined to pass than some are. I figure RHO has made a simple overcall and I have a modest hand. The auction is unlikely to die here. I might later get a chance to show my hearts. Maybe I won't. But if not, that's because the opps have reached at least 2 !S and remember, the reason I passed is because I am not at all sure we belong at the 3 level.

Passing with AQxxx and maybe a side J does not always work out, but neither does doubling always work out. It depends. If I have this modest hand with five hearts  and partner has opened 1 !D, overcalled 1 !S, then with three diamonds I feel reasonably safe in doubling. If pard bids 2 !C I will convert to 2 !D. We will probably survive. For that matter, they will often go on to 2 !S.  But I do think passing with a weak hand has some merit. Call me crazy.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2018, 01:13:28 PM by kenberg »
Ken