Hoki review yesterday

[wackojack]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-2568068875-1554926518

This hand generated a lively discussion about forcing bids.  Hoki maintained that the sequence 1  - 1 -2 -2 is not forcing in his book.  Also the sequence 1 -1 -2  -4  is normally just an invitation to 5 and you would need a special agreement with your partner if you wanted 4  to be forcing.  Many saw  both these sequences to be forcing as I do.  Comments?

At my table West came in with a very unusual overcall of 2  announced as showing  and another suit.  That complicated the issue somewhat.  Assume as at other tables the auction was uncontested.  6 is an excellent contract.  How do you get there? 1  - 1 -2 -4  -4  - 4 -   Now what?  Or are there any other gadgets that would help you get to the club slam?
 

[kenberg]

After 1 -1 -2    responder is unlimited and so needs a forcing bid. If 2 is not forcing then something else has to be. For me, 2 is forcing.  I am pretty sure that the bots play 1 -1 -2    - 2 as forcing as well. I see the logic as: Responder is not running from 2 , rather he is saying "I am not yet ready to quit" Maybe after responder's 2 / 2!H opener cahnbid 2 or 2NT  or something. If nothing good develops, they can get out, maybe in 3 .

I'll look around a bit and see what I can find in the literature but 2 seems forcing to me absent a special agreement.

Possibly tat intervention with Michaels, seriously daring red against white and I thnik pretty seriously daring even of not red against white, could be put to good use.

But of course there is a danger of misunderstanding.

Over 3 S bids 4 . I think are now trump. So 4 is commitment to 5 and inviting  6. Maybe partner bids 8, maybe not. It's one f those things where we can look at all four hands and say of course 4 invites 6 and of course S bids 6 but does that happen with real people at the table?

Same thing with 1  - 1 -2 -4  -4  - 4 .  I think S can relax about the !s suit after this auction. It's true that N has not cued but he has certainly encouraged S and he might well just go. Don't send me the bill if it is wrong.

[wackojack]

100% agree with you.  Sometimes it concerns me that because I live on the other side of the Atlantic we speak a different language.  Glad to hear that it is Hoki that has the unusual dialect.   

[kenberg]

100% agree with you.  Sometimes it concerns me that because I live on the other side of the Atlantic we speak a different language.  Glad to hear that it is Hoki that has the unusual dialect.   

Unless life is different there than it is here, you do not have to cross an ocean to find dialects. As it happens, there is a conference going on and a friend who lives in Florida was up here in Maryland. He is taking beginning bridge lessons and is finding it confusing. He knows Stayman and Jacloby Transers, and has heard of Blackwood and Drury but doesn't know what they are. So it's fair to say that he is a beginner.  He was saying he learned that if partner opens 1NT and this is overcalled by 2 then X is a Jacoby transfer to . I explained that this is called Stolen and that some people play it but that I don't, or at least prefer not to. This led into a discussion. I told him that this is just the way bridge is. Best not to assume what something means to someone if not discussed.  Jonathan (my friend) is a mathematician, as am I, so I thought he might enjoy a squeeze. I gave him a 7NT had with exactly three tricks in ! and , and a three tops in and with a potential for four tricks in either suit if the suit were to split 3-3. I asked if he could figure out how to play it if one of the defenders had 4+ in both the minors. He struggled but got it. There is  of course  a natural tendency to try the minors first but I told him that that would not  work and I suggested as a hint that 13-6=7. Eventually that did it for him.

I think lessons are good. I also think some care is needed.


I also suggested that he go easy on conventions and keep it simple.

[kenberg]

Playing with the bots, the sequence discussed above came up:

1 - 1 - 2 -  2 . 

The bot alert described this as 3+ , 4+ , 12+ total points, forcing to 3NT. Now forcing to 3NT is a bit rich for me and it would not have made, but they can make ten tricks in unless there is an inspired and unlikely lead of a at T1. They went on to 5 .   At any rate, the bots play this sequence as forcing. That doesn't prove all that much other than that different people/bots have different ideas about how a sequence should be played. Myself, I think one round forcing is just fine.

This can be a delicate matter. It's not  unusual for someone giving a lesson to suggest agreements that I would not adopt. It is not intended as disrespect, it's just a matter of some people seeing things one way, others seeing it differently. in the case at hand, it seems to me that playing 2 as non-forcing is going to cause problems. I imagine I could construct a hand where I would like 2 to be non-forcing but I think the hands where I would want it to be forcing would be much more common. Whoever programmed the bots seem to agree.

On most everything I think assertions should be seen as a starting point for discussion. That's just life.

[Masse24]

I just noticed this post, so I’m late to the party.

In a “Standard” system, 2 is absolutely forcing. One-round forcing is how I would interpret it. As Ken mentions, since responder is unlimited, he needs a forcing bid.

If this auction 1 – 1 – 2 – 2 . . . if 2 is somehow not forcing, then presumably some sort of jump to the three-level is required to force? Barring special agreements, I think this: “a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing” to be a fairly standard starting point for undiscussed “standard” methods. Undiscussed.

When questions like this arise, I always assume a standard system. And like the Bridge World MSC problems, I assume that partner is an expert, but that we are “not a regular partnership.” So back to undiscussed. Could the auction above be played as non-forcing? Sure, I suppose anything can be agreed to.

In Ken’s first response he mentions a similar auction:
1 – 1 – 2 – 2 . Forcing? If we play that a “new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing,” it means that yes, it is. Undiscussed, I would always assume this to be forcing. But if I can get partner to agree to it, with discussion, I prefer to play it non-forcing, treating the 2 rebid like a 1NT rebid, and 2 like NMF. This allows the auction 1 – 1 – 2 – 2 to be played as non-forcing, just like after a 1NT rebid by opener. With the opening and rebid, 2 is now forcing one-round, as there is no room for a forcing artificial bid. I first read about this treatment several years ago in an article by Billy Miller. I’ve seen it discussed from time to time on the forums. As I mentioned, I prefer it, with discussion.

As always, coming to a consensus about what is "standard" is the problem. Every corner of the globe has its own firmly entrenched ideas about what is right. 

[Masse24]

Back to your original question, Jack, about how the auction might go with gadgets---but most especially, agreements.

How about:
1 – 1
2 ^a – 2 ^b
3 ^c – 3 ^d
3NT^e – 4 ^f
4 ^g – 5 ^h
5 ⁱ – 5 ^j
6 ^k

a) Shows six-plus
b) Forcing. Could be artificial. Opener should clarify major length
c) Denies three card support. Depending on agreements, may deny four
d) stopped. Forcing to game. From opener's perspective, strain still in doubt. Could be grope for 3NT.
e) To Play.
f) Slam interest. agreed. Previous 3 now clarified as an advance cuebid.
g) Kickback. agreed.
h) Two keycards WITH the Queen. Known 10 card fit, so showing the Queen is proper.
i) King ask. Shows all keycards and trump Queen.
j) Shows King. Denies King. If the suit were a little more solid, I would be tempted to just bid the grand here.
k) Okay, let's stop here.

One possible auction with a gadget and agreements and some wishful thinking. 

[kenberg]

A couple of thoughts.

Bidding 3 !h and then pulling 3NT to 4 as a way of showing a control and an interest in a slam matches with my way of thinking. I don't think I have seen that frequently discussed in the literature as a general method, but it just seems logical. If I make a bid that will often be a try for reaching 3NT, and then, when partner bids 3NT, I pull, clearly I have something else in mind and partner should be able to work out what it is.

As to using 2 over 1 !!C - 1H - 2 in the NMF style to leave 2 available for a weak hand with 5/4 shape, I have done that and I like it well enough.  It comes with a cost. The alternative is to treat 2 as a more or less natural call, forcing for one round. Partner, with his long , might also have values,  be glad to hear that you have something in , and bid NT.  If 2 is just a NMF force then pard may have values in one red suit or the other but be unsure of whether the other red sit is wide open.  Still, the NMF treatment has its good points. Some people play that after 1 - 1 - 2 then 3 is also used this way. I think that's going too far. Here we are at the 3 level  with no idea which strain we are playing in.


Here is a NT disaster from the ther day. Imp, all vul, playing with bots, dealer holds:

:  AQ2
: 86
: KQJT6
: Q43


1 - (1 ) - 2 - (Pass)
 ?

The 2 is limit raise or better in , 11+ total points.  It seemed to me that I wanted to play 3NT if partner has some values so I bid 2 and, when partner bid 2nT I raised to 3NT. All well and good except partner now raised to 4NT. There are 9 easy tricks but in trying to find a 10th I went down 3 for -13 imps. 4NT was makable and maybe I should have made it, I think I should have, but 3NT, where most everyone else was, would have been a lot easier.


http://tinyurl.com/y5pufabh
The software switched me to being North after the auction..

[wackojack]

Thoughts on the Masse auction;
(a) showing 6+  s I have an issue:  Opener could have 1435 distribution.  Even with 12-14 points few would decide to rebid 1NT and with a little stronger but too light for a reverse you are forced to rebid 2 with 5 cards.  However after opener bids 3 this is corrected. 

I would not bank on partner having 4 card club support although it looks likely.  The most pessimistic interpretation of responders's bidding is having a holding like:
  AKJ10x    A    QJ95    Q53.  This hand looks to have very good chances of making at least 12 tricks.  So with a thorough understanding that:
(i) 4  is not Gerber......... !  Only joking!  That 4 is a slam try and this turns the earlier 3 bid into a control bid.
(ii) 4 is kickback and not cueing the K (What are the rules for when 4 is kickback and not a cue?)
this is a brilliant auction.   

[Masse24]

Yes, Jack. Understood about the “showing six” statement. It doesn’t necessarily, although it’s implied. I should have written "implies six."  I, too, will rebid 2 with the right hand and only five cards in the suit. But it has to be the right hand. If I do, the suit is chunky. Something like AKJTx (or similar) works. And I will even (rarely) rebid 1NT with a stiff in partner’s suit. It’s all about hand texture.

As to your “when is 4 a control?” question. It isn’t. If playing Kickback when the suit is agreed at the 4-level, the Kickback bid and 4NT are switched so that a control would be shown with 4NT.