An issue that came up in Donna's session

[kenberg]

On one of Donna's hand the auction began 1 - 2 - Pass 2 and in the later discussion I mentioned that a partnership has to decide if the 2 was forcing. Here is an auction from the Mike Lawrence book The Complete Book of Overcalls, page 167:


It begins:

1 - 2 - Pass - 2
Pass - ?

The recommended call was Pass, so I guess at least for ML the 2 was non-forcing.

The overcalling hand was

: A62
: 3
: Q54
: AQT654

Comment from ML:

You want better clubs to rebid them and you want a better hand to try notrump. Your stiff heart will be a bigger liability at notrump than at hearts.

When I brought up whether or not the 2 was forcing, my point was that not everyone plays it as forcing and ML seems to agree. I am not so much saying whether it should be played as forcing or non-forcing, I am fine with consulting experts (who probably do not all agree). But some do play it as non-forcing. The fact is that you cannot have everything. Sometimes, after 1 - 2 - Pass , I will have a hand where i would like to make a constructive but non-forcing 2 call. When that hand comes up, I will be glad 2 is non-forcing. Of course there can be other hands where I would wish 2 were forcing.


Here is what Bridge World Standard says:

(a) A new-suit bid by an unpassed advancer is natural and nonforcing, constructive if an advance of a two-level overcall. (Then: a cue-bid by intervenor is artificial and neither shows nor denies a primary fit for advancer's suit.) A new-suit jump is invitational.

So also with BWS the new suit is not forcing.


In the hand from Donna: 1 - 2 - Pass 2 ,  we see that ML and BWS play the 2 as NF. I don't doubt that we can find experts who play it as forcing.

[Masse24]

I missed that hand. I had to bolt to entertain out of town guests.

But regarding the hand you referenced, I too play it as non-forcing. When I first learned to play, I played it as forcing (new suit by an unpassed hand-that whole mantra). It made sense to me and dovetailed nicely into the "new suit by responder is forcing" logic. Plus it was simple. There was no need to remember a new rule.

Then I started seeing better players pass such advances, so I researched the topic. Bridge World Standard was one source, and is generally a good place to start. But it was BWS 2001 that I researched. This treatment bifurcated the advances after a one-level overcall (non-forcing), and a two-level overcall (forcing). That is how I once played it with a longtime partner. We had mistakes.

Now, BWS 2017 has changed all new suit advances to non-forcing. This is easier to remember. And this is how I currently play it. Opposite an expert I assume this method to be standard.

Certainly a point to discuss with a new partner.

[kenberg]

Yes, I think the situation after a 2 level overcall is very different from after a 1 level overcall. After, say, 1 - 1 - Pass - ? I think just about everyone plays 1 as non-forcing. The 1 - 2 - Pass - 2 may have less universal agreement.

It could be profitable to discuss further.  For example I view  1 - 1 - Pass - 2 as also not quite forcing.A very good hand and good spades, but that 1 is often on not much so 2 can, in a pinch, be passed. But not much is needed to go on. That's different from 1 - 1 - Pass - 1 , which is quite often passed.

[OliverC]

If you're playing Unassuming Cue Bids, the whole issue becomes moot:


(1 ) - 1 - (No) - ??


If Advancer wants to set up any kind of forcing sequence they would start with a UCB of 2 , which is showing either at least a decent 3-level raise in Hearts or any strong hand that wants to set up a forcing sequence. Which of the two Advancer has is clarified with their rebid. By definition any sequence that doesn't proceed via a UCB is non-forcing.


In response to a UCB, the overcaller assumes the 3-level raise (which advancer will automatically have if they're a passed hand) and clarifies their hand accordingly.


You may call UCBs something different where you live, of course.

[kenberg]

Opposite the 1 level overcall the UCB is, I think, pretty clear cut. After 1 - 1 - Pass ? advanceer with a good hand and a good spade suit can either bid 2 , showing good hand, good suit but passable, or he can bid 2 expecting/hoping to be able to follow this with 2 . After a 2 level overcall it gets interesting, if that's the right word. As mentioned, this came up in an auction that began 1 - 2 - Pass - ?  Fourth hand has a good hand and a good spade suit. BWS and Mike Lawrence, and you, and Todd, and me, consider a 2 call here as non-forcing.  With a hand that is to good for 2 he could make the UCB. Often partner will then bid 3 (that's what would have happened here) and now he can bid 3 forcing. So bidding this way forces the auction to 3NT or higher. On the hand that he had, this would be right, I think. I think 1 - 2 - Pass - 3 shows a fine hand and a fine suit but if we go with the approach you suggest then this is still passable. It could be worthwhile to look at some hands with thoughts about which should be bid with an immediate 3 , which begin with the UCB.

The hand in question was:

: KQJT32
: KJ
: AT
: J52


That seems like enough. But it brings up some questions. Weaken it a bit to a direct 3 . How much weaker would that be? And, with the hand as it is,  if partner does not fit spades at all, what happens next? Probably this hand belongs in 4 even if pard has very little in spades.

So I suggest: Contributors might vary this hand, assume the auction starts 1 - 2 - Pass,  and then say what they think warrants UCB followed by 3 , what they think is a direct 3 , and what they think is a 2 call.

[wackojack]

I will stick for the moment to the issues arising from the actual auction.  1  -(2  ) - (pass) -2  .

I am trying hard to see the virtue in ,making this simple change-of-suit bid as non-forcing.  Then the first question that arises is do you play it as (a) contract improvement or (b) constructive and and invitational.

(a) Contract improvement:  You have a weak hand with a 6 card spade suit and a likely a club shortage.  You are telling partner that you think 2  will play better than 2  .  This rarity is like landing on a pin imo.  Much better to pass and if opps compete (as is likely), now you can bid 2  .  You have described your hand well.

(b) Constructive and invitational but non forcing.  So partner presumably has the option to pass.  If this is so then the bids that appear to be available if you want to force to game are 3  or the cue of 2  .  Oliver says that if you want to set up any kind of forcing sequence you make the UCB of 2  .  Oliver does not make it clear if this means a game forcing sequence or a one round force.  I assume that it has to be a game forcing sequence.    1  -(2  ) - (pass) -(2  ! ); p-(3  ) -p -(3 )  If 3  is not a game forcing then you have no means of showing  spades as highly invitational and yet passable unless you make the jump shift of 3 as game forcing.  And the question arises what is the difference between to fast route to 3  and the slow route to 3  ?   

The hand in question was:

: KQJT32
: KJ
: AT
: J52

So if the bidding goes 1  -(2  ) - (pass) -(2  ! ); p-(3  ) -p -(3 ).  All you have succeeded in telling partner is that you have a game forcing hand with at least 6 spades.  Partner with a singleton spade does not know that you have 3 card  support or that you have stops in    and   !Hs.  If fact you have told your partner very little.

Thus  I see very little reason to make the simple  change of suit bid of 2  as non forcing.  As soon as you make it forcing you can get in another layer of bidding to exchange more information.  Then:
1  -(2  ) - (pass) -(2  ) F1
p-(3 ) inv -p -(4  ) control slam interest - (4 ) = no A  and no slam interest all pass

I rest my case.

   

[kenberg]

1 - 2 - Pass -? I think the meaning of 2 , when played as non-forcing, is "I am prepared to play 2 ". I am not trying to be cute here, I am saying that the 2 bidder looks at his hand and thinks 2 looks like a reasonable contract. It's not a run from 2 , it's simply an announcement of what he thinks his hand is worth. Maybe he plays 2 . Fine, Maybe the opponents bid again. Fine, one player knows his partner has spades, the other knows his partner has clubs, they can bid on if this seems right. If they pass it out, they have a good idea of how to at least start the defense. And of course sometimes the 2 bidder will hear the 2 and think that there might well be a game in spades.

Should 1 - 2 - Pass - 3 be forcing? It's not all that easy to find much about this auction in the literature, at least not  explicitly. It's easier to find an auction such as 1 - 1 - Pass - 2 which is generally played as highly invitational but not forcing. But a jump to 3 in response to a 2 level overcall? Harder to find explicitly but I get the idea that this is also regarded as highly invitational but not forcing. So then, with a hand such as the one actually held, the choices would be a direct jump to 4 or the UCB followed by 3 . The latter is probably best, on some hands maybe we want to be in 3NT.

As a kib, where we were encouraged to speak,  at the time of the auction, my point was that players need to decide whether the 2 was forcing. Given that hand, surely the 2 was intended as forcing and was taken to be forcing. But with others, they play it differently.   After an overcall at the 1 level, I strongly believe that a bid of a new suit by advancer should not be forcing, and a jump in a new suit by advancer, eg 1 - 1 - Pass - 2 ,  should also not be forcing but should be highly invitational. When the overcall, aswas the case,  is at the 2 level then I am more uncertain but as near as I can see, the literature supports the idea that new suits are not forcing.

[OliverC]

I hesitate to inject yet another layer of complexity into this, but here's a little plug for using Lebensohl in any natural competitive sequence sequence that has reached the 2-level (as OCP does). This is not an easy usage to learn and get straight with a partner as it does create multiple new nuances in these kinds of sequences:


(1 ) - 2 - (No) - ??


Now:

• 2 is a UCB, forcing for one round, but any subsequent bid of a new suit is forcing.
• 2 is just competitive. The 2 bidder probably has a tolerance for Clubs but it does depend on the length and quality of their Spades.
• 3 is a decent constructive raise but short of the requirements of a UCB). If advancer simply wanted to compete in Clubs, they could bid 2NT Leb and pass the 3 bid from Partner.
• 3 is a decent Spade suit, but this is not forcing (because no UCB) and not invitational (See the Leb sequence below). They will almost certainly have a decent tolerance for Clubs.
• 2NT - 3 - 3 is genuinely invitational in Spades with a decent 5+-card Spade suit
• 2NT - 3 - 3 OCP would play as GF in Clubs with some kind of first or second-round control in Diamonds, but that's a completely different discussion. You could also agree to play this as GF and Staymanic with a Diamond stop, but you're more likely to start off with a UCB with that hand in the hope that the 2 bidder can show a 4-card Major at the 2-level.

Competitive Leb is not for the faint-hearted and it does take a while for you to get your head around all of the different permutations and combinations, but a lot of this starts from the assumption that any forcing sequence will start with a UCB.

[jcreech]

Its been a number of years for me, but this seems very similar to Marty Bergen's good/bad 2NT.

Having been away from the theoretical development for about 20 years, a lot of the ideas generated in the aftermath of lebensohl in NT and weak 2 auctions have been renamed lebensohl.  The other one I am thinking of is the Wolf signoff is now lebensohl over reverses.  Or is it all my imagination?

[kenberg]

About complexity: I don't fear it, but it's not for people who want to "play around". At various times of my life bridge has assumed different levels of intensity. There have been times where a partner and I have bought the same book, studied it in detail, and played it that way. With that level of commitment, complex agreements can work well. Right now, I have a f2f partner, Carl,  that I play with once a week when we have the time, but not this week, he is off to the ocean, not last week, we had grandkids visiting, but once a week usually. We play something that more or less resembles SAYC and there are a lot of auctions that I hope don't come up because we haven't discussed them. With online partners, I have probably discussed fewer sequences than I have with Carl.

I started a thread on what means what. My basic thoughts: We have to know which bids are artificial and which are natural. We have to know which bids are forcing, which are encouraging but not forcing, and which bids are intended as sign-offs.  Whether we are speaking of IAC, or a pick-up game on BBO, or a game at the local club, often these simple issues have not been sorted out.  The hand that prompted this thread is an example. I would play that 2 bid as constructive but non-forcing. I have been somewhat surprised by the pretty broad agreement in the literature. I had no idea how BWS played it, but now I find BWS treats it as non-forcing. At least BWS2017 does.

Often people tell me that the they play a certain sequence is "standard". I am skeptical. Carl will sometimes explain that he likes to play things "just down the middle of the fairway".He is a golfer. Sure, people often disagree on just where the middle of the fairway is. I have no idea whether "2 is non-forcing" is the middle of the fairway although, after a bid of browsing, it seems like it is.

Oliver, you set out a detailed OCP program, you lecture on it, you lecture on the generalized Leb sequences. I have not gotten into this, but it is not because I don't think it is good. It's simply my nature to keep artificial bids to a minimum. I like it that way, and then I can play with Carl and usually we can play 224 boards at the club where our judgment, good or bad, governs how it all goes. No doubt some complex system would help, but only if we both learned the same complex system.

Another way of putting it: First a pair needs to decide whether that 2 bid is forcing. That's essential. Then, after they play together for a while, and decide that they would like to be seriously competitive, then they might decide to take up Leb in such a sequence. Often they never get to the first part.

[kenberg]

I got to thinking more about complexity. I mentioned Carl is a golfer. Here is a true story, fwiw.

When I was 13 or so I ran scores for the St. Paul Open. It was a pretty big deal, Sam Snead, Tommy "Thunder" Bolt, etc. It looked good so I biked down to the Salvation Army, bought a bag and some clubs, the most expensive club was seventy-five cents, some balls, and I would get up early before the grounds keepers were at the course and play. I took the view that I had this club in my hand, the ball was on the ground, and I was to hit the ball with the club. It was fun. When I was in college I signed up for a course from a golf teacher whom, I was told, the pros flew in to take lessons from. It pretty much ruined my game. If I had had the time to thoroughly get into it, probably all would have gone well. But golf was something that did when I had time, not my future profession. ."Whack the ball with the club" was about what I was up for.

And yes, strange things cross my mind while I am drinking my morning coffee.

Now let me take up my own challenge of variations on the hand, using the UCB


1. The original:

: KQJT32
: KJ
: AT
: J52


2 followed by 3 looks fine to me. 4 seems safe, and pard with extras can say so with a cue bid.

2.

: KQJT32
: J32
: AT
: J5


3 seems right. We can play it there, we can play 4 if partner has more than a minimum and hopefully a spade or 2.


: KQJT32
: J32
: QT
: J5

We should be able to make 2 , maybe not, but usually, and if they compete to the 3 level pard can look at his/her shape and decide if 3 seems right.


Something like that seems right to me.

[wackojack]

Much to my surprise it seems that the expert view is that "A change of suit by advancer should not be forcing"  I feel that this is retrograde and so I go back to basics in my analysis to see if I can understand this expert view.

Take a very simple 1 over 1 overcall:  1  - (1  ) - pass- (?)  Let us initially say we make the overcall with a 5 card suit. Its range can be from about 8 to 18.  Compare this with an opening bid with 5 spades.  This range is from about 11 to 20.  So the overcall range is 11 and the opening bid range is 10.  Not much difference there.  The big difference is that the overcall's range starts 3 points lighter.  However, when we are advancer we get an advantage over when we are responder because we get free of charge 2 additional bids to show support for partner's suit.  The cue of 2  to show 10+ HCP and 3 card spade support and the cue of 3  showing about 10+HCP and 4 card support. 

Say we are playing SAYC where a 2 over 1 response requires about 11 HCP and a 5 card suit.  Now imagine that we are playing SAYC -3, where an opening bid can be made on 8HCP instead of 11 and say partner opens 1  range 8 to 18. (Or a strong club system where the 1  range is 8-16)  (Illegal I know, this is a thought experiment). Then all we need to do is to adjust our responding system to SAYC +3.  In other words a 2 over 1 response requires 14.  We we have no qualms about it being forcing no more than in SAYC we play 1  - 2  as forcing when we have 11.  The forcing 2 over 1 advance actually has an advantage over the SAYC 2 over 1 (and 2/1 game force for that matter) in that advancer denies 3 card spade support because with a strong hand can make a  cue bid with 3 card support. 

Then with all this advantage, that the cue gives, do we really think we can get a further advantage making the cue into a general purpose force?  I am just not convinced. To me it looks like extra complexity with greater risk of misunderstandings for little or no gain.  Yes you can produce hands where advancer might like to bid a non forcing 6 card suit at the 2 level.  Yet imagine that partner opens 1  .  Would you regret that you could not respond say 2  with a 6 card suit and fewer than your agreed requirements for a 2 over 1 response.  It would not cross your mind.  You would just accept it. 

Ken, you talked about complexity.  Just say(for the sake of argument)  that I could be persuaded that there is a theoretical advantage in making advancers change of suit non forcing.  I would still need to be persuaded that the extra complexity is worth the possible cost of serious misunderstandings with disastrous outcomes.   

Oliver, sorry I have ignored your piece.  I am attracted to these Lebensohl type bids.  Maybe it is time for me to look at all 2NT bids in competitive situations and get a general rule.  Like perhaps "All 2NT bids are conventional"  and then sort out what they should mean.  Or list exceptions.   

 

[kenberg]

Complexity is an issue, but there are degrees of complexity. For responding to overcalls, let's look at three cases.

1. Overcall is at the one level, the response is a new suit at the one level: 1 - 1 - Pass - 1M. I think just about the entire world plays this as non-forcing.

2. Overcall is at the one level, response is a new suit at the 2 level: 1 - 1 - Pass - 2 .  Most play this as non-forcing.

3. Overcall is at the 2 level, response is a new suit at the 2 level: 1 - 2 - Pass 2 . Here, playing it as non-forcing might be less universal although there is more agreement than I had thought that there was.

If some cases are forcing and some non-forcing then there is no way around it, it has to be discussed which is which. So we can avoid complexity by playing it as forcing in all cases or as non-forcing in all cases. Otherwise we have to choose.


Now to the case for non-forcing. I have Mike Lawrence's book on 2/1 and he begins with a discussion of why play it? He even discusses four card majors versus five card majors. His opinion is that for part score bidding and for game bidding, neither approach is clearly superior, it is in slam bidding that the 2/1 system is clearly superior. I think something like this applies in discussing forcing and non-forcing responses to overcalls. When the opponents open the bidding, we are rarely going to slam, and often not going to game. We want a system that allows us to compete effectively.
Take that third variant that I mentioned above. Lho opens 1 , partner overcalls 2 !c, Rho passes, I have

: KQJT32
: J32
: QT
: J5

My guess is that we can happily play 2 . I don't want it to be forcing, I just want to play 2 . And it jams up their auction. This is useful.

There is one more thing about non-forcing bids: Suppose I bid 2     after 1 - 2 - Pass and partner raises to 3 . If 2 was forcing then I have not learned much since I have forced partner to bid. His 3 says "Well, you forced me to bid so I am, this is the best I can do". If 2 was non-forcing then his 3 says "Partner, I could have passed but I am raising you to 3 "   This is informative. I still might pass, but if I am at a max for my non-forcing 2 then I bid game.

Some of this will come to personal preference. It is hardly news that bidding styles vary widely. My preference is for non-forcing responses, I think that they arise fairly often and work fairly well. If I were playing with a pick up and if I were dealt the hand that started this, namely

: KQJT32
: KJ
: AT
: J52

then I think I would just bid 4 . If we haven't discussed it, that seems right. Hopefully he won't think that it's a splinter (he can look at the probable one or two spades in his hand and see that I probably don't have a stiff spade)  and there is a fine chance that it will be the right contract. As it was. So the complexity from the UCB followed by 3 could help, but I can cope when playing blind. And in the more frequent case where I have a hand where I want to bid 2 to play, the bid is available.



In short: When we open the bidding we often want to explore for game or slam, and forcing sequences can help. When they open the bidding we still might want to explore for game. although less often, and usually slam is out of reach. Far more often, we want to competitively get our suits in without getting too high, and non-forcing sequences can be useful for that.

[wackojack]

Thanks ken for the considered and thought provoking post.  It represents a sea change in my "always forcing" approach.  In  order to do it justice I need more time to think and do a bit of research.  I will reply in due course on how much if at all my mind has been changed.   

[kenberg]

This discussion could be broadly useful. Already it is an example of different people having different opinions as to what is forcing and what isn't. This issue, is a bid forcing or not,  takes many forms on IAC, and elsewhere.

More than once in the Mike Lawrence book he speaks about difficulties and ambiguities in defensive bidding. It would be good to have a range of opinions and a collection of hands that arose. I have an amusing one to post but it will have to be later.

Well, looking back at it, maybe only sort of amusing.
http://tinyurl.com/y3k7j94b
My second 2 bid was of course nuts, but I was playing with the bots and i was worried about what they might do if, at my second bid, I re-open with X. The  worry was justified. Some others did X, and the N bot bid 4 .  Now 4 can be beaten but after the fairly natural lead of a by E, 4 can be made. But can be is one thing, making it is another. So after my very lucky choice of 2 I had an easy time of it. I have not yet worked out whether the opponents can or cannot make 3 . I think not.