Best "Standard" Response

[Masse24]

The auction to you:
(P) - 1 - (1 ) - ??

Your hand:
954
KQT743
J62
9

This was a recent hand discussed in the IAC. The discussion centered primarily around the subsequent auction. The choice here, after brief discussion, seemed to get widespread agreement.

I was surprised.

[kenberg]

I would double. It seems likely I can carry out my plan in some form that plan being to later bid hearts, thus showing a hand with hearts that is too weak for an immediate 2 .

We are likely to have roughly half the high card points, a little less maybe, and unless we are unlucky we should be able to play in 3 . If the auction gets out of hand, maybe I never get the chance to show hearts, but, for example, maybe Lho bids 2 , then pass-pass to me, and I bid 3 . Slightly aggressive I guess, but that's my plan.  If the auction is at 3 when it gets back to me, I pass.

Added: Ideal would be that I get a chance to bid 2 at my next turn. That would describe the hand well, I think. And maybe that will happen. But if they have a spade fit and it comes back to me at 2 , it seems safe enough to try 3 . I suppose vulnerability might frighten me off, but probably I go with 3 . I doubt the hands are worth more than going to the 3 level unless partner shows something extra. 3 might well make.

[jcreech]

If playing negative free bids, 2 .  If not, then double and possibly bid depending on how the auction continues; the standard way to show a negative free bid equivalent.

[Masse24]

Yes. Agreed. It's a textbook negative double. At least I thought so.

Out of roughly 10 tables, either 2 or 3 was the response at two-thirds of the tables. Two passes. And strangely, only one double.

The table chat (at a teaching table) and kibbers seemed to agree that 3 was correct. Obviously I disagreed.

Although three "double" votes is hardly an IAC consensus, it satisfies my "am I going nuts?" question.

[jcreech]

I have noticed that on BBO, a lot of people play undisclosed/undescribed negative free bids.  At the teaching table,  the teacher/mentor should have pointed out that the direct bid typically shows a stronger hand, and to play it as non-forcing is an alertable treatment.  If you will send me the full hand, I will use it in an upcoming class to discuss that very topic.  Negative free bids are useful, but it should not used without providing proper information to the opponents.

[kenberg]

I'm curious: At the tables where the call was 2 , what happened? Probably different things at different tables. But did opener understand that the 2 was on this sort of hand? Negative free bids are of course alertable, but often on IAC I have seen it here one partner is playing NFB and the other isn't.

Jim, you mentioned a lesson. Can you dig up clear written evidence that the NFB is alertable, well, make that acbl alertable,  rather than standard? I did that once in an earlier discussion and I am sure I could do it again if you like. Other jurisdictions might have a different view but written documentation, whether for acbl or for the other (and that could be left to others) jurisdictions, would be good. I have seen this argued many times where someone bids 2 on such a hand and regards it as standard and passable. In acbl-land, it is not.

As to 3 , I suppose it was intended as a wjs. Did this communicate? And for that matter, how did it go at the table with the X? Jim and I said we hope to show our hearts and I gather the same goes for you. I hope to do it at the 2 level, and I think I would also risk 3 if they have shown a fit, since that makes it likely partner can have decent heart support, but in some instance I will just give up. I like my heart suit but that only goes so far. This is a part score battle until I hear otherwise from partner.

[jcreech]

Ken,

Largely, I it has been negative evidence that I have been working from.  As a f2f director, I try to keep up with what is alertable and what is not.  I have not heard of a change in policy within ACBL about negative free bids since they were brought into vogue as part of the Bergen-Cohen system in a two-volume set written by Marty.  Essentially, negative free bids are a non-standard treatment that requires an alert because it is non-standard.  It is non-standard because it requires significantly fewer HCPs than the standard treatment.

However, that may be true only in ACBL.  From things I read in Bridge Winners, the treatment may be far more popular in Europe, which means that the governing organizations may have reversed which treatment needs to be alerted and which does not.

Since IAC draws heavily from both sides of the pond, perhaps both treatments should be described when the situation comes up.  I know that at the table, I am frustrated when a "forcing" bid is passed out, only to find that the opponent actually held a negative free bid hand, or make a forcing bid myself, that partner passes because they expect a negative free bid.

This is an international community, and we should have discussions about how to have everyone on the same page as partners.

[kenberg]

I spent a little time this morning browsing on acbl stuff. They desperately need help in website design.  The last time I got into a discussion about the acbl alertability of NFBs it took me a while but I eventually found some official acbl note  saying that acbl ruled that they are alertable. I can no longer find that. I expect it's there somewhere.  Not for the first time I have found their website to be very frustrating..


I am confident that the Gib convention card plays 1 - (1 ) - 2 as forcing, I play with the bots fairly often. And BWS treats it as forcing: "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."

Most sites from this side of the Atlantic recommend it as forcing, for example Richard Pavlicek, see page 19 f http://www.rpbridge.net/p/7g01.pdf

But I just have not been able to track down what the acbl thinks or says about it. Help anyone?  There could be a meta-argument that a new suit by responder is generally regarded as forcing, so those cases where it is not treated as forcing should be regarded as exceptional. For example the uncontested auction 1 !m - 1 - 1NT - 2 was non-forcing in Goren and surely is still non-forcing with most pairs. It's a logical exception to the new suit forcing principle.


An added thought, maybe directors could lean on the acbl a bit. Imagine you are called to a table where a NFB has not been alerted. The player says he sees no reason why it should be alertable and does not think that it is. It would be useful to the director to have ready access to acbl decisions that it is alertable. I spent some time trying to find such a thing w/o success. I suspect it is there on their site somewhere, but that doesn't help unless we can find it.

[Masse24]

I don't believe any of the 2 responses were intended as a negative free bid. They were simply over-evaluating their hands.

As to where it is mentioned that they are alertable in ACBL. The ACBL ALERT CHART states in the category Responses to One Level Opening Bids: Alert----Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand.

[jcreech]

On the ACBL site under negative doubles:

"   If you had doubled, the double would have shown exactly four hearts. The 2 bid, therefore shows five or more. There is also a strength inference involved. Whereas a two-level negative double could show as few as 8 HCP as described above, a direct two-level bid such as your 2 shows at least the same number of number of points required for a two-over-one response in “standard” bidding — 10 HCP. (Note that some players would treat 2 as a game force, so their twolevel bids would promise even more — an opening hand.) An easy way to remember this is to consider what you need to bid 2 if North had not interfered. Most systems require a minimum of 10 points to make a new-suit two-level response.
   This is a big help to opener, because it immediately tells him something about your strength and heart length. For example, say you held: K 7 A 9 4 K Q J 8 2 10 8 2.
   You open 1!D, LHO overcalls 1 and partner bids  2 . What do we know about partner’s hand? She has at least five hearts (a negative double would have promised only four) and at least 10 HCP, making the raise to 3 a standout."

Nothing about whether the treatment should be alerted, but plenty on what is considered to be the standard treatment.

On the Alert Chart under Responses to One-Level Opening Suit Bids:

"Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand" is listed as requiring an alert.  Personally, I think a word is missing - new should be in front of suit because I cannot imagine that a simple raise of the opening suit would be alertable if non-forcing, just like I cannot imagine that a simple raise that is forcing would not be alertable (e.g., inverted minor raise).

[kenberg]

I don't believe any of the 2 responses were intended as a negative free bid. They were simply over-evaluating their hands.

As to where it is mentioned that they are alertable in ACBL. The ACBL ALERT CHART states in the category Responses to One Level Opening Bids: Alert----Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand.

Whew. Yes, I had looked at the alert chart but was looking for something about bids in competition. It is reasonable to think that "Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand"  includes bids made in competition since they do not say otherwise. So yes, it's there.


Nope, see next post. They are speaking of uncontested auctions at this part of the Alert Chart.

I can't imagine bidding 2 in that auction if we have not agreed to play negative free bids. I have played NFBs a few times with people who really like them I really don't like them. The Pavilcek site says the 2 shows 5+ length and 10+ hcps. Everyone borrows a point now and then but usually not 4 points. BWS just describes it as forcing but that would seem to imply that it is not on a 6 count.

And yep, Jim, surely they mean new suit when they say suit!  I often have to revise something I said that was not phrased well but if I were a large organization with a website I would hire diligent proofreaders. And they could not the exception 1 m -1 - 1NT - 2 . If they really want me to alert that as non-forcing okk, but when a nid was non-forcing 60 years ago and is still noon=forcing for everyone (ok, maybe someone somewhere plays it as forcing) an alert seems unnecessary. Responder has maybe a 5=4=3=1 minimum, say Qxxxx / KQxx / xxx / x, and wants to sign off but thinks NT is unwise so he offers a choice of majors. I can alert if they really want me to.

Anyway, NFBs are acbl alertable. At the very least, I think this means that a player should not be surprised if he makes an undiscussed NFB and his partner takes it as forcing. As you say, they might well have meant it as forcing. That seems like a big stretch to me.

[kenberg]

I thought a bit more about the acbl Alert Chart and I now have gone back to thinking that  the ""Non-forcing suit bids"  in the "Response to one level opening suit bids"  is meant to apply only in the uncontested auction.  For one thing, that appears to be the general context if you look at the items discussed. But also consider the auction 1H - X -2C. Of course some play BROMAD, but for those playing that 2C shows clubs, most everyone plays it as non-forcing.I looked at the cc I use at the club and there is a box, in black, where you can check whether you play it as forcing or not. So while playing 1H - Pass - 2C as non-forcing would be alertable and perhaps even  pre-alertable, playing 1H -(X) -2C as natural and non-forcing does not appear to be alertable despite it being a new suit by an unpassed hand.

Bottom line:  "Response to one level opening suit bids" appears to be speaking of uncontested auctions, including where they speak of a new suit by an unpassed hand.

[wackojack]

After dredging the EBU site and speaking as a retired club TD I cannot add to what has already been said. The EBU Blue Book states:  4 A 1 The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw to the opponents’ attention a call by partner that may have a special meaning  I cannot find any references to negative free bids as being alertable.   What I can say though is that in the f2f world I would not support this bid being alertable.  It is too easy for partnerships to remind each other of their agreements even if it is unintentional.  What the EBU does require, however, if for convention cards to be displayed at the table for the use of the opponents only.  In the tournament world, negative free bids are the exception rather than the rule and so under "Aspects of system which opponents should note" a negative free bid agreement should be prominently displayed. 

In BBO, however, I make a point of alerting all bids that might have even the slightest variation.  So I alert 1NT as 15-17 in deference to the weak no trumpers.  I alert opening 1 as "could be 2" where I have that prior agreement with partner. 

[kenberg]

In acbl f2f games, the range of an opening NT is announced by the partner. Partner opens 1NT, I say 15-17. This is a very good rule. The person in second seat often needs to know the range before deciding whether to pass or, say, double. Without the announcement, it might go 1NT, "Range please?"  "15 - 17 " Pass, suggesting a hand that would have acted if the range had been, say, 12-14. To avoid this improper conveying of information, second chair could always ask for the range, regardless of his strength. But if he is always going to ask, we might as well set things so that the partner of the opening NT bidder immediately gives the answer to the question that second chair should always ask.

The same applies to the 1 opening, "could be short" is announced if they regularly open a 4=4=3=2 shape with 1 .  Occasionally, although not often I think, second chair will need to know about this before choosing a call. Most often it just saves time. Most play 1 as 3+ so it saves time if we do not have to ask them all what length is promised, we know they will announce if it could be short.

The alertability of the NFB highlights what I think is a useful distinction. Some alerts are for artificial bids, eg 1 - Pass - 4 . Partner is not suggesting that we play this in diamonds. Other times, as with the NFB, the suit is bid to show length in that suit, so it is a natural bid, but the strength is unexpected and the fact that is routinely passable is unexpected. So it is not really correct to say that the NFB is artificial. It is, we seem to all agree, not standard. There are people out there who think that it is not only natural but standard, so this is where some pretty direct help is needed by those who write alert charts. It's true that some artificial bids are alertable and some, such as Stayman 2 over 1NT, are not. But generally I think it is not difficult for a director to convince a player that an artificial bid needs alerting.  For natural bids it's different. A player might easily say "I bid 2 because I have hearts and want to play 2 , why should that be alertable?".  Well, it is, I am pretty sure that it is, but I can understand why a player might think that a director is simply indulging his own preferences.  Sometimes players, and directors, appear to think that bidding differently than they do must surely be alertable even if the call is natural.

Anyway, I do believe I once tracked down an acbl source where the NFB was said to be alertable but so far I have not found it this time

Added, mostly for amusement: At the local club, one plair plays the Nunes system presumably without the extra features that got Fantuni-Nunes banned from the game. Rho opened 1 , Lho alerted, I asked, the explanation began "This shows one of five types of hands....". About halfway through I decided that if we were to play this hand before the round was called we needed to skip over a bit so I suggested that they just tell me their opening NT range and I would work out the rest as things went along. They did this and all was fine. Some alerts and subsequent explanations are not really all that clarifying.