[han]

I also play 2H as NF here and like it a lot. This hand shows why it is so important to be able to bid your AK-sixth of hearts. Transfer advances would also solve the problem.

[gwnn]

mgoetze, on 2012-May-04, 07:04, said:

Huh? Of course you can play NFBs in this situation.

(Transfers are superior, of course.)

http://en.wikipedia....gative_free_bid

Negative freebids apply when your partner opens and your RHO overcalls. I'm not saying that wiki is the ultimate truth, but I don't see any other link that would define it as anything else.

[han]

Well, they are both non-forcing and both free bids, so who cares. Context beats definitions gwnn, and as a physicist you should appreciate that.

Also, I disagree with mgoetze that those transfers are so obviously better. For example, you have less room when advancer makes the forcing raise. There are other disadvantages as well.

[jillybean]

han, on 2012-May-04, 07:58, said:

There are other disadvantages as well.

Such as?

[gwnn]

They are not both free bids. The simplest example of a free bid is 1x-(action)-bid, because we don't need to act - if partner is strong, he can still act. If RHO passed, I don't think bids by us are free bids. This is not just my interpretation - bridge world also thinks so:

Bridge World Glossary said:

Free bid
a bid made when it is not necessary to bid to allow partner another chance to call.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-May-04, 07:58, said:

Well, they are both non-forcing and both free bids, so who cares. Context beats definitions gwnn, and as a physicist you should appreciate that.

Also, I disagree with mgoetze that those transfers are so obviously better. For example, you have less room when advancer makes the forcing raise. There are other disadvantages as well.

I don't understand this....please explain....one of the two strongest points in favour of transfer advances is that they save space, so in what sequence do you say they create less room?

Since you like advancer's 2♥ to be nf (if I understand you correctly) either you use the cuebid advance as a generic force, with no fit implications, or you have problems bidding new suits in a forcing manner, it seems to me.

[ggwhiz]

jillybean, on 2012-May-03, 08:44, said:

---

standard bidding, no fancy treatments please.

A new suit by an unpassed hand is forcing under these conditions period thus the pass of 1♠.

If East re-opens with double and South bids 3♣ West is worth a jump to 4♥. Now a raise to ask for trump quality should get you to slam.

A club cue might be asking for a diamond control from partners point of view..

[ArtK78]

ggwhiz, on 2012-May-04, 09:06, said:

A new suit by an unpassed hand is forcing under these conditions period thus the pass of 1♠.

If East re-opens with double and South bids 3♣ West is worth a jump to 4♥. Now a raise to ask for trump quality should get you to slam.

A club cue might be asking for a diamond control from partners point of view..

While it is certainly not unreasonable to play a bid of a new suit in response to an overcall as forcing by an unpassed hand, I believe that the normal treatment of a new suit response to an overcall is non-forcing constructive. That is certainly true for 1-over-1 responses to an overcall, and I believe it is still true for 2-over-1 responses to an overcall.

If you can find any classic authority that states that a new suit by an unpassed hand in response to an overcall is forcing, I would like to see it.

[mgoetze]

mikeh, on 2012-May-04, 08:33, said:

I don't understand this....please explain....one of the two strongest points in favour of transfer advances is that they save space, so in what sequence do you say they create less room?

I think what Han was saying is that if you play transfers your good spade raise will be (1♦)-1♠-2♥, but if you don't play transfers your good spade raise will be (1♦)-1♠-2♦ which gains a step. I still think transfers are better but perhaps I shouldn't have said "obviously".

[mikeh]

mgoetze, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:

I think what Han was saying is that if you play transfers your good spade raise will be (1♦)-1♠-2♥, but if you don't play transfers your good spade raise will be (1♦)-1♠-2♦ which gains a step. I still think transfers are better but perhaps I shouldn't have said "obviously".

Except that he likes nf new suit advances, so how does he handle advancing hands that have a different suit and want to force?

Say advancer was x AKQxxx xxx Axx? One cannot have it both ways: if 2♥ is non-forcing, one must either overload the cuebid, so that it isn't a forcing raise anymore...it might be, but it might not be, or one has to jump, which has obvious space problems, not to mention that one loses the fit-jump.

If the cue is the generic force, with no fit implications, he loses space on his forcing raise. If he uses 2♦ to agree spades, he gains a tiny and usually irrelevant step (overcaller won't often be bidding 2♥ and won't often gain when he can) but at a huge systemic cost.

Han usually has a sound rationale for the constructive points he makes, when not simply being critical of others, so I have invited him to explain. I hope he does, because maybe I have (once again) missed something.

[han]

The extra step after the forcing raise is not tiny and usually irrelevant. Having one bid below 2M is much betterr than having no step below 2M. You are being completely unreasonable in order to further your case, behavior is probably very important for a lawyer, but which will hurt you if one wants to understand something instead of winning an argument.

For the record, I like transfer advances and I don't believe I have ever written anything to the contrary. I play a lot of transfers in competition and I think they are generally good. I've also seen pairs who spend less time on their system get to extremely painful contracts after mishaps with artificial bids in competitive auctions.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-May-05, 00:54, said:

The extra step after the forcing raise is not tiny and usually irrelevant. Having one bid below 2M is much betterr than having no step below 2M. You are being completely unreasonable in order to further your case, behavior is probably very important for a lawyer, but which will hurt you if one wants to understand something instead of winning an argument.

For the record, I like transfer advances and I don't believe I have ever written anything to the contrary. I play a lot of transfers in competition and I think they are generally good. I've also seen pairs who spend less time on their system get to extremely painful contracts after mishaps with artificial bids in competitive auctions.

I suggest you try reading my posts again...if 2♥ is natural and nf, how can 2♦ promise spades? How do you show a forcing hand with hearts? Maybe you can't? That's all I was trying to find out.

I'm not sure why I bother trying to have a rational discussion with someone bent on being an asshole. You'd think I'd learn by now how futile it is.

[Codo]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-04, 04:15, said:

Contrary to this, I would be more inclined to bid with singleton spade, the reason is I don´t want to play in 5-1.

Don't you risk playing 2 Spade instead of 1 Spade in a 5-1 fit? 2 heart is forcing here- at least for the op...

[Fluffy]

yeah if its forcing then I wouldn't do it.

[han]

To come back to the "tiny and usually irrelevant step", I just learned that Brink-Drijver play the following after (1D) - 1S - (pass):

2C = hearts
2D = good spade raise
2H = clubs

I think that Brink-Drijver is a pair that spends more time thinking about such issues than almost any other pair, and needless to say, they are also very good. Apparently they think this extra step is so important that they are willing to sacrifice this much room on the club hands.

Another top Dutch pair plays:

2C = good spade raise
2D = hearts
2H = clubs

They even have two extra steps after the forcing raise! Let me note that even though they play transfers to hearts, they still play that a jump to 3H is a strong single suiter, although not quite forcing. I play the jump to 3H as forcing with hearts, but they claim that those hands never come up. So far they are right, but I like the idea of being able to show a very strong single suiter when I happen to hold it.

To answer jillybean's question: I think that further bidding tends to get easier the more you have limited your hand type. For example, say overcaller has a good hand with 3-card heart support. If advancer bids a non-forcing 2H, overcaller might just jump to 4H. However, if advancer transfers to 2H and is unlimited, perhaps overcaller wants to keep slam in the picture and cues 3D. Now neither hand is limited, and they haven't even showed the heart fit yet.

I think that this is a minor worry and even though auctions may get murkier if you haven't limited your hand, you should usually survive. If opener competes further by for example bidding 3D it gets more difficult though. Suppose overcaller passes and advancer doubles. Now the situation is quite different if advancer has limited his hand.

But again, this is minor compared to the extra step you lose after the forcing raise. I think that extra step is very useful, especially if you realize that this step shouldn't show anything in the bid suit, but you can use it for hands that want to say something like "I am not going past 2S by myself but I have an honest hand".

Of course, the use of such a bid depends a bit on your overcall style. In my preferred style, a minimal overcall can be quite a bit worse than an honest hand. If your overcalls are near openings, perhaps the extra step is not as important.

[cherdano]

I thought playing the cuebid as "spade support, or any strong hand" has gone completely out of fashion. You can play jumps into new suits as forcing if you are worried about strong hands. Or you can just give up on being able to show a strong hand, live with the very rare disaster when you miss a game - which is a much lower price than having ambiguity in one of the most frequent bids (good raise).