[bd71]

Scoring: MP

(1♦)-1N-(3♦)-4♠
(5♦)-5♠-(P)-???

1N=15-18

---

Playing in open pairs event in Philly regional. Your LHO is wearing a badge from the WBF event, so you suspect he and partner are quite good (you later discover he is playing in the Rosenblum). Your partner is a good intermediate, but you've only played together 2-3 times and don't have detailed agreements.

1. Agree with the 4♠ bid?
2. What now?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 No, 3S forcing, intending to bid clubs the next round.
4S is fine, if you believe, p would take 3S as NF, but 3S is forcing.
#2 ..., I guess you have to bid 6S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bd71]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

#1 No, 3S forcing, intending to bid clubs the next round.
     4S is fine, if you believe, p would take 3S as NF, but 3S is forcing.

With partner having described his hand reasonably well, including limiting it, my instinct is that NO bid by S (I guess except a ♦ bid) would be forcing. By what principle should 3♠ be forcing?

[cherdanno]

bd71, on Oct 6 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

#1 No, 3S forcing, intending to bid clubs the next round.
    4S is fine, if you believe, p would take 3S as NF, but 3S is forcing.

With partner having described his hand reasonably well, including limiting it, my instinct is that NO bid by S (I guess except a ♦ bid) would be forcing. By what principle should 3♠ be forcing?

By the principle that you want to play game in 4M when you have an 8-card major suit fit, and in 3NT or 5m otherwise.

[rogerclee]

Agree with the previous comments, now I guess you could bid 6D to try for the grand but 6S is practical. Passing would be very bad, we are more likely to make 7 than go down in 6.

[jdonn]

I don't think 7 will make that often, especially knowing partner has diamond waste. But anyway although 7 could make I don't think there is any way to investigate it easily at this level. Any method we use risks getting to 7 with partner having Axx of clubs so I just won't risk it. But sure I'll bid 6.

Really the question is whether we think we do better in 5♠ or defending 7♦X since I think they are quite likely to sac over 6. But I'll at least make them do it since I don't know anyway.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on Oct 7 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

bd71, on Oct 6 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

#1 No, 3S forcing, intending to bid clubs the next round.
     4S is fine, if you believe, p would take 3S as NF, but 3S is forcing.

With partner having described his hand reasonably well, including limiting it, my instinct is that NO bid by S (I guess except a ♦ bid) would be forcing. By what principle should 3♠ be forcing?

By the principle that you want to play game in 4M when you have an 8-card major suit fit, and in 3NT or 5m otherwise.

So your side has half of the deck and they compete to 3♦ with a fit so we are likely to have a fit and we are not allowed to play a partscore.

This seems decidedly suboptimal to me.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Oct 6 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 7 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

bd71, on Oct 6 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

#1 No, 3S forcing, intending to bid clubs the next round.
     4S is fine, if you believe, p would take 3S as NF, but 3S is forcing.

With partner having described his hand reasonably well, including limiting it, my instinct is that NO bid by S (I guess except a ♦ bid) would be forcing. By what principle should 3♠ be forcing?

By the principle that you want to play game in 4M when you have an 8-card major suit fit, and in 3NT or 5m otherwise.

So your side has half of the deck and they compete to 3♦ with a fit so we are likely to have a fit and we are not allowed to play a partscore.

This seems decidedly suboptimal to me.

A few points.

It seems suboptimal to me to be unable to offer a choice between a major and notrump, and also to try to stop on a dime at the 3 level. But certainly I could be wrong, and I shouldn't convince anyone when I base my feeling on only one side of the argument.

It's all well and good to say we have a fit but who says we can find it? Being able to bid a suit is no guarantee of finding a fit. For example if you bid spades holding 5-4 in the black suits partner may have 2 spades and 4 or 5 clubs.

A fair comprimise is obviously to play transfers, which in this case amounts to 3♥ shows spades and 3♠ shows hearts. This lets you offer a choice of games just as if 3 of a major was forcing, but stop in some partscores when you hold spades. It also rightsides either major as an added bonus.

[Cascade]

A simulation here is far from perfect however:

About 2% of the time you have a 5=3 spade fit and can make game in spades but not in no trumps.

About 10% of the time you have five or more spades and have a partscore or are one-off opposite their making 3♦.

The game swings are bigger but it seems fairly certain that the ability to play a partscore would be helpful.

With 4-6 hcp and 5+ spades nearly 70% of the time we could make 9+ tricks (30% exactly nine) and a further 20% of the time at most down one.

It seems to me that non-forcing possibly with the NT overcaller allowed to raise with a good hand and a good fit would be a big winner.

[cloa513]

Partner had the option of cueing hearts and didn't so pass 5S.

[Phil]

I do not understand 4♠.

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on Oct 6 2010, 11:35 PM, said:

The game swings are bigger but it seems fairly certain that the ability to play a partscore would be helpful.

What about the ability to bid slams?

Josh there doesn't have to be wastage in diamonds, I can get good use of ♦A if its his only stopper along with ♥A (others might figure this play also)

[Free]

bd71, on Oct 6 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

#1 No, 3S forcing, intending to bid clubs the next round.
     4S is fine, if you believe, p would take 3S as NF, but 3S is forcing.

With partner having described his hand reasonably well, including limiting it, my instinct is that NO bid by S (I guess except a ♦ bid) would be forcing. By what principle should 3♠ be forcing?

By the principle that finding the right strain in game and in slam is much more important than just a partscore.

If you have a hand with only 5♠, you can easily bid 3♠ and let partner raise, cuebid or bid 3NT depending on his support. You'll find the best game. Also, if partner bids 3NT you can introduce a second suit if you're very strong or very distributional.

Compare these advantages with being able to play 3♠ for +140. With such hand you might as well bid 4♠ and let opps screw up their defense...

[whereagles]

If pard's bidding is reliable, he'd have like 3-4 weak diamonds and probably a max. Chances he has a hand enough for slam are pretty good and I raise this to 6. Closer to 7 than to pass, actually.

If I cannot trust pard, I'll probably pass!!!!

[Cyberyeti]

Is 6♣ in the frame ? I was visualising Kxx, Axx, KJx, AQJx where you can make 7♣ but only 6♠.

I think I might have bid 4♦ over 3♦, then when I pull 5♥ I allow partner to evaluate his hand on the basis of a known big black 2 suiter with a diamond void (double of 3♦ is T/O for us so 4♦ needs to be something special).

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Oct 6 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

A simulation here is far from perfect however:

About 2% of the time you have a 5=3 spade fit and can make game in spades but not in no trumps.

About 10% of the time you have five or more spades and have a partscore or are one-off opposite their making 3♦.

The game swings are bigger but it seems fairly certain that the ability to play a partscore would be helpful.

With 4-6 hcp and 5+ spades nearly 70% of the time we could make 9+ tricks (30% exactly nine) and a further 20% of the time at most down one.

It seems to me that non-forcing possibly with the NT overcaller allowed to raise with a good hand and a good fit would be a big winner.

How often did you have 2 suits and want to bid, say, spades then clubs?

How often did you have a hand with 5 spades that might make slam only in spades/notrump?

How often that you bid a non forcing 3♠ down 1 did they double you for 200?

How often that you bid a non forcing 3♠ did they push to 4♦ and make it anyway?

How often would rightsiding through transfers have saved a game swing?

It's not that your sim isn't perfect, it's that it answers very few of the important questions.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Oct 7 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 6 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

A simulation here is far from perfect however:

About 2% of the time you have a 5=3 spade fit and can make game in spades but not in no trumps.

About 10% of the time you have five or more spades and have a partscore or are one-off opposite their making 3♦.

The game swings are bigger but it seems fairly certain that the ability to play a partscore would be helpful.

With 4-6 hcp and 5+ spades nearly 70% of the time we could make 9+ tricks (30% exactly nine) and a further 20% of the time at most down one.

It seems to me that non-forcing possibly with the NT overcaller allowed to raise with a good hand and a good fit would be a big winner.

How often did you have 2 suits and want to bid, say, spades then clubs?

How often did you have a hand with 5 spades that might make slam only in spades/notrump?

How often that you bid a non forcing 3♠ down 1 did they double you for 200?

How often that you bid a non forcing 3♠ did they push to 4♦ and make it anyway?

How often would rightsiding through transfers have saved a game swing?

It's not that your sim isn't perfect, it's that it answers very few of the important questions.

Giving up 3-level partscore tries for a forcing 3-level call is probably a very good tradeoff. That probably won't save you on this auction though. As soon as you alert your 3♠ call as forcing your LHO will bid 5♦. Of course now when partner bids 5♠ you'll have an even better excuse to bid 6 or really push the opponent's buttons with a 6♦ call.

[bd71]

Giving up the possibility of a part-score for more flexibility to find the right game or possibly a slam makes perfect sense.

Am now hoping folks help me try to more precisely define this forcing situation:

1. Narrow construction: any 3-level bid by us after (1x)-1N-(3x) is game-forcing.

2. Broad construction: after partner has shown a good hand with no clear suit preference (i.e. either TO X or NT overcall) and they have pre-empted to the 3-level, any 3-level bid by us is game-forcing.

Are either of these the optimal way of stating this principle? Something in-between? Something broader?

[Cascade]

Obviously if you have 3♠ forcing available you will do better on those hands strong enough for game or better.

Equally obviously you will do worse on hands where it is right to compete for the partscore.

Quote

How often did you have 2 suits and want to bid, say, spades then clubs?

There are alternative ways to bid these hands. While not necessarily best my partner and I would play 4♦ on this auction is both majors and 4♣ is clubs and spades. So only clubs and hearts will be a problem and we can start with double with those hands.

Quote

How often did you have a hand with 5 spades that might make slam only in spades/notrump?

Very rarely.

Precisely a 5=3 fit and slam in spades not in no trumps was about 0.2%.

A 5=3 fit and we have to play spades even at game level is only about 2%.

Quote

How often that you bid a non forcing 3♠ down 1 did they double you for 200?

Obviously this cannot be answered by simple double dummy simulation and will vary wildly depending on the players - how often will you bid 3♠ and with what hands will they double.

A related question would be "How often do you bid 3♠ and they double and you make anyway.

Quote

How often that you bid a non forcing 3♠ did they push to 4♦ and make it anyway?

Again a very difficult question to answer.

The thrust of the simulations was that hands wanting to compete for a part-score are much more frequent than hands that need to find precisely the right game or slam.

Quote

How often would rightsiding through transfers have saved a game swing?

Kind of irrelevant when I was comparing 3♠ non forcing with 3♠ forcing both of which will potentially wrong side the contract.

I never claimed that non-forcing bids were best just that forcing ones were sub-optimal. Significantly so I believe.

Transfers may well be much better.

1. One they give you the option of forcing and non-forcing auctions

2. They right side more often

However they do not come cost free as either you cannot transfer to the next suit or have to use some other bid or you give up double and use that as a transfer.

Additionally transfers give the opponents an extra step in the auction should they wish to compete further.

All of these things are difficult to quantify. I never would claim that a simple double dummy simulation in a situation like this would give a definitive answer. However it does seem really bad (inefficient) to me that a very frequent hand type that may well want to bid is unable to participate in the auction.

[hanp]

Seems to me that the most common hand where you bid a forcing 3S is where you have a 5-card spade suit and are offering a choice between 3NT and 4S.