Help
I wonder if this is right and wide known.
Pardner opens the bidding, East overcalls.
1♥ (2♣) pass pass
2♥ pass 2♠?
Question is:
bidding 2♠ implies that first pass was a trap pass, and now 2♠ is considered forcing?
Is there a major agreement about this?
Maybe bidding 2♠ means nothing but no hearts and some spades to play?
When failed to bid a negative free bid or a take out double at the very first moment, This approach (trying to play 2♠) would have any sense?
Playing Negative free bids or Positive free bids would change the answere?
Thank you very much
Kind Regarts.
Page 1 of 1
Bidding after a trap pass
#2
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,197
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2015-September-23, 07:53
Hi Kube, welcome to the forum!
I don't think it matters if we play negative freebids or not because a hand with 8 points and six spades would do something before in any case. Bid if playing NFB, otherwise double.
Contract improvement with a very weak hand with typically seven spades and zero hearts was my first thought, but maybe a semidecent hand with 5-5 in the blacks is a better agreement. Should it be forcing in that case? I am not sure. With 10+ points you could have chosen to bid spades before instead of the trap pass, so maybe it should be limited to about 8-9 points.
Good question
I don't think it matters if we play negative freebids or not because a hand with 8 points and six spades would do something before in any case. Bid if playing NFB, otherwise double.
Contract improvement with a very weak hand with typically seven spades and zero hearts was my first thought, but maybe a semidecent hand with 5-5 in the blacks is a better agreement. Should it be forcing in that case? I am not sure. With 10+ points you could have chosen to bid spades before instead of the trap pass, so maybe it should be limited to about 8-9 points.
Good question
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 878
- Joined: 2009-June-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Australia
Posted 2015-September-23, 08:59
First a disclaimer that I don't have much experience playing negative free bids...
However in the context of a standard auction, I don't think this sequence should show a trap pass. Holding 5+S and a club stack is very low frequency and responder has plenty of other ways to show that hand.
My vote is for a hand like: [KQxxxxx - xxx xxx] which didn't have an easy way to enter the auction on the previous round, but has a strong preference for playing in spades. If you would act with that hand, then make it a bit weaker
However in the context of a standard auction, I don't think this sequence should show a trap pass. Holding 5+S and a club stack is very low frequency and responder has plenty of other ways to show that hand.
My vote is for a hand like: [KQxxxxx - xxx xxx] which didn't have an easy way to enter the auction on the previous round, but has a strong preference for playing in spades. If you would act with that hand, then make it a bit weaker
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,696
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2015-September-26, 03:45
Hello kube and welcome to the BBO forums. My contriubtion is simply a question to the other posters: what would a 3♣ call mean here if not a good black 2-suiter? We cannot hold a good heart raise or a GF hand without a club stopper. The obvious alternative of natural, exposing a psyche, seeems to me to be even rarer. So are we really losing much using this as natural and non-forcing?
(-: Zel :-)
#5
- VIP Member
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,971
- Joined: 2009-November-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:Houston, TX
Posted 2015-September-26, 04:00
Zelandakh, on 2015-September-26, 03:45, said:
Hello kube and welcome to the BBO forums. My contriubtion is simply a question to the other posters: what would a 3♣ call mean here if not a good black 2-suiter? We cannot hold a good heart raise or a GF hand without a club stopper. The obvious alternative of natural, exposing a psyche, seeems to me to be even rarer. So are we really losing much using this as natural and non-forcing?
3♣ would have been any strong hand which previously trap passed. No need to be 2 suiter. Say 3136 or 3145 17 hcp
I am with Wesley that 5♠+5♣ should not have trap passed. If your pd doubles, which is what you wanted I guess, now there is a good chance that you are letting them...
a-play 2♣ when you probably have 5-4 ♠ fit
b-You are letting them find their ♦ fit
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#6
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 2015-August-01
Posted 2015-September-28, 07:19
Ty all for your replies.
#7
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2015-September-28, 10:00
Count me in with Wesley and Timo. 3♣ shows any GF hand and implies a trap pass. I would take 3♠ as natural forcing.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,017
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2015-September-28, 10:25
I can see 3 plausible meanings for 2♠ here, altho being plausible doesn't mean being equally logical
1. 4 spades, a trap pass of clubs, and short reds. Forcing. Hoping to hear diamonds, and allowing opener to bid NT with diamonds stopped, reading us to have clubs under control
2. Long spades, short hearts, weak hand...too weak to double (or NFB if that is played)
3. 5+ spades, with a trap pass in clubs.
1 and 3 are related but far from equivalent.
My take: we ought not to run to spades with 2. I appreciate that a heart void and 7+ spades would really want me to bid, but I think that this layout is remote, and I don't think we should cater to remote layouts unless there is no other plausible use for the call.
I don't think that we would usually want to play for the penalty with 5 spades and a penalty double. Again, there are layouts where that would be the best use, but I think those are remote, and as others have pointed out, the opps may be able to scramble into diamonds. Of course, we might then get back to spades, so it isn't clear, but I don't think this use is likely to be common.
Otoh, we are far more likely to want to play for penalty when we have a good hand with 4 spades and a club stack. We usually won't have a spade fit, and even when we do, a 4-4 fit may not play well in game. So taking the money against 2♣ will often seem the best approach. Then when partner reopens with 2♥, we can infer that he didn't want to risk double, and can therefore draw some inferences. I would expect him to hold 6+ hearts and to be short in one of the pointed suits, more likely spades than diamonds. With, say, 4=6=1=2, or 4=6=2=1, he could double and pull 2♦ to hearts, but he might be worried that we would bid 3♦, and find him with a weak hand. More often, he would be say 1=6=4=2, and be unable to handle a 2♠ pull of the double.
Thus 2♠ would reassure him about that suit, for notrump, while confirming the club stack, and allowing us to get back to a 4=4 fit if he has the short diamond hand.
I don't think any of these holdings are 'common', and I may be flat out wrong in my appreciation of relative frequencies. In addition, and of critical importance at the table, I am not at all sure that partner will or should agree with me
This would make me feel as if I am guessing: if I have the weak hand and he plays me for a force, we are in huge trouble, so I would guess to pass with the weak hand and hope he figures that I would think that way, and thus he would assume I was making a forcing call. After that, we need to get lucky.
1. 4 spades, a trap pass of clubs, and short reds. Forcing. Hoping to hear diamonds, and allowing opener to bid NT with diamonds stopped, reading us to have clubs under control
2. Long spades, short hearts, weak hand...too weak to double (or NFB if that is played)
3. 5+ spades, with a trap pass in clubs.
1 and 3 are related but far from equivalent.
My take: we ought not to run to spades with 2. I appreciate that a heart void and 7+ spades would really want me to bid, but I think that this layout is remote, and I don't think we should cater to remote layouts unless there is no other plausible use for the call.
I don't think that we would usually want to play for the penalty with 5 spades and a penalty double. Again, there are layouts where that would be the best use, but I think those are remote, and as others have pointed out, the opps may be able to scramble into diamonds. Of course, we might then get back to spades, so it isn't clear, but I don't think this use is likely to be common.
Otoh, we are far more likely to want to play for penalty when we have a good hand with 4 spades and a club stack. We usually won't have a spade fit, and even when we do, a 4-4 fit may not play well in game. So taking the money against 2♣ will often seem the best approach. Then when partner reopens with 2♥, we can infer that he didn't want to risk double, and can therefore draw some inferences. I would expect him to hold 6+ hearts and to be short in one of the pointed suits, more likely spades than diamonds. With, say, 4=6=1=2, or 4=6=2=1, he could double and pull 2♦ to hearts, but he might be worried that we would bid 3♦, and find him with a weak hand. More often, he would be say 1=6=4=2, and be unable to handle a 2♠ pull of the double.
Thus 2♠ would reassure him about that suit, for notrump, while confirming the club stack, and allowing us to get back to a 4=4 fit if he has the short diamond hand.
I don't think any of these holdings are 'common', and I may be flat out wrong in my appreciation of relative frequencies. In addition, and of critical importance at the table, I am not at all sure that partner will or should agree with me
This would make me feel as if I am guessing: if I have the weak hand and he plays me for a force, we are in huge trouble, so I would guess to pass with the weak hand and hope he figures that I would think that way, and thus he would assume I was making a forcing call. After that, we need to get lucky.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,696
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2015-September-28, 12:52
MrAce, on 2015-September-26, 04:00, said:
3♣ would have been any strong hand which previously trap passed. No need to be 2 suiter. Say 3136 or 3145 17 hcp
I am with Wesley that 5♠+5♣ should not have trap passed.
I am with Wesley that 5♠+5♣ should not have trap passed.
Strange, I do not think the 3145 17 count should have trap passed, particularly if they are NV. More than that, I think a large portion of trap pass hands are going to bid NT now. That is certainly what I would consider the normal action with a 3145 shape. Perhaps this is an area I should consider being more scientific in my bidding.
(-: Zel :-)
Page 1 of 1