[cherdano]

kfgauss, on Oct 23 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 22 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

For the record, in BWS 2N is forcing, but 3♣ is not.

I'm having trouble finding any reference to this situation in the BWS document -- could you let me know where you find this?

If there is indeed no reference to this situation, then I think both of these would be NF by the general agreement that if in doubt, calls are NF in competitive auctions.

Andy

Section V.F starts by saying that new suit responses after an overcall is forcing, and if it is at the two level, it is forcing to the next level of openers suit.

No this isn't strictly the same situation here, as it was a jump overcall not a simple overcall. But I don't see why it should be different than say 1♥-(2♦)-2♠.

Arend

[FrancesHinden]

Of course you never want to play in 2NT. Just like you never want to play 3 suit, 4NT, 5NT, 4 minor or 5 major in an uncontested auction. That doesn't mean that, given where you currently are in the auction, it's not right to play 2NT.

I believe the standard approach is that 2♠ is forcing for a round but does not promise a rebid. Given that, it's hard to see what opener is supposed to bid on a weak NT without spade support if not 2NT, and 2NT is probably the best available contract. (2♠ or defending 2♦ may have been better, but they aren't possible because 2♠ was forcing.)

There are three things you can do about this.

i) play 2♠ as non-forcing (which is actually what I do in my most serious partnership). That works brilliantly until you get a forcing 2♠ bid, when you either bid 3♠ (costing a level) or you have to double first. Doubling first is usually OK when the opponents don't bid again, but sometimes they raise... and now the auction can get very murky, as your double of 2♦ promised either a hand with both majors that wants to compete, or a forcing hand with a major.

ii) Mikeh suggests playing the 2♠ promises a rebid. Of course that makes some games easier to bid, but it is also not standard, and it makes some auctions harder. If you have 10-12 HCP with a 5-card spade suit you can't bid 2S without getting too high opposite a minimum. That means you have to double. So, you double... what is partner supposed to rebid on a 3334 13-count if not 2NT (non-forcing)? Well, now what? If we bid 3♠, is that forcing? If so, we're going to get too high again opposite other hands. I think this method makes this fairly common hand type unbiddable. You can choose to play that way (it's like playing 4th suit forcing as game forcing at the 2-level, which also makes a fairly common hand type unbiddable but simplifies other auctions), but not without loss.

iii) Live with it. In my second most serious partnership we live with it. It doesn't bother us much. You have the values for 2NT, and on an uncontested auction you'd end up in 2NT anyway after a 1NT rebid and an invite. It's usually easier to play after the overcall, as well.

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Oct 23 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 23 2005, 06:09 AM, said:

I can't see how 2NT can be forcing unless you play either weak NT or NFB.
In a strong NT system with 2S F1, both have to be non-forcing.

Ok Frances, my take - I can't see how 2NT can be non forcing in a practiced, serious partnership. You are contracting to make exactly 8 tricks. How often can this be right? Personally I would prefer to play 2NT as a Ruben's advance, but obviously this is not possible in a non expert partnership.

It is a nice ideal in a non-competitive auction to only play in 1NT or 3NT and never 2NT. It is harder to achieve that if the opponents overcall 2♦.

By making 2NT forcing you are effectively making the opponents' overcalls even more pre-emptive than they already are, because now you have to sell out or get to game. The last thing you should want to do is have methods which encourage the opponents to compete more.

Eric

[kenberg]

I sometimes and dealt hands with five spades where after 1C-Pass I intend to innvite game but stop at a low level if partner is not interested. If instead I hear 1C-(2D), I bid 2S intending to pass 2NT or 3C. Fairly often, after hearing I ahve some spades and some values, partner is able to do something more and we arrive ina game.

Surely everyone gts dealt some hands where he will bid 2S after 1C-(2D) providing that he is not required to bid again, but where he will pass if the 2S bid requires further action. How does the auction develop then? Let's say fourth hand passes and partner reopens with a double. You would now bid 2S with four spades and four points. You have a good deal more. I suppose you jumpt to 3S. Does this really save space? Isn't it better to just bid 2S right away?

The reason for the immediate 2S bid is not just to reach a partial. It often provides the easiest way to get to game.


Ken

[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on Oct 22 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

This comes from a recent post. I was wondering what the modern standard was for this sequence (I'm defining that as if you were playing with a new partner and had no agreements, what would you expect to be forcing?).

1C 2D 2S p ?

Is 2N forcing, is 3C forcing? Also feel free to comment on what you think the best treatment is, but for the poll purposes just stick to what you would think with a new partner.

No good to assign too many nonforcing bids here. It's often more important to have a way to bid naturally on the way to games or slams. Another treatment here is to play 2nt as invitational in either C or S, so now you have a whole 3 level as forcing.
The point is that when you play at 3 level, it's often a bad spot in IMPs.
So over 2nt, 3C shows minimum, other bids show extra and are natural. 3 level cuebid
shows C support and is gameforcing. So with balanced minimum, you still need to bid 3nt. Which is probably fine in IMP.

[mikeh]

Walddk, on Oct 23 2005, 01:43 AM, said:

If 2♠ promises another bid, thereby driving you to game most of the times, you will get to a no play game more often than not in my opinion. Here is just one example:

KQJxx
Axx
xx
xxx

Axxx
Qx
Qxx
AQxx

1♣ (2♦) 2♠

I suppose we agree that opener must support to 3♠. Now, according to mikeh responder raises to game because he promised another bid. I even gave opener a goodish minimum, and yet you will go down in 4♠ even on the most favourable lie of the cards.

I find this unsound.

Roland

I apologize for two reasons: the first is the delay in posting my response to Roland, and the second is that my first post was incomplete.

I was earlier addressing the question posed by the thread and in the interests of brevity (my posts tend to be long enough), I did not address the one exception to the '2♠ promises a rebid'. For me, 2♠ promises a rebid with only one exception: if opener raises ♠, he has several ways to do so.

4♠ shows a hand that would accept opposite 10+ hcp, but denies any slam interest. Splinters are also available. A cue-bid is initially ambiguous (altho nowhere near as murky as 'standard' methods), and may be the beginning of a strong ♠ raise.

This leaves 3♠ as non-forcing: indeed, it is sometimes a bid of desperation.

So Roland, your example would not actually find me in game: it would find me in 3♠. That is not to say that playing 2♠ promises a rebid is a walk in the park, for the reasons set out by all of the posters. Every approach comes with a cost. For me, my subjective experience suggests that my method is sufficiently useful on game/slam hands that it offsets the admitted (but in my view infrequent) cost of being a level too high.

It may be that my experience is tempered by the fact that I play a lot of weak notrump: typically 11-14 1st and 2nd, any vul, or in another serious partnership, 11-13 1st and 2nd, white. This does add some meat to the 2N rebid by opener. But I also play the same style with 15-17.

[Kalvan14]

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP.
This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable.
There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing].

Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing.

I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

[EricK]

Kalvan14, on Oct 25 2005, 04:54 AM, said:

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP.
This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable.
There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing].

Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing.

I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

As a matter of terminology, there is a difference between "Non-Forcing" and "Sign off".

A Sign-off places the contract and tells partner not to bid any more, a non-forcing bid simply allows partner not to bid anymore.

A 1NT opening is non-forcing, but it is a descriptive bid and doesn't place the contract. Just as a NF 2NT in this sequence is a descriptive bid. The person who is in position to decide the contract is responder, not opener.

Eric

[Kalvan14]

EricK, on Oct 25 2005, 12:33 AM, said:

Kalvan14, on Oct 25 2005, 04:54 AM, said:

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP.
This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable.
There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing].

Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing.

I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

As a matter of terminology, there is a difference between "Non-Forcing" and "Sign off".

A Sign-off places the contract and tells partner not to bid any more, a non-forcing bid simply allows partner not to bid anymore.

A 1NT opening is non-forcing, but it is a descriptive bid and doesn't place the contract. Just as a NF 2NT in this sequence is a descriptive bid. The person who is in position to decide the contract is responder, not opener.

Eric

I used "non-forcing" with due consideration of the meaning.
As an example, after opener re-bids 2N, responder can propose another suit at 3-level. So the 2N bid is "non-forcing", i.e. responder is not committed to a re-bid but can do it if feasible and useful.
OTOH, responder has also -more or less - clarified his hand: invitational, with 5 spades. Do you think that opener is committed to a bid? In my way of playing bridge, opener is entitled to pass (minimum hand, and likely misfit), but I do recognise that mine is a minority position.
What is important is to identify the "forcing bids": I had proposed a 2N "lebensohl", in order to free all direct bids as forcing.