[luke warm]

i use 2 bids to show 5+ in the suit and 4+ clubs, 11-15... now given that, do y'all think other suit bids should be forcing or not? presently only 2nt is forcing and i use the others as not, but i'm not sure that's best

[cherdano]

Ritong taught us new suits as NF, but constructive. I think this makes sense. With a GF hand that doesn't know strain, 2N as GF works very well. So any other hand will be game invite at most, and allowing pass is convenient.

Arend

[luke warm]

i'm thinking that 2nt isn't a pure gf, just forcing... responder relays to continue forcing, if he breaks a relay, it's to play.. for example

2h : 2nt
3s : pass is possible.. 3s showed a 3154 hand.. but

2h : 2nt
3c : 3d (5/5 or better : relay)
3h : 3s (longer hearts : relay)
3nt : 4h, 5c, 6c, 6h, etc (1615)

so it seems to me that responder should be able to break the relay short of game... if this is the case, it does make sense for another suit bid to be constructive but not forcing... like justin said, it just feels right for those bids to be forcing, but i can see a good case for them not being so

[akhare]

luke warm, on Mar 12 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

i use 2 bids to show 5+ in the suit and 4+ clubs, 11-15... now given that, do y'all think other suit bids should be forcing or not? presently only 2nt is forcing and i use the others as not, but i'm not sure that's best

I think NF constructive makes most sense because you will likely have a misfit in the suit bid by responder and it may be your last chance to go plus...

Atul

[kenrexford]

I played this conventional approach for several years and found an approach that seemed to work. Maybe you will like it.

First, if 2D is diamonds plus clubs, use 2H as an artificial force. Opener rebids (1) 2S = min, 3S; 2NT = min, no major frag; 3C = min, 3H; 3D = max, no major frag; 3M = max, "nat." 2S, instead of 2H, is non-forcing but constructive. 3M is GF, 6+.

Second, over 2H. Use 2S as forcing, artificial. Opener bids 2NT or 3C with minimum, or logical maximums in similar manner.

After 2S, space is cramped. But, 3D as a pattern check makes sense and seems to work. Never bypass 3NT unless real good cause.

In all cases, 2NT is non-forcing, invitational.

[cherdano]

Jimmy, I don't play relays after 2N, although I am sure it makes a lot of sense. However, I think it is quite useful for responder to set trumps below game with a forcing bid, to enable slam investigation. So in your method, I would prefer relay breaks as setting trumps, asking for slam cooperation.

Arend

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Mar 13 2006, 04:32 AM, said:

Jimmy, I don't play relays after 2N, although I am sure it makes a lot of sense. However, I think it is quite useful for responder to set trumps below game with a forcing bid, to enable slam investigation. So in your method, I would prefer relay breaks as setting trumps, asking for slam cooperation.

Arend

makes sense, arend.. i think you're right

[Gerben42]

Is this a new trend? Which opening bids are these 5-4 hands? If you ask me your new suit bids should be 1-round forcing.

I guess the deal is that 1x - whatever - 2♣ is now artificial but is it worth it?

[luke warm]

Gerben42, on Mar 15 2006, 05:38 AM, said:

Is this a new trend? Which opening bids are these 5-4 hands? If you ask me your new suit bids should be 1-round forcing.

I guess the deal is that 1x - whatever - 2♣ is now artificial but is it worth it?

no, all 1 bids are either 1, 2, or 3 suited (unbalanced)... if 2 suited, they are guaranteed canape... this allows ranking suit bids by responder to be a herbet relay (up to 11/12 hcp with 1nt showing 13+)

so the 2 bids serve a purpose, they allow 1d/h/s (with 2 suits including clubs) to show exactly 4 with 5+ clubs.. i also used bridgebrowser and found out that weak 2 bids (contrary to some opinions posted here), when vulnerable, usually lead to poor scores.. so i'm now experimenting with constructive 2 bids (11-15) and putting all preempts into misiry (when not vulnerable-if i preempt when vulnerable it will be a decent hand)

[MickyB]

I'd make 2D:2H and 2H:2S artificial forcing, and use 2D:2N to show hearts and 2H:2N to show spades. I think it makes sense for a new suit to be forcing, particularly 2M:3D, as you won't usually be able to bid them in a forcing manner otherwise.

What do F-N do?

[luke warm]

kenrexford, on Mar 13 2006, 12:49 AM, said:

I played this conventional approach for several years and found an approach that seemed to work. Maybe you will like it.

First, if 2D is diamonds plus clubs, use 2H as an artificial force. Opener rebids (1) 2S = min, 3S; 2NT = min, no major frag; 3C = min, 3H; 3D = max, no major frag; 3M = max, "nat." 2S, instead of 2H, is non-forcing but constructive. 3M is GF, 6+.

Second, over 2H. Use 2S as forcing, artificial. Opener bids 2NT or 3C with minimum, or logical maximums in similar manner.

After 2S, space is cramped. But, 3D as a pattern check makes sense and seems to work. Never bypass 3NT unless real good cause.

In all cases, 2NT is non-forcing, invitational.

this is interesting, i think i'll study it some more

MickyB said:

I'd make 2D:2H and 2H:2S artificial forcing, and use 2D:2N to show hearts and 2H:2N to show spades. I think it makes sense for a new suit to be forcing, particularly 2M:3D, as you won't usually be able to bid them in a forcing manner otherwise.

What do F-N do?

yeah, that's along the lines ken advocated.. i don't know what they do, i'll try to find out

[kenrexford]

Sounds like you play something akin to what I played for several years; we called it MICS.

We found an interesting purification of canape through a modified Roman 2C opening, coupled with a "Flamingo" 1D.

2C showed any three-suited hand. This was not overly preemptive when we added in a 2D relay as an asking bid. In response, 2H showed a heart-anchor minimum; 2S was a heart-lacking minimum. 2NT...3D were submarine maximums (bid below stiff).

The "Flamingo" diamond: 1D showed either a diamond-major canape (we opened 2D with either minor longer -- still do that today), or EITHER minor one-suited. Obviously, a rebid of 2C or 3C, then, was club-only, with a possible diamond void. In response to 1D, Responder could bid 3-card majors, with 1NT showing a strange, limited 3-4 in each major. Hence, 1H or 1S implied either only one major (3+) or both majors. You could opt 1NT with 5-3 or 3-5 in the majors if desired.

After 1D-P-1H, Opener could bid 1S with a diamond-spade canape, or 1NT with 5341 pattern (or possibly 5332 if electing not to open this balanced).

This purifies canape, in that all openings are now one-suited or two-suited, and if the latter always longer in the second suit (or 5-5 if the major is "longer"). Three-suited as resolved, no club exception exists, and one-suited with clubs is resolved better than through a 2C opening.

I once had a 200-page-or-so book on this for several friends, but I lost the data through a computer crash. A few hardcopies exist (I may have one hdden somewhere). Several people in Ohio still play this way, although I dropped it for 2/1 because of new partnerships. I could probably find a copy for you somewhere if you are interested.