[skjaeran]

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing.

Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

[Halo]

skaeran, on Apr 23 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing.

Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

Can't resist another attempt.

Your partner makes a bid he clearly expects you to respond to (5 year old says 'forcing is not the issue').

You initiate a debate as to whether it is theoretically forcing. Let's say your partner agrees with your theory that it is NF (say at the 98th percentile of responding hands), but says 'what excuse did you have for passing - were you just proving a point on your 64th percentile hand.'

Is eveything in Bridge abstract logic, or is it closer to statistical analysis?

Bring on some more 5 year olds (big glass half full).

[han]

Clear NF for me. Partner can't have this shape (2-1-6-4), that would be a 3D bid.

[skjaeran]

Halo, on Apr 23 2007, 09:14 PM, said:

skaeran, on Apr 23 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing.

Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

Can't resist another attempt.

Your partner makes a bid he clearly expects you to respond to (5 year old says 'forcing is not the issue').

You initiate a debate as to whether it is theoretically forcing. Let's say your partner agrees with your theory that it is NF (say at the 98th percentile of responding hands), but says 'what excuse did you have for passing - were you just proving a point on your 64th percentile hand.'

Is eveything in Bridge abstract logic, or is it closer to statistical analysis?

Bring on some more 5 year olds (big glass half full).

The issue for discussion here was wheter the 2♠ bid should be forcing or not, given the premises that the 2♠-bidder was limited to 16(17) hcp (by the 2♣ rebid) and responder had shown a minimum (5-8 hcp or thereabouts). And that the 2♠ bid was shape showing.

Nobody in this thread are using any form of abstract logic or statistical analyses.

Simple logic tells you that 2♠ can't be forcing. There's no hand opener can have in this bidding sequence that can make a forcing bid. The 2♠ bid just say that the hand is a maximum wiht 3145 distribution. Responder now is in possesion of information to make an informed decision of the final contract. If he's got a 4522 7 count, obviously he'll pass, since 2♠ rates to be the best spot to play in.