[P_Marlowe]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 17 2007, 08:30 AM, said:

Quote

it is not (!) a free bid assuming that pass
would be forcing

Quote

And pass should be forcing

Don't these statements contradict each other? Most agree that pass should be forcing after partner's 2/1 bid. And if pass is forcing, just by definition 2♠ is a "free" bid, since you are allowed to pass here, and a free bid is any bid you make when you weren't virtually forced to make a call. Whether that free bid shows 6+ or merely no interest in defence is partnership agreement, but everyone here except you is assuming 6+. Why is your way better? Make your case. Min opener, by itself, is not reason to not want to defend, only shortness in enemy suit. If you are short in enemy suit, and not 6 spades, you must have side 4+ suit. Why not bid that suit if bidding, or pass & see if partner has genuine 3 cd support, bid side suit later if necessary?

Quote

But thats just me.

It appears to be only you.

Hi,

I wont go in semantics, if you say, 2S is a free bid, even if pass is
forcing, than so be it.

For the following discussion, please assume that 2C is not 100%
game forcing, i.e. 2C just promises another bid.
I believe most posters, who argue that 2S shows a 6 carder, have
a 2/1 game force background.

The question is, what do you bid with a min opener and 5-1-4-3,
hopefully this shows 5 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs.

You can say, that you can raise to 3C or bid 3D.

But the question is, are those bids forcing or can they still be made
on a min opener.

In my opinion 3C and 3D should show additional strength, and hence
be forcing, because 2H does not necessarily show strength, the bid could
be made on just a good 6 card suit (weak two strenght), and 3C should
show a real fit, and as far as I know, 2C does not promise a 5 card suit.

To differentiate between a good and a bad 3D bid, you could use
some kind of good/bad 2NT, if you want to go scientific, but this
was not part of the discussion, and good/bad 2NT has some nice
side effects as well, which I am happy to avoid, if I can.

In other words, allowing 2S to be bid with 5 card suit, allows opener
to limit his hand, which helps in the decision "playing game / just a
partial / slam".

You may believe that opener can still limit his hand later in the auction,
but it gets tough, ... just look at varius question in the 2/1 context
"How to bid a given hand", and the main issue is, that both sides are
unlimited, and the auction already reached the 3 level,
and those problems pop up as well, if a 2/1 just promises a 2nd bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

The question is, what do you bid with a min opener and 5-1-4-3,hopefully this shows 5 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs.

You can say, that you can raise to 3C or bid 3D.

If bidding shows a minimum, and passing shows extras or a willingness to defend, then why wouldn't you use X to show 5-1-(43) distribution?

[Stephen Tu]

So mainly you are wanting to limit opener's hand.

My point is that you are not exploiting the pass option the opponent has given you. Why can you not pass w/ min, then support partner/bid side suit later to accomplish this, with the direct bid being stronger? Why is rebid your 5 bagger better than this alternative?

Not in comp, one has to temporize with 2S with minimums, so that 3 level bids can show extras. Thus 2S rebid after 2/1 not in comp cannot promise 6 without lots of problems. But with the opponent's bid, you have the option to temporize with pass instead of 2S. This conserves space and gives you more options, makes the 2S call more descriptive, and increases responders options as well.

[P_Marlowe]

jtfanclub, on Jul 17 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

The question is, what do you bid with a min opener and 5-1-4-3,hopefully this shows 5 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs.

You can say, that you can raise to 3C or bid 3D.

If bidding shows a minimum, and passing shows extras or a willingness to defend, then why wouldn't you use X to show 5-1-(43) distribution?

Since Pass is forcing:
#1 Dbl, Penalty, i.e. Dbl shows a hand which wants
to defend (strong bal. hand is possible)
#2 Pass, a hand, which has awaits partners decision,
if he wants to defend or not, usually this shows xx
or xxx in their suit (the weak NT hand is typical)
#3 No interest in defending

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 17 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

So mainly you are wanting to limit opener's hand.

My point is that you are not exploiting the pass option the opponent has given you. Why can you not pass w/ min, then support partner/bid side suit later to accomplish this, with the direct bid being stronger? Why is rebid your 5 bagger better than this alternative?

Not in comp, one has to temporize with 2S with minimums, so that 3 level bids can show extras. Thus 2S rebid after 2/1 not in comp cannot promise 6 without lots of problems. But with the opponent's bid, you have the option to temporize with pass instead of 2S. This conserves space and gives you more options, makes the 2S call more descriptive, and increases responders options as well.

I use the addional option, I use it to differentiate
between offensive / defensive hands.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Why do I believe this is better? I use the standard
forcing pass rules, which reduces the memory load and
keeps things simple. May this be inferior? Sure, but you
wont get rich on the difference, because it is fairly seldom,
that they interfere in our 2/1 auctions, and the options to
kill them is still there. And any advantage will get lost, if
one of us forgets this special case.