[gwnn]

Frances said:

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

Why should 3♥ be forcing? Can't 3NT deny 4 hearts anyway?

[FrancesHinden]

gwnn, on Jan 31 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

Frances said:

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

Why should 3♥ be forcing? Can't 3NT deny 4 hearts anyway?

If 3H is non-forcing, then you are a bit stuck as opener with, say, a 1435 that would otherwise just want to bid 4H. It's very awkward to have to bid 3D with 4-card heart support as well as other good, directionless hands.

[gwnn]

And just another question then...

If neither 2♦ and 2♥ are completely artificial...

What can you do with big hands in general and big one suited hands with spades in particular?

[FrancesHinden]

gwnn, on Jan 31 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

And just another question then...

If neither 2♦ and 2♥ are completely artificial...

What can you do with big hands in general and big one suited hands with spades in particular?

Depends a bit on the rest of your methods.

With a big 1-suited spade hand you traditionally respond 2S, strong jump shift. Easy!

( If you play weak jump shifts, you play that a jump rebid in spades is forcing (1C - 1S - 2C - 3S) ).

With a big hand with a 4-card red suit, you bid the 4-card red suit (F1) over partner's 2C rebid.

With a big strong balanced hand, you either invent a red suit or just bid 4NT (natural).

With a 5(13)4 you splinter over the 2C rebid.

The difficult hands are the ones that these artificial rebids are really invented for - either 5(23)3 or 5(22)4. On the former you usually 'invent' a 2-red suit bid in the 3-card suit, which leads to the debate above - the need to play a raise of the suit as forcing. Playing 2D as artificial solves this problem, and I don't object to it as a playable convention, it just is pretty low on the list of useful things to agree to as it doesn't really come up much and the benefit is marginal. These auctions are very rare - usually opener has rebid 1NT, or rebid in another suit so you have 4SF available.

After 1C - 1H - 2C you can safely invent a spade suit as partner can't have 4 of them.

[fred]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 31 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

I think you bid the hand excellently - 4♣ just shows lots and lots of clubs, but not strong enough in high cards to have bid 3♣ the round before.

But I see you are being tempted by the siren calls of the North Americans to make more bids game forcing. Resist! You now live in the land of limit bidding!
Traditionally the 2♥ bid in Acol was non-forcing, but everyone now plays it as forcing for a round. There's no need to play it as game forcing, invitational or better is easily playable. Opener rebids

2S - minimum (false) preference (could be 2236 if you are playing weak NT). NF
2NT - minimum off-shape with diamonds stopped e.g. 1345, 2236. NF
3C - minimum long clubs (choice of 2S or 3C may depend on suit quality). NF
3D - extras in context, no diamond stop, too good for 3S
3H - hearts***
3S - 3-6 in spades and clubs
3NT - maximum for the auction to date, diamonds well stopped
4C - lots and lots and lots of clubs
4D - splinter for hearts, prepared to play there opposite 3 hearts
4H - prepared to play in a 4-3 heart fit

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

It might be easily playable, but you are going to get the wrong contract a lot more often than you will if you play 2H is forcing to game.

For example, give opener a hand like this:

x
Qxx
KQx
AQJxxx

I assume you would bid 3NT with this hand since 2NT would be non-forcing. Of course there is a good chance that 3NT is the right contract but:

1) If partner has 5 hearts then it is not unlikely that 4H is a better contract than 3NT and it is not safe for him to bid 4H over 3NT (because you could have 2236 or similar). And if partner has a 5-5 hand that could produce a slam, your 3NT bid will really screw him.

If 2H is forcing to game you would bid 2NT leaving room for responder to safely look for a 5-3 heart fit (and look for slam if responder is strong).

2) If partner has a hand that could produce a club slam he has to guess whether to bid over 3NT.

If 2H is forcing to game you would bid 2NT leaving room for responder to express this message at the 3-level.

3) If partner is 6-4 in the majors he might well want to play 4S (or 6S) facing 2-card support. He has to guess how many spades you have if you bid 3NT.

Ditto - if 2H is game-forcing then 2NT is forcing and responder can tell his story at the 3-level.

Playing 2H as game-forcing also has its downside of course, but I believe the upside is significantly greater, especially at IMPs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Jan 31 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

It might be easily playable, but you are going to get the wrong contract a lot more often than you will if you play 2H is forcing to game.

Certainly, if partner actually has a game forcing hand then playing 2H as forcing to game is superior. Opener can make a descriptive rebid without having to jump in order to show extra values.

The same is true in many other positions.
- playing 2/1 as game forcing helps to to the right contract when responder has a game force.
- playing 4th suit game forcing at the 2-level helps to get to the right contract when responder has a game force

I could go on.

On all of these auctions, giving examples of how much easier it is to bid the hand when partner has forced to game is only half of the story. Of course you will get the right contract more often (a lot? slightly? a matter of opinion) when there is a game force opposite.

But you will get to the wrong contract a lot more often when responder has invitational values with both majors.

It's a balance between whether it's more common to have a invite or a game force (a game force) against how well you can show your hand (with a game force you can usually survive, with an invite you will have to make a big distortion).

Playing 2H as game forcing leaves responder with only two invitational bids: 2NT or 3C to cover all his invitational hands (plus either 2S or 3S depending on your jump shift style).

Personally, because I open or rebid NT with a 2245, I would rather swap to playing 2D as a totally artificial game force over a 2C rebid and make 2H natural and non-forcing, than have to play 2H as forcing.

[skjaeran]

With my regular partner we play transfers after 1♣-1M-2♣. (We use transfer responses to 1♣ as well, so M in fact is M-1.)

Before that we played 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ as NF, and 2♦ as conv. inv+. I still do in other partnerships.

In the auction given I agree 4♣ shows a hand with a long suit, unsuited for 3NT and too weak to jump to 3♣ last round.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse. Something like:

x
KQJx
xx
AKJxxx

Assuming that 3♥ would have been invitational, 4♣ should show a hand too good for a 4♥ bid.

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational. 3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

with suits this pure i'd think about reversing.

[han]

skaeran, on Jan 31 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

With my regular partner we play transfers after 1♣-1M-2♣. (We use transfer responses to 1♣ as well, so M in fact is M-1.)

Hi Harald, would you elaborate on this, I haven't seen it before.

For example, is 1C-1H-2C-2H non-forcing with 4-5 in the majors? Or is 2M an artificial GF and are the transfers only up to 2M-1? Or maybe different from both?

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Feb 1 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jan 31 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

With my regular partner we play transfers after 1♣-1M-2♣. (We use transfer responses to 1♣ as well, so M in fact is M-1.)

Hi Harald, would you elaborate on this, I haven't seen it before.

For example, is 1C-1H-2C-2H non-forcing with 4-5 in the majors? Or is 2M an artificial GF and are the transfers only up to 2M-1? Or maybe different from both?

After 1♣-1♦(♥)-2♣:
2♦=trf to 2♥, 6+♥, constructive+ (we use weak/strong transfer JS)
2♥=trf to ♠, 4-5 inv+
2♠=bal inv+
2NT=♣ support inv+
3♣=5♥4+♦ GF