[jtfanclub]

First time with a new partner, but you've played against him before and you know he's quite good. You agree on 'Expert Standard', but don't discuss much in detail.

Opponents silent.

1♣ 1♠
2♦ 2NT
3♣ ?

Is responder forced to bid, or is 3♣ an offer to play?

[helene_t]

2NT in Ingberman, it asks opener to bid 3♣ if he has less than GF values. So responder can pass.

If 2NT is natural and non-forcing, 3♣ is a contract improvement.

So in either case it is nonforcing.

[peachy]

BWS says 4th suit or 2NT, whichever is cheaper to bid, is weakness showing. That was not used so 3C is forcing. However, there are other methods that are equally "expert" so I would not Pass 3C in the given auction if I had not discussed what our methods are after opener reverses.

[helene_t]

Peachy is right. Ignore my above comment.

[han]

In my experience you never know about these reverse auctions if you haven't discussed them.

[jtfanclub]

han, on Nov 7 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

In my experience you never know about these reverse auctions if you haven't discussed them.

Boy, that doesn't seem like that unusual an auction.

So when two experts sit down for a Cayne Match or whatever, do they discuss this auction beforehand?

[kenrexford]

If you sit down with a person and agree to play "expert standard" without any other agreements, and you reverse into diamonds, and partner bids 2NT, and you know that 3♣ might be interpreted by partner in some "expert standard" approaches as a passable call, you do not bid 3♣ unless you are willing to have partner pass with a really weak hand. You bid something else.

So, I would view 3♣ in this unusual context as passable. However, I would not in fact pass unless I had a crystal-clear pass.

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Nov 7 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

Boy, that doesn't seem like that unusual an auction.

So when two experts sit down for a Cayne Match or whatever, do they discuss this auction beforehand?

no. during an online cayne match you will sometimes see them discuss this as it comes up at the table.

the point han is making is that there is no cut-and-dry standard threatment here. whether the call is F or NF depends on your agreements.

[Codo]

OF course it depends upon agreement, but I would bet that ingberman is more popular then peachys view, so 3 Club is passable.
At leastt it should be because of the reasons Ken gave.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Nov 7 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

If you sit down with a person and agree to play "expert standard" without any other agreements, and you reverse into diamonds, and partner bids 2NT, and you know that 3♣ might be interpreted by partner in some "expert standard" approaches as a passable call, you do not bid 3♣ unless you are willing to have partner pass with a really weak hand. You bid something else.

So, I would view 3♣ in this unusual context as passable. However, I would not in fact pass unless I had a crystal-clear pass.

So 3♣ is not forcing because that's what partner might think.

And that logic doesn't work in reverse why?

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Nov 7 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

So 3♣ is not forcing because that's what partner might think.

And that logic doesn't work in reverse why?

Because partner would not make a bid that is likely to be passed with a forcing hand, but partner might have no option but to make such a bid with a non-forcing hand. I admit that this logic doesn't work for every conceivable auction, but it does work for this one.

The only path to playing in 3♣ here for opener is to bid 3♣. There are other paths to game contracts.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Nov 7 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 7 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

So 3♣ is not forcing because that's what partner might think.

And that logic doesn't work in reverse why?

Because partner would not make a bid that is likely to be passed with a forcing hand, but partner might have no option but to make such a bid with a non-forcing hand. I admit that this logic doesn't work for every conceivable auction, but it does work for this one.

The only path to playing in 3♣ here for opener is to bid 3♣. There are other paths to game contracts.

If 2NT is forcing (because 4th suit was cheaper) then there is no such thing as opener having a non-forcing hand.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 7 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Nov 7 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 7 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

So 3♣ is not forcing because that's what partner might think.

And that logic doesn't work in reverse why?

Because partner would not make a bid that is likely to be passed with a forcing hand, but partner might have no option but to make such a bid with a non-forcing hand. I admit that this logic doesn't work for every conceivable auction, but it does work for this one.

The only path to playing in 3♣ here for opener is to bid 3♣. There are other paths to game contracts.

If 2NT is forcing (because 4th suit was cheaper) then there is no such thing as opener having a non-forcing hand.

What, precisely, does one get dealt that qualifies his hand as a "non-forcing hand?" Is it a one-eyed Jack?

The point is that Opener should not bid 3♣ in this undiscussed auction unless he has a contextual minimum, a hand that would not be bothered by a pass.

[MFA]

2NT gameforcing is 100% standard among 'experts' where I come from (Denmark), except for a few who might have agreed Lebensohl.

[kenrexford]

2NT is 100% ________________, except when it isn't, for me too.

The situation, IMO, is sort of like this. We sit down and agree Dury. However, when it comes up, neither of us know whether the other will expect 2♦ to be the weak bid or 2M as the weak bid. So, what will happen?

First, Opener will always bid 2♦. Second, Responder will always bid 2M next. Third, Opener will either pass or will bid again, dependoing on what he has. This sequence is a forced sequence to protect the agreement gap, with the insurance cost being inability to play in 2M when the Drury bid is hedgy and Opener has a full Opener.

This is an identical auction. No one knows what 2NT should show. However, Responder knows that it is forcing. Opener will either bid 3♣ with a minimum or will bid something else with a non-minimum. Responder will be able to explain his intentions when and if Opener bids 3♣. The partnership is locked into a specific dance type until we resolve this agreement gap.

[pclayton]

Say responder rebid 2♠ (instead of 2N), and opener rebid 3♣, it's NF.

So 2N is forcing. Why should 3♣ suddenly create a force? I don't get it. Does responder really need to rebid 2♠ with five crappy spades and a great heart stopper; like: xxxxx AQx xxx xx? 3♣ just improves the contract as far as I'm concerned.

Opener can bid 3♥ or 4♣ if he wants to make some noise.

[el tombo]

I play 4th suit forcing as forcing to game (Is this a bad idea?) and 2N as lebensohl so 3C is definitely non-forcing with any partner I play with.

[whereagles]

In SEF, 2NT is a relay and 3♣ shows a minimum reverse, hence it's NF.

[skjaeran]

Expert standard will vary from country to country or even region to region, if there really is an expert standard at all.

I'm used to play preference to the opening suit as the only non-GF rebid by responder, thus I'd be in a GF already. Others play the lowest of 4th suit and 2NT as the only NF-rebid, and thus would be in a GF already. Others play Ingberman or something similar, and 3♣ is clearly NF.

To know what applies, you'd have to discuss this beforehand or be sure of what's "standard" in your environment - IF there is such a thing.

[gnasher]

skaeran, on Nov 9 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

Expert standard will vary from country to country or even region to region, if there really is an expert standard at all.

Indeed. Opposite one of my compatriots, having agreed that 2♥ would be Lebensohl, I'd assume that 2NT was game-forcing.