[Jlall]

As for this thread, I think 3S is natural and forcing. Responder can be 6-2 or 5 good spades as mentioned earlier (AKJTx xx xxx xxx).

I think 3C is natural and non forcing.

I disagree with the 3D=forcing camp, I definitely think there are hands in the 6-7 range that can bid this way, especially if they are 5242 that do not want 3D to be forcing. For example:

xxxx Ax Qxxx xxx cannot pass 2D since it will easily bid game if partner is 6-4 reds, and will at least try opposite 5-5 reds.

AJxxx Qx xxxx xx cannot pass 2D since it will try for game if partner has 3 spades, and will bid game if partner is 6-4. After 2N this hand would rather bid 3D than 3N though.

etc.

I also don't see that much gain in having 3D be forcing, I guess you get to explore below 3N sometimes but that's not enough for me to give up on being able to play the best spot sometimes.

Guess I am primitive but I think you can guess the final contract reasonably well after this auction. With this hand I would just bid 4H.

[TimG]

In the 1988 team trials, Meckstroth and Martel both chose to respond one notrump forcing (to partner's one heart opening) holding ♠JT864 ♥964 ♦973 ♣63. Opener rebid two hearts and played there--down at fifty per trick. (I just happened to have read this last night.)

I thought it was common to bypass a four- or five-card spade suit to bid a forcing notrump with a minimum or sub-minimum and heart support. I'm reasonably confident I have seen this approach recommended with a six-card spade suit, though that may have been out of the Eastern Scientific context.

I think there is a school of thought that one heart - one spade - two clubs - two hearts is a stronger sequence than one heart - one notrump - two clubs - two hearts. Perhaps that is an old-fashioned notion, but I expect it has something to do with the choice made by Meckstroth and Martel.

[cherdanno]

TimG, on Sep 23 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

In the 1988 team trials, Meckstroth and Martel both chose to respond one notrump forcing (to partner's one heart opening) holding ♠JT864 ♥964 ♦973 ♣63. Opener rebid two hearts and played there--down at fifty per trick. (I just happened to have read this last night.)

I thought it was common to bypass a four- or five-card spade suit to bid a forcing notrump with a minimum or sub-minimum and heart support. I'm reasonably confident I have seen this approach recommended with a six-card spade suit, though that may have been out of the Eastern Scientific context.

I think there is a school of thought that one heart - one spade - two clubs - two hearts is a stronger sequence than one heart - one notrump - two clubs - two hearts. Perhaps that is an old-fashioned notion, but I expect it has something to do with the choice made by Meckstroth and Martel.

I think you shouldn't read too much into this. They were just psyching, and as they were psyching they just might the bid that would make it toughest for opponents to find their minor suit fit (over 1H 1S they have TWO possible bids with 2344 shape and a 16 count, over 1H 1N they have NONE). This is a different situation than when responder has a 5 count, where finding the right spot is more important (as it might just be our deal opposite a minimum).
In particular, I can't imagine anyone would play 1H 1S 2C 2H as promising values. Ok, I don't want to make statements about anyone, but I can't imagine Meckstroth or Martel were playing this.

[Jlall]

I think a hand with 0 points (or 1) is different than a normal submin hand. Your goal is no longer constructive at all, and you don't really care at all about finding a superior partial, your goal is simply to steal. If you are playing a standard system your goal is also to steal and not get completely burned.

Meck and Martel had different problems though, since Meck was playing strong club. In a strong club system you absolutely know that they have a game, so the only question is what is a more effective steal, 1S or 1N? 2H is too risky since that's the only bid partner can go crazy over, and it's not effective anyways.

The best reason to bid 1N in precision rather than 1S is it gives LHO MANY more problems. Why? Because he is likely to have a good hand without spade length. If you bid 1N he cannot really make a takeout double if hes like 2254 or 1354 because he's worried about spade bids. 1444 would be the absolute best because he would have no bid at all. He also can no longer overcall a natural NT. This forces him into making an awkward decision to overcall with a bad suit and a lot of points and risk missing the other minor, or just to pass and hop to defend, or to make maybe a very heavy 2 level overcall, or whatever. Contrast this to bidding 1S and giving LHO an easy takeout double on all of those hand types.

I'm sure if meckstroth had 6 points (they play constructive raises) with that shape he would bid 1S.

As for Martel, he had no dreams of playing a superior spade partial because his partner likely had a very strong hand. If he was going to play spades after bidding 1S it would be at the 4 level. In an ideal world by bidding 1N he might get to play 2S after passing a reverse on 1H 1N 2S. If partner did not have a very strong hand, 1N would be best as a steal for the same reasons it was for meckstroth. So either way 1N is better than 1S.

Again if Martel had 5 points or w/e (maybe 6, not sure if he plays constructive raises) I'm sure he would have bid 1S.

edit: Now beaten by cherdano, wtf

[Phil]

[quote name='Phil' date='Sep 23 2009, 02:27 PM'] [quote name='jdonn' date='Sep 23 2009, 12:58 PM'] Because I don't want to hear a 2[sp] call with 3 here?[/QUOTE]
To both of you, Kxxxx xxx xx Jxx? And Phil you might hear a raise with 4 too! [/QUOTE]
So we are clear, I wouldn't bid 1[sp] with 5[sp]/3[he] and a bust. [/quote]
Ugh, now I see the problem. I thought I was losing my mind LOL.

To be clear, I would ALWAYS bid 1[sp] with 5[sp] / 3[he]

Sorry Josh.

[jdonn]

You mean I'm not the crazy one? Things have changed around here since I left.

Jlall has a good point about possibly bidding 2♥ on 2-4 in the red suits then wanting to play 3♦, but I'm not nearly as confident about guessing where to play right away over 2NT and prefer to have some investigatory tool other than 3♠ available. xxxxx Ax Axx Txx you might bid 4♥ or 3NT and in either case find the other contract is much better. But it's worth discussing, although I'd say again if you are going to discuss it anyway it seems like a good auction for transfers. Although then you can't bid 3♣ to play. Ugh I don't know.

Thinking a little more I'd still want 3♦ forcing, I think choosing diamonds over hearts (and notrump) after having already chosen hearts over diamonds (albiet via false preference) is, although possible, essentially a fluke. I would give up on it if I have to choose, it's such a small sample of hands that didn't pass 2♦ earlier because game was possible, but aren't good enough for game over 2NT.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Sep 23 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

I wonder why people keep interpreting as signoffs bids that I think are obviously forcing.  Usually it's the other way around.
... 2NT-3♦  and ... 2NT-3♦-3♥ are both clearly forcing.  If you think one of these should be non-forcing, try to write down a hand where you'd want to bid it.
3♦ says "I have enough to accept the game try and good diamonds, and I don't know where to play."  In reply, 3♥ says "I have quite good hearts, but not good enough to insist on 4♥.  Which game do you want to play?"

The auction under discussion is...
1♥ 1♠
2♦ 2♥
2N ??
What a mess. It is a matter of style whether any or all of responder's suit three bids are forcing. Arguably, both partner and you have limited your hands, so perhaps three-bids should be invitational at most. A case can be made for 3♣ to be the only forcing bid, a kind of belated fourth suit forcing. At the other extreme, 3♣ may be a weak sign-off with 5+♣. Notwithstanding, Gnasher and I feel that pass is the only weak bid here. I seem to have covered all bases
Lacking a relevant agreement, however, surely JLall is right, that 4♥ is the safest rebid holding
♠ J87x ♥ Qx ♦ AQx ♣ Jxxx.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Notwithstanding, Gnasher and I feel that pass is the only weak bid here.

No I don't.

Over 2NT, I think that 3♣ is natural and non-forcing, because I can't see any reason to play it as anything else. I think that 3♥ is non-forcing if responder can have a weak hand with three hearts, and forcing otherwise.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

It is a matter of style whether any or all of responder's suit three bids are forcing.

How could 3♠ possibly be non-forcing?

[nige1]

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Notwithstanding, Gnasher and I feel that pass is the only weak bid here.

gnasher, on Sep 24 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

No I don't. Over 2NT, I think that 3♣ is natural and non-forcing, because I can't see any reason to play it as anything else.  I think that 3♥ is non-forcing if responder can have a weak hand with three hearts, and forcing otherwise.

Sorry