[gnasher]

---

2NT would be Lebensohl.
3♣ would be game-forcing.
2♠ would be forcing for one round. If partner now bid 2NT, 3♣ or 3♠, you could pass that, but 2♠-2NT-3♣ would be be game-forcing.

[JLOGIC]

3C

[Phil]

If I'm going to GF this hand, I might as well show my six spades first, so 2♠ and then 3♣.

Seems odd that 3♣ after 2N would be GF.

[jmcw]

2♠ wtp?

[MrAce]

jmcw, on 2011-August-08, 14:39, said:

2♠ wtp?

Technically there is no problem with 2♠, however pd is very likely to be short in ♠ and if we bid ♠ and later ♣ he may misjudge our hand (expect wasted values vs his shortness). I agree with the title of this topic, we have very good cards for pd and we may as well go for what we think is right and bid 3♣, which is our most likely trump.

I don't know Andy's system, but i think if we bid 2♠ first, there is a chance we may recieve other bids from pd except than 2NT/3♠. idk..

I kinda like 3♣ but i am curious now what others think.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2011-August-08, 13:43, said:

Seems odd that 3♣ after 2N would be GF.

The idea is that with a weak 5-3 you'd know that 3♣ was playable, so you'd be happy to bid that. If opener had a game-forcing 3415 he would bid 3♠ himself, so you wouldn't miss a spade fit when it mattered. With a weak 6-3 and reasonable spades, you'd usually have made a weak jump shift

With a good 5-3, if 2♠-2NT;3♣ is non-forcing, what do you do?

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-August-09, 02:45, said:

The idea is that with a weak 5-3 you'd know that 3♣ was playable, so you'd be happy to bid that. If opener had a game-forcing 3415 he would bid 3♠ himself, so you wouldn't miss a spade fit when it mattered. With a weak 6-3 and reasonable spades, you'd usually have made a weak jump shift

With a good 5-3, if 2♠-2NT;3♣ is non-forcing, what do you do?

This seems backwards. With a game forcing 5-3, you could just start with 3C as partner will bid 3S when he's 3415, so you will always discover your fit. With a non game forcing 5-3, if partner does not have a GF, you will never discover your fit. This is costly when you have a 4S game as you often will even when neither hand has a GF without it.

I suppose you will gain some by having a little bit more room in slam bidding (eg 1C-1S-2H-3C-3S-4D will be a cuebid for clubs for you, whereas if you could still have a spade fit, 4D should bid coming in spades and you have to bid 4C to confirm clubs is the suit, etc), but I still would hate to have to play 3C with Axx Axxx x AKQxx opposite KQxxx xx xxx Jxx because my system forced me to.

[gnasher]

That's a good point.

This wasn't actually the problem I faced at the table. because we hadn't discussed 2♠-2NT-3♣. What really happened was that I bid 2♠ because my thought processes went no further than "I have six of these", partner (Frances) bid 2NT, I bid 3♣ not knowing whether it was forcing (and not worried, as it seemed a fairly close decision whether to force), partner bid 3NT on a minimum because she didn't know if I'd meant it as forcing, the opponents let it through, and then we agreed that my 3♣ was forcing for the reasons I gave above.

[FrancesHinden]

Gnasher and I never got round to discussing all these sequences (we probably spent more time discussing competitive auctions than uncontested ones over all) and we still spent longer discussing things than the match took.
As he says, if I'm vulnerable at imps and partner makes a bid which I think there's a good chance he meant as forcing, I won't pass it.

I don't think there is a perfect solution:

If ....2S-2NT-3C is non-forcing, you are going to struggle in choice-of-game auctions to find your club fit and still work out whether to play in 3NT, 4S or 5C. If partner has a good hand he might not bid 2NT and the club fit may got lost. Also after ...3C - 3S it's very unclear which suit has been agreed; you still don't know if you have a spade fit or not. And what do you do with 6-3 in the blacks - still start with 3C? Or give up on the club fit?

If ....2S -2NT-3C is forcing, you have to do something unpleasant with a weakish 5-3 in the blacks. One alternative not mentioned is to bid 2S, F1, then pass 2NT if that is what partner bids (after all, partner doesn't always bid 2NT, sometimes partner raises spades or bids 3C or makes a forcing bid).

It seems to me that I'd rather play in a potentially sub-optimal 2NT contract on a partial board and have my game forcing and slam hunting auctions better defined.

(Actually it seems to me that 'standard' reverse methods i.e. 2own M F1, lowest of 2NT/4th suit weak and others forcing ... are inferior to some more artificial schemes. But I've never got round to agreeing one of them.)

[jonottawa]

gnasher, on 2011-August-09, 06:42, said:

I bid 2♠ because my thought processes went no further than "I have six of these"

+1

I'd have followed with 3♥ over 2N fwiw.