[JRG]

From my old Acol and SA (Goren?) days, I concur with 2over1.

Once opener limits his hand with a 1NT or minimum rebid in his original suit, a non-reverse or non jump-shift bid by responder was not forcing. In fact, the way we played Acol, a minimum rebid by opener was a flashing warning sign: it was almost certain that he would pass the new suit response unless he took preference.

[bglover]

Absolutely. I don't know when the rule changed that a rebid of suit did not throw up a stop sign, but I can't say that it didn't since so many people and authorities play this as a new suit bid is still forcing one round.

Certainly, there is a logical reason why a suit rebid by opener should be treated in the same light as a NT rebid-- since both bids have almost exactly the same meaning (1nt bid by opener-- PARTNER i HAVE A MINIMUM AND WE DONT WANT TO GET TOO HIGH...Suit rebid-- PARTNER I HAVE A MINIMUM AND A SIX CARD SUIT), there is good reason to play them the same way.

Responder still has several ways to keep the bidding from dying with apporpriate values, by jumping or reversing, just like before the change occurred. The advantage is, of course, that you can bail at the 2 level in a misfit instead of the three level... that is a significant advantage.

I am not trying to persuade anyone that they should adopt this approach... just that it works for me and has been around for a long time.

[Stephen Tu]

Acol, which has always had many more NF sequences, or SA of 60 years ago a NF auction of 1d-1s-2d-2h I can agree with. But having to jump to force has been discarded as too awkward & space consuming on the stronger hands for many decades.

Do you have a book published within the last 30 years treating this sequence as NF? 40 years?

It's more feasible to play NF new suit after 1nt because there's more room available. Also it's more important to be able to get to 2H since a decent fit is more likely than after the 1m ... 2m rebid case. In the latter case passing is often reasonable.

[bglover]

I suggest you reread your post. There is no logical response to what i said and I can't understand your argument.

Look, I am not disputing that most people play the sequence 1d-1s-2d-2h as a 1 round force. I do not, but I play very weak openings in SA and so it is part of my system that it isn't forcing.

My point is, was and will be that once opener has limited his hand, it makes sense to play that a new suit that isn't a reverse (or jump shift) is non forcing. Why? Because the other methods are still available.

I said in my post my ways are from way back when and that I am not trying to persuade anyone to change to them. I have had a ton of success playing this way, but then I understand the workings of it because I've had a lot of practice playing this way.

Your statement gives no logical extension as to why partner should be forced to bid again in a misfit. The sequence 1d-1s-2d-2h still does not create a game force so all you are doing is craeting a 3 level sequence instead of a 2 with no advantage that I can see... Now, as part of the way I play, 1d-1s-2d- 2n shows extra values (13+) to cover this situation where I have invite values (3h bid by opener shows game interest, 4 hearts and ability to play in 4hts or 3n). So, my system has covered all the bases... What I have that you do not is the ability to play at the 2 level. At MPs thats a SIGNIFICANT advantage and nobody is showing me the downside. When you can show me where I am losing something by bidding this way I will be glad to acknoledge I've been doing it wrong for all these years.

As to "It's more feasible to play NF new suit after 1nt because there's more room available. Also it's more important to be able to get to 2H since a decent fit is more likely than after the 1m ... 2m rebid case. In the latter case passing is often reasonable" statement, u are either agreeing with me that 2h is passable (my whole point) in 1d-1s-2d-2h or you left something out that I am missing... Please explain so I can properly respond.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

My point is, was and will be that once opener has limited his hand, it makes sense to play that a new suit that isn't a reverse (or jump shift) is non forcing. Why? Because the other methods are still available.

Playing new suit as a 1RF does several things. One is that you can bid something on invitational hands looking for a superior major fit, with tolerance for opener's minor, without fear of being dropped in an inferior spot when opener doesn't know you have a fit for his original suit. You can get back to 3 of opener's minor, or maybe 2NT. If new suit isn't forcing, you have to decide whether to force to game immediately, or give up on finding major fits with inv hands. Your only inv bid is 2nt, and partner with a min won't be able to remove to a possible major fit at 3M, since he won't know whether you have extra major length or not.

With GF hands, you can distinguish 5-4 hands from 5-5 hands, since you don't have to jump with both to force. The jump can be strictly 5+-5+. With a stopper in one of the two remaining suits instead of the other, you can probe and stop in 3m rather than 4m if 3nt isn't playable. Opener has room to rebid 3m without a stop in the 4th suit, and doesn't have to guess what to bid after 1d-1s-2d-3h with no club stopper & no fit for either major. Your methods he could bid 3nt and you could be off the first 5 club tricks.

Quote

Your statement gives no logical extension as to why partner should be forced to bid again in a misfit.

If new suit is a 1RF, partner can be very strong and you can have game on power easily. The 1RF is enabling an easier time picking the right game. Partner is forced because he doesn't know what the limit of the hand is yet.

What you give up playing new suit 1RF is finding a major fit with weak two suiters in the majors; you have to pass 2m. The question is whether the gains your style achieves, in finding these 2M partials better than 2m, outweigh losses on the set of stronger hands where you guess more due to space consumption, and also weak hands where 2m was best after all.

Quote

The sequence 1d-1s-2d-2h still does not create a game force so all you are doing is craeting a 3 level sequence instead of a 2 with no advantage that I can

I'm gaining on different hands than you are, bidding 2H on a different set of hands. The gain is better auctions on the INV & GF set of hands, the loss is on the weak major two suiters.

Quote

see... Now, as part of the way I play, 1d-1s-2d- 2n shows extra values (13+) to cover this situation where I have invite values (3h bid by opener shows game interest, 4 hearts and ability to play in 4hts or 3n).

Ah, an artificial F 2nt. But now you can't play in 2nt ...

Quote

In the latter case passing is often reasonable" statement, u are either agreeing with me that 2h is passable (my whole point) in 1d-1s-2d-2h or you left something out that I am missing

I am saying that *responder* passing 2m is often reasonable, full auction 1d-1s-2d-all pass. Rather than trying a nf 2H, which may or may not actually find a better spot. Certainly you can score some gains here, it's just not 100% clear that these gains will be greater than losses incurred with the artificial 2nt bid (can't play 2nt, potential wrongside of 3nt). Also previously you hadn't mentioned this F 2nt treatment, which is definitely non-std. What do you with the 11-12 pt hands, where you might want to invite, but not force?

[bglover]

OK I'm a little clearer on what you are getting at, but I can't say I agree or am convinced by your arguments (but I'm a stubborn coot).

I won't address all of your points, just 1 significant one. If I rebid 2n in the sequence 1d-1s-2d, it is not artficial... it is showing stoppers and a willingnes to play 3N. SA bidding is very geared towards NT contracts (thats not a secret), and usually the best spot for a set of hands where one contains a 6 card minor is, in fact 3nt when there are game values. 2N is, of course passable, by opener with a dead minimum hand.

So, 2N is NOT artificial at all. If I lack a stopper in a suit, and for sake of this argument, let's assume its clubs, I would, indeed bid (1d-1s-2d) 2hearts (if I have 4 of them). If i have 3 hearts only, I will either rebid 2n (assuming I have enough points to almost insist on game as its invitational only) or I will PASS if I have a bad 11 or 10. If I lack a heart stopper but have a club stopper, my only choice with the invitational hand is 2n and hope partner can bid 3n.

Yes, I risk that partner may have no help for me if all my 11 points are in 2 suits (lets assume I am AKA) but they are good points, and hopefully partner's hand isnt AKQJ10x of diamonds and an oustide jack.

Of course, it's not perfect, but the good thing is I can pass out of a bad fit early, still show all hand types and continue to play weak openers. I am NEVER passing partner if i have 13 or 14, and I have ways to show this thru jumps, reverses, 4th suit forcing etc.

The gain is that playing weak openers in general will get you some number of tops just by mucking up the opponent's structured sequences before they ever get started, and of course, give partner a chance to compete on fits earlier.

But, if you play a weak opening style it is imperative that you have a way to stop the bidding early as well.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

2N is, of course passable, by opener with a dead minimum hand.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. This contradicts your original description of 2nt as "13+"; if it was NF you should have put the upper limit on it. If 2nt is NF, then my original point of not being able to distinguish GF 5-5 S/H from GF 5-4 S/H still applies.

Quote

So, 2N is NOT artificial at all. If I lack a stopper in a suit, and for sake of this argument, let's assume its clubs, I would, indeed bid (1d-1s-2d) 2hearts (if I have 4 of them).

But how will partner know whether you have 5-4 and 11-12 pts, just lacking club stopper, vs. a weak 5-5 6-9? He won't know when to pass 2H and when to keep bidding.

Quote

Of course, it's not perfect, but the good thing is I can pass out of a bad fit early, still show all hand types and continue to play weak openers. I am NEVER passing partner if i have 13 or 14, and I have ways to show this thru jumps, reverses, 4th suit forcing etc.

But on some of the good hands partner will be on a guess since you have taken up your bidding space. Playing new suit = 1RF, it's still possible to pass out of a bad fit early, it just has to be done one bid earlier, passing the 2m rebid rather than trotting out the 2H call. Like I said you are only gaining on some subset of the weak major 2 suiters opposite the min 6 bagger, sometimes finding a better major partial, while losing on some subset of the stronger hands getting to inferior partials or games.

[bglover]

Well keep in mind we are opening weak (11 point) hands the way we play... so you have to have a wider range to invite game since opener can not define his hand well with his 2d bid when it is showing some minimum (since the range is 11-15 instead of the normal 13-15), so our 2nt invite is, of necessity a good 11 to a bad 14 (a good 14 you are going to have to bid 3n and not be able to explore completely for stoppers... that's a given and something of a flaw, but a small one). To partially cover this, we also play that a NT rebid by opener shows extras as well... so that 1d-1s-2d-2h-2n shows around 14 (with 15 would rebid 3n obviously) and the 2/1 bidder is allowed to pass with a dead 10-11 point hand... or can bid 3 of minor to sign off there if NT seems in appropriate. Thus, opener's 3d bid avails us an opportunity to refine the point range further still without getting too high (ya we play 2n a lot... and its usually a good spot).

But we gain in 2 significant ways... 1st being the number of additional hands we are competing on and mucking the opponent's auctions, AND (capitalized since it is germane here), the number of hands we get to 2 of a major and sign off in while the field has gotten a level higher. We aren't missing any games the field is bidding anyway although we risk playing 3n occasionally where a 4-3 major fit may play better, but that is rare enough that we can live with that.

As I said, the rebid of a suit as stop sign was around for a long time before SAYC was developed and I still think it is useful, and I will also say that I know of many people who still play it, even if it is not formally part of the Yellow Card system. There are good reasons to play it this way, and that is all I have been saying all along.

If other people do not want to, I certainly do not blame them, and if they do not play weakish openings (as my partners and I do), it lessens the advantage to the bid. But within the framework of my bidding structure, the bid works well (and comes up a lot out of necessity). We play a lot of 22 point fits my way, so you need an early bailout structure.

Do keep in mind this is a very matchpoint-oriented stragegy. I would not necessarily recommend it for playing IMPS. But, at matchpoints, having a weak opening structure is a significant advantage (as is the ability to play 1nt if the field is playing primarily 2/1).