[mr1303]

---

Our team-mates conspired to lose it as well - +260 (sigh)

2H was a weak 2, and 2S was constructive but not forcing. 2NT is the only forcing call after a weak 2 in their methods.

Who gets the blame for this one?

[Cyberyeti]

mr1303, on 2012-October-22, 07:21, said:

---

Our team-mates conspired to lose it as well - +260 (sigh)

2H was a weak 2, and 2S was constructive but not forcing. 2NT is the only forcing call after a weak 2 in their methods.

Who gets the blame for this one?

N has a 10 count (admittedly not a great one) in a range of 6-10 opposite a constructive NF bid, he can't pass 2♠. Vul against not, I think I open 1♥ rather than 2♥ and I'm probably headed for a bad slam.

[iviehoff]

mr1303, on 2012-October-22, 07:21, said:

Who gets the blame for this one?

I'll start by blaming the system again.

If you are going to play destructive weak 2s in 1st/2nd, and have no way for responder to show a great hand interested in something other than opener's suit, then this kind of thing is bound to happen. Maybe it doesn't happen very often, so you play such a system if it gains on balance.

But should it have happened on this occasion? If 2S is constructive in response to a weak two, and the weak-2 holder actually has a 10 count with scattered values, and 2-card support, then what does "constructive" mean if it doesn't raise a response from this hand?

[EricK]

Even if north shouldn't have passed, I can't see how south can make a non- forcing bid with this monster.

[gwnn]

I would pass from north originally. It really doesn't look like a weak 2 me and also not like a 1-level opener.

I would also not make a non-forcing bid from S. Maybe 4S is OK, giving up on slam.

I don't know for sure which mistake is bigger but maybe S. You are vulnerable vs not with a 6-6 hand (and I'm not counting losers here but it looks like there aren't that many) and you're offering a partscore.

What N should do over a NF 2S bid depends on what the 2S bid actually promised. Some people play that N can only raise if he has 3 cards. Some other people play that S always promises 6. Either way, I don't think 2H-p-2S (NF) should potentially lead to 3NT based on high-card points. So I don't think N should bid on just because he has a maximum.

[rmnka447]

South gets the blame because he didn't make a forcing bid when holding a huge player.

As long as partner has 6 cards for the weak two bid, there will be at least an eight card fit somewhere. So 2 NT has to be bid followed by South bidding his suits.

North also gets some criticism for opening that hand 2 ♥ red vs. white at IMPs. While it may work sometime, it's the kind of hand that is a -800, -1100, or -1400 waiting to happen.

[ArtK78]

I don't understand South's bid in the least.

If someone held a gun to my head and told me to bid 2♠ nonforcing, I would think about it before bidding 2♠ (I am not that stupid). But there is almost no other condition that would prompt me to make a nonforcing bid on a hand that may have 12 tricks in hand opposite a 3-3-3-4 zero count. And partner did open the bidding, albeit with a weak call. I am certainly not going to play in a partial.

Perhaps North should raise 2♠. I don't think that passing is the worst action I have ever seen. But I would have to have some idea of the range of hands that bids 2♠ over 2♥ and also on the range of hands that constitute an opening 2♥ bid in this position vulnerable against not. Given the hand on which South bid 2♠, I suspect I would raise. It seems that South is more than a little conservative.

[Cyberyeti]

Also depends on methods. If 2N is the only forcing response, how are you going to be able to deal with 2♥-2N-3♠(good hand/good suit) for example, big difference between Qxx, KQJ109x, Q, xxx and void, AKQxxx, xxx, xxxx, and pretty difficult to sort out at that level.

Is 3♠ not forcing ? I'd probably bid 2♠ if I wasn't sure, but our version of constructive non forcing is bid unless you have a no fit minimum opposite a pretty wide range (although less so at this vul) weak 2.

[Fluffy]

like the escape 1 hand the blame goes to the three: system, north and south.

-non focing new suits is awful IMO, forcing everybody to guess.
-3♠ over 2♥ is ridicoulous to be played with any other meaing than natural GF if 2♠ is not forcing
-bidding 2♠ with 10 tricks in south's hand is a joke
-passing a encouraging bid with a maximum with fit is not understanding a word of this game.

[PhilKing]

Both actions were horrid, but North underbid by about half a trick, whereas South underbid by about three.

[ArtK78]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-22, 10:21, said:

Also depends on methods. If 2N is the only forcing response, how are you going to be able to deal with 2♥-2N-3♠(good hand/good suit) for example, big difference between Qxx, KQJ109x, Q, xxx and void, AKQxxx, xxx, xxxx, and pretty difficult to sort out at that level.

Is 3♠ not forcing ? I'd probably bid 2♠ if I wasn't sure, but our version of constructive non forcing is bid unless you have a no fit minimum opposite a pretty wide range (although less so at this vul) weak 2.

No one said that the responses to 2NT are what you claim that they are. But I admit that if a 3♠ bid is possible over 2NT, it makes bidding the South hand awkward. Nevertheless, the idea of bidding 2♠ nonforcing is just unfathomable to me.

Fluffy, on 2012-October-22, 10:22, said:

like the escape 1 hand the blame goes to the three: system, north and south.

-non focing new suits is awful IMO, forcing everybody to guess.
-3♠ over 2♥ is ridicoulous to be played with any other meaing than natural GF if 2♠ is not forcing
-bidding 2♠ with 10 tricks in south's hand is a joke
-passing a encouraging bid with a maximum with fit is not understanding a word of this game.

Nonforcing responses to a weak 2 bid are not terrible. But you can't use them with a good hand. I play light openings non-vul in 1st and 2nd seats. In this context, a weak 2 bid can be 5 cards (sometimes 5 bad cards) and 3-9 HCP. Simple suit responses are nonforcing - in fact, they demand a pass. You can't make a nonforcing suit response on a hand which has fair prospects for game (I won't even go into prospects for slam - that is just too unsettling for words).

[mikeh]

1. Opening 2♥ with a bad suit and lots of defence strikes me as tactically bad. Yes, you get to open weak twos more often, and will sometimes cause problems for your opps, but meanwhile your partner has to guess in save situations or makes a bad lead, etc.

2. Playing 2♠ as nonforcing? Why? How often are you going to be dealt a hand on which it makes sense to improve the partscore opposite a weak 2? Yes, I see that it was constructive, but requiring S to bid 2N and then 3♠ (or 4minor on some hands) as forcing strikes me as silly

3. Having said all that, holding Qx in spades and KQx in clubs, on an auction that at least hints that partner is short in hearts (else why improve the partscore) makes passing 2♠ one of the weakest choices I have seen on the forum in some time.

[neilkaz]

Hmm...responder had two 6 cards suits, both headed by the AKT and made a non-forcing bid. ROFL..guess who the large majority of the blame goes to !!

[gwnn]

mikeh, the point of 2S NF is that often you have a hand like AKJxx x KJxx Axx where you can have game if partner has 3 cards in spades but where you wouldn't really like to be higher than 2S if partner has 0-2 spades (maybe you disagree with this example hand but I'm sure that you can change it a bit to agree with it). The point is NOT to improve the partscore and not, to my mind, to make a general invite with 5+ spades. I think there are much more hands that want to bid 2S NF than F but it obviously depends on a lot of stuff.

[cargobeep]

I would NEVER play 2 Spades as non-forcing.

ANY non-game bid over a 2-level preempt (excluding a raise of the preempter's suit) should be forcing, as it is telling partner that game is likely. If game is found to be just an inch too far away, we can stop at the 3-level.

Quote

My link 3
My link
My link 2
A
B
C

[mikeh]

gwnn, on 2012-October-22, 11:13, said:

mikeh, the point of 2S NF is that often you have a hand like AKJxx x KJxx Axx where you can have game if partner has 3 cards in spades but where you wouldn't really like to be higher than 2S if partner has 0-2 spades (maybe you disagree with this example hand but I'm sure that you can change it a bit to agree with it). The point is NOT to improve the partscore and not, to my mind, to make a general invite with 5+ spades. I think there are much more hands that want to bid 2S NF than F but it obviously depends on a lot of stuff.

I understand all this, even if my post suggested otherwise. Of course, there are hands on which we want to explore game if partner has, for example, a decent hand and 3 spades, while preserving the option of the 2-level when he doesn't.

But there are similar hands where we want to be in game if he has a good hand with 2 spades (especially Hx), and hands where we want to get back to 3♥ rather than languish in 2♠ opposite a stiff or void.

So 2♠ nf isn't a panacea that caters to all various 'we may have game' holdings. In the meantime, when we know that 'a' game will probably make, but we don't know which one, having to go through 2N to establish a force is cumbersome, regardless of what your response structure may be. Indeed, in order to accommodate this issue, one will have to limit the options available to opener.

For example, after a 2♠ opening, one will have problems with a gf hand with hearts, since opener may rebid 3M over 2N...now how do you force in hearts or even give a cog option?

I guess my imp bias is showing through. I'll settle for playing 2♥ or 3♥ when a spade partial would be better just so that I am able to bid game and slam more reliably, which includes having what I feel is a useful 2N structure...when I respond 2N I am looking for either 3N or (far more often) the right level in partner's major...which makes my structure far more precise than it can ever be using new suit responses as nf.

I guess I am saying that when one considers the effectiveness of a nf suit response structure, you can't only look at hands where responder wants to bid his own suit.....you have to look at the cost imposed on the entire response structure.

[gwnn]

Just to clarify, I was not saying 2S NF was a panacea or that it comes at no cost at all. I was just pointing out the upsides of it, which your initial post seemed to deny even existed. And I like 2H-2S=NF, but all other responses as forcing. I haven't played 2D weak in a while so I don't know about those). I guess it's my IMP bias again, I am happy to lose a bit on playing some silly 2S partscores when I can find some nice 4S contracts. Slams are not that common when partner opens a weak 2 in hearts, especially spade slams (yes there are also some cog hands but again, to me it seems they are also not quite as common).

[ewj]

2♠ as constructive NF is fine. Not necessarily looking to improve the part score but merely happy to play higher with a fit.
Obviously if you have Qx support and a maximum in terms of HCP, you have to raise to at least 3S.
But obviously south should have bid 3S...

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I think 2S - forcing far outweighs non-forcing ( for all of the reasons given ) .

[Cyberyeti]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-October-23, 08:13, said:

I think 2S - forcing far outweighs non-forcing ( for all of the reasons given ) .

Depends on the style of your weak 2s, the more wide ranging they are, the more attractive constructive NF becomes.