[straube]

deleted

[MarkDean]

What I have always thought was standard over responder's second round 2NT was that if opener has bid two suits, bidding the lower one is NF and the dearer one forcing. If opener has bid just one suit, then repeating it is NF.

[mike777]

MarkDean, on Feb 2 2010, 11:50 PM, said:

What I have always thought was standard over responder's second round 2NT was that if opener has bid two suits, bidding the lower one is NF and the dearer one forcing.  If opener has bid just one suit, then repeating it is NF.

you may be correct, very correct...I just ask if it "should" be?

[straube]

It's nf but encouraging. Taking pd out of 2N when you've already shown a 5/4 ought to take a little more than a minimum 5/5. After all, you're contracting for an extra trick and have no certainty of a fit. Perhaps opener has a 6/5, but more likely a non-minimum 5/5.

Seems like a similar auction to 1S-1N (f), 2H-2N, 3H. Opener has to be prepared to hear 3N or 4H now and consequently needs just a bit more.

Probably, too, 1D-1H, 2C-2N, 3D is nf but encouraging.

OTOH, 1D-2N, 3C can be very minimum because of the implied fit.

[mike777]

straube, on Feb 3 2010, 12:30 AM, said:

It's nf but encouraging.  Taking pd out of 2N when you've already shown a 5/4 ought to take a little more than a minimum 5/5.  After all, you're contracting for an extra trick and have no certainty of a fit.  Perhaps opener has a 6/5, but more likely a non-minimum 5/5.

Seems like a similar auction to 1S-1N (f), 2H-2N, 3H.  Opener has to be prepared to hear 3N or 4H now and consequently needs just a bit more. 

Probably, too, 1D-1H, 2C-2N, 3D is nf but encouraging.

OTOH, 1D-2N, 3C can be very minimum because of the implied fit.

all of this sounds like an arg. to pass 2nt. but ok.

I mean at some point I need to focus on the play of the hand..not the bid of YOUR hand.

[helene_t]

straube, on Feb 3 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

It's nf but encouraging.

I don't think so.

Responder's strength is narrowly defined. So either we accept the invite or we don't. We are no going to encourage.

So 3♣ should either be to play (standard) or forcing (Josh style).

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on Feb 3 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 3 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

It's nf but encouraging.

I don't think so.

Responder's strength is narrowly defined. So either we accept the invite or we don't. We are no going to encourage.

So 3♣ should either be to play (standard) or forcing (Josh style).

Also depends what you routinely open on. We play 3♣ as very NF as we would routinely open:

x, xx, KQxxx, KJxxx

We tend to apply the rule of 19 unless there's a reason not to open the hand like a singleton K/Q/J or doubleton Q/J.

[billw55]

Does form of scoring matter in this situation? At matchpoints, I'm not sure how much sense it would make to offer to play in 3♣ after partner has bid 2NT.

[straube]

Cyberyeti, on Feb 3 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 3 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 3 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

It's nf but encouraging.

I don't think so.

Responder's strength is narrowly defined. So either we accept the invite or we don't. We are no going to encourage.

So 3♣ should either be to play (standard) or forcing (Josh style).

Also depends what you routinely open on. We play 3♣ as very NF as we would routinely open:

x, xx, KQxxx, KJxxx

We tend to apply the rule of 19 unless there's a reason not to open the hand like a singleton K/Q/J or doubleton Q/J.

I think that illustrates my point. Why would you be so interested in playing in one of these suits at a level higher after partner has declined to show a fit after you've already shown a 5-4 pattern? The only extra you have is the fifth spot in KJxxx. It's like you're running from notrump instead of bidding to make. By the logic of the situation, I think you need a hand that measures higher than the rule of 19 or even 20. Maybe 22. And partner, who has close to a 3-point range has the right with a non-fitting max to bid 3N or a fitting max to invite or (much less likely) bid game in a minor.

[Cyberyeti]

straube, on Feb 3 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Feb 3 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 3 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 3 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

It's nf but encouraging.

I don't think so.

Responder's strength is narrowly defined. So either we accept the invite or we don't. We are no going to encourage.

So 3♣ should either be to play (standard) or forcing (Josh style).

Also depends what you routinely open on. We play 3♣ as very NF as we would routinely open:

x, xx, KQxxx, KJxxx

We tend to apply the rule of 19 unless there's a reason not to open the hand like a singleton K/Q/J or doubleton Q/J.

I think that illustrates my point. Why would you be so interested in playing in one of these suits at a level higher after partner has declined to show a fit after you've already shown a 5-4 pattern? The only extra you have is the fifth spot in KJxxx. It's like you're running from notrump instead of bidding to make. By the logic of the situation, I think you need a hand that measures higher than the rule of 19 or even 20. Maybe 22. And partner, who has close to a 3-point range has the right with a non-fitting max to bid 3N or a fitting max to invite or (much less likely) bid game in a minor.

Give partner something like Qxxx, Axxx, Ax, Qxx and see how well 2N and 3♣ play opposite the hand I gave, that is why 3♣ NF is useful if you open that weak.

[barmar]

The weaker you are, the more important it is to have a long trump suit, and it might be worth going a level higher in the bidding to achieve that.

The worst case scenario is 5521 opposite 2155, but there's a decent chance that responder has 3-card support for one of your minors.

[PhantomSac]

barmar, on Feb 3 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

The weaker you are, the more important it is to have a long trump suit, and it might be worth going a level higher in the bidding to achieve that.

The worst case scenario is 5521 opposite 2155, but there's a decent chance that responder has 3-card support for one of your minors.

With 5-5 in the majors partner would have bid 1S first. Saying that there's a decent chance we'll catch a fit is an unerbid, we will almost always catch a fit.

Also even if partner is 4522 we'd still likely rather play in 3 of a minor than 2N.

[barmar]

Yeah, I forgot that partner's first bid was ♥. But I was probably also wrong for the 1♠ case, because if he's strong enough for 2NT, the 5-5 shape migh re-evaluate to enough to bid 2♥ (4th suit forcing) and then 3♥ to show that it's a real suit.

[fred]

Cyberyeti, on Feb 3 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

Also depends what you routinely open on. We play 3♣ as very NF as we would routinely open:

x, xx, KQxxx, KJxxx

Even if your opening bid style is soundish, I think it is best to play 3C=NF here. As far as I can tell this is very much "default expert standard" in my part of the world.

Quote

We tend to apply the rule of 19 unless there's a reason not to open the hand like a singleton K/Q/J or doubleton Q/J.

Moving off topic as usual, here are some other reasons for not opening the bidding that can be applied to the example hand you gave:

- poor defense
- few cards in majors
- easier to describe if you pass and bid later
- no suit that screams for a lead direct
- no texture in those suits that contribute so much to getting you up to the magic 19

Really I think that, if you play a natural system, it is quite a bad idea to open this hand. IMO if you do this vulnerable it is bad to a horrifying extent.

In my experience the rule of 11 tends to work pretty well, but most of the other rules should be taken with a serious grain of salt. Judgment has to come first.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

fred, on Feb 3 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

In my experience the rule of 11 tends to work pretty well, but most of the other rules should be taken with a serious grain of salt. Judgment has to come first.

Fred - your rule of 11 puts those light openers to shame! Minimum 1m hands under rule of 11:

x
xx
JTxxx
xxxxx

or

ATxx
xxx
xxx
xxx

[aguahombre]

back on track, folks.....3C either is accepting (non expert standard) or not accepting (expert standard). next case, pls.

[Cyberyeti]

fred, on Feb 3 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Feb 3 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

Also depends what you routinely open on. We play 3♣ as very NF as we would routinely open:

x, xx, KQxxx, KJxxx

Even if your opening bid style is soundish, I think it is best to play 3C=NF here. As far as I can tell this is very much "default expert standard" in my part of the world.

Quote

We tend to apply the rule of 19 unless there's a reason not to open the hand like a singleton K/Q/J or doubleton Q/J.

Moving off topic as usual, here are some other reasons for not opening the bidding that can be applied to the example hand you gave:

- poor defense
- few cards in majors
- easier to describe if you pass and bid later
- no suit that screams for a lead direct
- no texture in those suits that contribute so much to getting you up to the magic 19

Really I think that, if you play a natural system, it is quite a bad idea to open this hand. IMO if you do this vulnerable it is bad to a horrifying extent.

In my experience the rule of 11 tends to work pretty well, but most of the other rules should be taken with a serious grain of salt. Judgment has to come first.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Not sure what the rule of 11 that you quote is, but I think it's fine to open this provided your minors cannot be short, it's much less useful if partner can't barrage with a big fit. We do this particularly in first seat not red v white (we have a partnership philosophy that first seat is a preempting position which runs throughout what we do).

For the number of times you either:

a) get the auction to a silly level before the big hand gets to bid

b) get a fit jump into an auction where both partners were silent at the other table and find a save later

We find it worthwhile, but ymmv.

[straube]

fred said:

Even if your opening bid style is soundish, I think it is best to play 3C=NF here. As far as I can tell this is very much "default expert standard" in my part of the world.

NF, but can it attract another bid? Is 1D-1H, 2C-2N, 3C-3N a possible auction? And would you always rebid 3C with 5/5 or would you pass 2N quietly with some for fear of being too weak or having too poor suit quality? Thanks

[fred]

straube, on Feb 4 2010, 01:49 AM, said:

fred said:

Even if your opening bid style is soundish, I think it is best to play 3C=NF here. As far as I can tell this is very much "default expert standard" in my part of the world.

NF, but can it attract another bid? Is 1D-1H, 2C-2N, 3C-3N a possible auction?

For me 3C is NF but it does not mean "you MUST choose 3C or 3D as the final contract". I am guessing that, in my partnerships, at least 80% of the time partner will either Pass or bid 3D.

The way I play, it would not be especially unusual for partner to raise 3C (possibly by bidding one of the majors). It would be quite unusual for partner to bid 3NT. It would be almost as unusual for him to jump raise diamonds.

This is because partner can still have a good hand for playing 5C, but he can't really have a good hand for playing 5D (he didn't bid 3D) and he can't really expect to make 3NT opposite a non-perfecto (not enough points). I suppose he might bid 3NT with chunky majors and something like xx xx in the minors on the theory that "Probably we are going down no matter what I bid so I might as well try to make 3NT". Experts tend to scoff (hopefully inwardly!) when lesser players bid 3NT in auctions like this one.

Quote

And would you always rebid 3C with 5/5 or would you pass quietly with some for fear of being too weak or having too poor suit quality? Thanks

Not always, but close. I can't see myself passing because I thought I was "too weak" - 3C advertises a weak hand. I suppose I might pass if my suits were terrible and much of my strength was in the majors.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Thanks. That helped my understanding.