[mgoetze]

1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠
1♣-1♠; 2♥-2NT; 3♣-3♠
1♣-1♠; 2♥-3♠
1♣-1♠; 2♥-2NT; 3♣-4♠
1♣-1♠; 2♥-4♠

Your thoughts on what these various sequences should show?

[RMB1]

mgoetze, on 2011-September-29, 13:12, said:

1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠

Since this sequence is forcing (as I understand it), you could also include:

1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠; 2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥-3♠/4♠

[aguahombre]

These are all very good questions. When we come up with an appropriate answer to each one, we might (perish the thought) conclude that the first one doesn't really need to be forcing.
Nah, it is a forum edict that 2S is forcing.

Anyway, IMO, the direct non-leben 4S jump should be a solid seven-bagger with nothing else to say; and going thru 2NT before blasting to 4S should be other 7-baggers with weak responding strength. The remaining routes, dunno.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-29, 17:02, said:

These are all very good questions. When we come up with an appropriate answer to each one, we might (perish the thought) conclude that the first one doesn't really need to be forcing.
Nah, it is a forum edict that 2S is forcing.

Anyway, IMO, the direct non-leben 4S jump should be a solid seven-bagger with nothing else to say; and going thru 2NT before blasting to 4S should be other 7-baggers with weak responding strength. The remaining routes, dunno.

The two 3♠ sequences might be 2 ways to invite w/6 cards ?

[Phil]

I wouldn't worry about defining #4. A good partnership should have a handle on the others.

An auction that should be added to this discussion IMO is:

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♣
3♦ - 3♠

[han]

For me 2 and 4 don't exist. The goal of succesful system design for humans should not be to define every sequence.

Strongly disagree with Phil's post.

[mikeh]

While there may be an argument that, in the ultimate system, every possible sequence ought to be assigned a meaning, there is also an argument that doing so is counter-productive, and at least #4 seems that way to me.

I also fail to see any particular 'standard' meaning for #2, but I do think that we could use it to distinguish between certain forcing hands with long spades: for example, we might choose to define the jump to 3♠ over the reverse as showing a slam try with very good spades, while the slow route to 3♠ shows the same values but with broken spades. I am not suggesting these are the best two features to stress, but merely offering the type of dichotomy that might be identified by the one-step as opposed to the two-step.

I currently treat the 3♠ rebid as at least 6 cards in a suit that will play adequately (for game purposes) opposite a singleton, and with mild slam interest.....

I've never seen the last one....I'd take it as 7+ spades, no slam interest, but that's just a guess rather than because I've seen it played as such.

In Phil's suggested auction, I'd take the 3♠ bid as ambiguous.....either confirming spade values, intending to pass 3N should opener bid it, or a cue in support of clubs....intending to pull 3N should opener bid it....the auction to this point makes it impossible (for me) to think we are trying to play in spades.

[aguahombre]

Maybe 2 and four shouldn't exist as actual descriptive bids. However, they might be used anyway.

Responder might have been interested in doing something else if Opener did not rebid 3♣. If that is the case, then both would now be sign-offs.

[Phil]

han, on 2011-September-30, 10:26, said:

For me 2 and 4 don't exist. The goal of succesful system design for humans should not be to define every sequence.

Strongly disagree with Phil's post.

Strongly disagree with which part? The fact a partnership should define #2? w/e.

This is sort of like saying I strongly disagree with paint, tapioca pudding, or sawdust.

[the_dude]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-29, 17:02, said:

These are all very good questions. When we come up with an appropriate answer to each one, we might (perish the thought) conclude that the first one doesn't really need to be forcing.
Nah, it is a forum edict that 2S is forcing.

From last night's ACBL tourney:

---

I too have noted the same forum edict, and 2S is forcing in Andersen's excellent little lebensohl book. Yet I seem to get the above hand far more often than the spade hand I can't bid with the myriad of other ways to bid spades.

[Gerben42]

1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠: 5♠, we play this forcing after a reverse. Looking for best game (i.e. probably no ♦ stopper).

1♣-1♠; 2♥-3♠: 9+ with 6♠ as 1♣ - 2♠ is 5 - 8 for me.

1♣-1♠; 2♥-2NT; 3♣-3♠: This should be forcing with 5♠ and a ♦ stopper (since NT is from your side)

1♣-1♠; 2♥-4♠: ♠ stack with little side values, to play and partner don't look at your hand, pass

1♣-1♠; 2♥-2NT; 3♣-4♠: Never seen this auction. My best guess would be setting ♠ as trump and slight slam interest on meta-agreements...

[han]

Phil, on 2011-September-30, 10:56, said:

Strongly disagree with which part? The fact a partnership should define #2? w/e.

This is sort of like saying I strongly disagree with paint, tapioca pudding, or sawdust.

Yes, I strongly disagree that a good partnership should have a handle on auction 2. I think it has extremely low priority.

If I have to pick between those three then I'd say that disagreeing with you is like disagreeing with sawdust. Close call though.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-29, 17:02, said:

These are all very good questions. When we come up with an appropriate answer to each one, we might (perish the thought) conclude that the first one doesn't really need to be forcing.

The first one certainly does not need to be forcing but it may be advantageous to play it as such nonetheless. Two contrasting schemes to highlight that non-forcing works - the first is transfer-based

1D - 1S - 2H
============
2S = to play
2N = to play 3C or various GF hands
... - 3C
... - ... - 3D = slam try in diamonds
... - ... - 3H = 6+ spades with club stop
... - ... - 3S = 5 spades with club stop
... - ... - 3N = to play with good club stop
3C = diamonds
... - 3D
... - ... - 3H = 5+ spades
... - ... - 3S = no club stop
... - ... - 3N = clubs stopped, mild slam try
3D = hearts
... - 3H
... - ... - 3S = starts a cue auction
... - ... - 4m = singleton splinter
3H = 6+ spades, no club stop
3S = 5 spades, no club stop
3N = to play but without a secure club stop, typically 4324 shape
4m = void splinter
4M = to play

This method gives you 6 normal ways of showing spade length, with and without club stop differing between 5 and 6 cards, plus the direct jump and with diamond fit (potential double fit). It is probably not so good at finding a spade slam as standard but for everything else it is at least as good.

The second interesting possibility is to use a relay:-

1D - 1S - 2H
============
2S, 3m, 3H = to play
2N = GF relay
... - 3C = 5 diamonds, 4 hearts (3D relay, 3H asks for club stop)
... - 3D = 6 diamonds, 4 hearts, 0-1 spades (3H relay, 3S asks for club stop)
... - 3H = 2461
... - 3S = 3460
... - 3N = 7+ diamonds, 4 hearts
... - 4C = 5+ hearts
3S = agrees hearts, starts a cue auction
3N, 4M = to play
4m = splinter

This one is perhaps not so obvious but it can handle all major hand types so long as you assign a relay break to ask for a club stopper after the 2NT and 3C responses. Of course this last method is significantly improved by gaining the step that 2S forcing would allow. Against that, there is a significant memory overhead if you do not play some form of relay structure in the rest of your system.