[awm]

Poll says it all, I think. I'm interested first in what you think is "standard" and second in what you typically play... but assuming that 1♠ is natural (otherwise the question doesn't make a whole lot of sense).

[lycier]

my choice is less than invitational and NF without H fit.

[aguahombre]

Two minimum rebids end the auction, except when the opps at the club bid 2S out of tempo; then they have extras.

[Cyberyeti]

We play it as very highly invitational but NF, one of those bids you only pass with a dead minimum (for us, sub minimum for most people) opener, think 12 count with a decent 6 card suit.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♣ we play as forcing.

[Zelandakh]

Before answering, you should probably tell us what 1♥ - 2♠ would have meant. Traditional standard for 1♠ followed by 2♠ is weak and this is what I play in Acol. In my (strong club) system, 1♠ was a relay and 2♥ showed a strong one-suited opening (GF). That means 2♠ is a relay (asking for heart length and fragments)...but I guess that is not awfully useful for you!

[gnasher]

I think that traditionally it's mildly constructive, but less than invitational.

I voted for invitational, but I actually prefer it to cover a wider range, from constructive to invitational.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-December-17, 05:24, said:

I think that traditionally it's mildly constructive, but less than invitational.

I voted for invitational, but I actually prefer it to cover a wider range, from constructive to invitational.

Yep. None of the above. The "drop dead" hands do not occur very often and it's no crime to pass. Hands in the 8-10 range are much more frequent and useful.

[Raff90]

We play that 1♥ - 2♠ is invitational.
So in that sequence its Nonforcing for us-

[mich-b]

I heard many times that if a direct 2♠ response would have been "weak" (say 4-7) , bidding 1♠ and rebidding 2♠ has to be invitational (or at least constructive).
I wasn't convinced by this argument - I think there are hands where you would like to leave room to explore alternative strains , before comitting to 2♠, like:
♠xxxxxx
♥-
♦KQxxx
♣Jx

Responding 2♠ directly risks missing a good diamond contract, but still after opener rebid's 2♥ I like my chances in 2♠ better than pd's chances in 2♥ and therefore would like to rebid 2♠ without this showing a constructive/invitational values.


When the bidding started 1♦ -1♠ - 2♣/♦ it seems to me there is even more reasons to consider 2♠ non-constructive. Responder might be 6-4 in the majors, in a weak hand , and with that he would not have responded a direct weak 2♠.

[Raff90]

mich-b, on 2012-December-25, 01:10, said:

I heard many times that if a direct 2♠ response would have been "weak" (say 4-7) , bidding 1♠ and rebidding 2♠ has to be invitational (or at least constructive).
I wasn't convinced by this argument - I think there are hands where you would like to leave room to explore alternative strains , before comitting to 2♠, like:
♠xxxxxx
♥-
♦KQxxx
♣Jx

Responding 2♠ directly risks missing a good diamond contract, but still after opener rebid's 2♥ I like my chances in 2♠ better than pd's chances in 2♥ and therefore would like to rebid 2♠ without this showing a constructive/invitational values.


When the bidding started 1♦ -1♠ - 2♣/♦ it seems to me there is even more reasons to consider 2♠ non-constructive. Responder might be 6-4 in the majors, in a weak hand , and with that he would not have responded a direct weak 2♠.

why do you like your chances in 2♠?
i would never bid 2 spades with your hand even when its non forcing. partner can have xx or x and then 2♥ is always the better contract.
dunno why you try to make the life for opponents easy cause now they can always dbl you
only time i would bid 2 spades with that hand is when opponents already penalty doubled us in 2 hearts