[Wackojack]

We were playing 15-17NT 5542. NOT 2 over 1 and 1M-2♥-2♠ is NOT forcing.

Of course, playing 2 over 1 or SAYC I could rebid 2♠, and playing Acol 12-14, I could rebid a forcing 2NT. With these limitations would anyone bid 3♠? Me not wanting to bid 3♠ on such a ropey suit, I invented 3♣.

Partner raised to 4♣. Your bid now?

Suppose you next cue 4♦ and partner bids 4♠, do you move now?

It won't surprise me to get replies telling me to change the system to make 2♠ forcing, but that is a big change.

---

[whereagles]

5NT pick a slam, then correct 6♣ to 6♠? (offering choice of 6♠/NT)

[aguahombre]

Wackojack, on 2014-December-02, 10:57, said:

It won't surprise me to get replies telling me to change the system to make 2♠ forcing, but that is a big change. [/hv]

And, this hand...even not playing 2/1...suggests why. The 2H bid promising a rebid won't necessarily unscramble the power of the opening bidder and the weakness of this Spade suit. So, it might not even be relevant here. But, at least we could have shown the sixth Spade.

[whereagles]

Just 1 thing. In some non-2/1-GF systems (like SEF), a 2/1 is nonetheless forcing to at least 2NT. Meaning in those systems you can bid 2♠ without it being a mnemonical hassle.

Not sure what is SAYC standard though.

[ArtK78]

If 2♠ is not forcing, you have to make a decision - do you want to treat the spade suit as a good 6-card suit or not? Presumably you do not. Therefore, you should treat the hand as a balanced 18 count (which it is). If 2NT is forcing, that is my call. If 2NT is not forcing, then 3NT is my call.

I am not aware of anyone who plays that 1♠ - 2♥ - 2NT is not forcing, but I am allowing for that possibility.If those are your methods, then 3NT is the standout call.

Your 3♣ call might have worked out, but partner sabotaged you with his raise. Now you are in deep trouble. I don't know if you can recover intelligently after partner's 4♣ call. You may be forced into taking a shot at the right contract.

[mikeh]

If we want to play this sort of method, and I cannot understand why we would, we need to recognize that this sort of problem is inherent to the method. We should recognize that in choosing our second round action we need to perpetrate the smallest possible distortion so as to allow partner to bid appropriately.

I think Art is correct in arguing that the best option on the 2nd round is 3N. We are, so it seems, playing a method in which one opens 1N with 5332 hands, including a long major, so the jump to 3N shows 18-19, ostensibly 5=2=3=3 (please don't tell me that 3♥ over 2♥ would be nf).

Since our spades are very weak for slam purposes, showing them as a 5 card suit, while showing 18-19 balanced seems like a tiny distortion compared to 3♣.

3♣ shows values (I assume it is gf) but even so the range of values is broad, and it suggests 5-4 or 5=5 or so in the blacks so it is less precise on hcp and way off in terms of distribution compared to 3N...which latter bid also implies some heart tolerance which 3♣ does not.

My view is that having been raised to 4♣, we will no longer be able to bid in such a manner as to reach the right contract other than by pure coincidence.

After 4♠, we still have no idea what to do. Planning on spades as trump seems foolish, since he won't have more than a doubleton, and hoping for AK seems a bit much. Planning on hearts as trump seems equally implausible, since we can't ask about the heart Q or J, and he can't expect us to hold (nor can we show) AK.

I think that 5N, silly tho it is for us to offer a choice of contracts to a partner who has no idea of what our hand looks like, is as good as we can do. I'll even pass 6♣.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2014-December-02, 13:34, said:

(please don't tell me that 3♥ over 2♥ would be nf).

I had to laugh when I read this, as I play a method where 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ is nonforcing. But it is part of a system which allows for forcing raises and other descriptive calls (for example, after 1♠ - 2♥ - 2NT is an artificial game force, and 3 of a minor is natural and game forcing. 2♠ would be a catchall bid, heart raises and higher spade bids are not forcing).

But enough of this hijack.

[akwoo]

I've played enough strong NT Acol, occasionally by agreement, and other times because I am playing with a (lifetime) novice pickup.

3N on the second round is the standout bid here. I can imagine inventing a 3♣ bid with a heart singleton, but definitely not with Qx much less AK in hearts.

[jallerton]

Wackojack, on 2014-December-02, 10:57, said:

We were playing 15-17NT 5542. NOT 2 over 1 and 1M-2♥-2♠ is NOT forcing.

Of course, playing 2 over 1 or SAYC I could rebid 2♠, and playing Acol 12-14, I could rebid a forcing 2NT. With these limitations would anyone bid 3♠? Me not wanting to bid 3♠ on such a ropey suit, I invented 3♣.

Partner raised to 4♣. Your bid now?

Suppose you next cue 4♦ and partner bids 4♠, do you move now?

It won't surprise me to get replies telling me to change the system to make 2♠ forcing, but that is a big change.

---

Are you saying that after 1♠-2♥, rebids of 2♠ and 2NT would both be non-forcing? That does make bidding difficult. It's better to use 2♠ as a non-forcing catchall minimum (including weak NTs with 5 spades) and make 2NT as FG (whether natural or conventional). How do you bid 18-19 balanced hands with 5 spades? That's what I'd show on this particular hand, as I probably don't want to play in spades unless partner has 3 of them.

On the auction in your diagram, what does partner's 4♠ mean? If unsure about strain, he could have bid 3♦ 4th suit, so 4♠ just sounds like a cue bid to me. Whether such cue bids in partner's first bid suit are passable is a matter of partnership agreement.

[gszes]

Since the 2h 2s bid is considered NF the 2h bid apparently can be made with as little as
2 quick tricks. Given those circumstances 3n or even 4h seem like vastly better bids than 3c
(though it might rightside 3n sometimes). The main advantage of 3n vs 4h is that it is more likely
to get a 4s bid if p has 3 of them.

As an aside it may not be such a horrid idea to consider making your 2/1 bids forcing to at least
2n. This will sometimes get your side too high but it will make so many other hands much easier to bid.

[rmnka447]

Put me in the 3 NT rebid camp on this hand.

Rebidding 3 ♠ would imply that you have a good spade holding. It might be embarrassing if partner raises on ♠ xx or decides to take a view with a ♠ x.

[lowerline]

Wackojack, on 2014-December-02, 10:57, said:

We were playing 15-17NT 5542. NOT 2 over 1 and 1M-2♥-2♠ is NOT forcing.

Of course, playing 2 over 1 or SAYC I could rebid 2♠, and playing Acol 12-14, I could rebid a forcing 2NT. With these limitations would anyone bid 3♠? Me not wanting to bid 3♠ on such a ropey suit, I invented 3♣.

Partner raised to 4♣. Your bid now?

Suppose you next cue 4♦ and partner bids 4♠, do you move now?

It won't surprise me to get replies telling me to change the system to make 2♠ forcing, but that is a big change.

---

I play the same kind of system as you do, but with a forcing 2nt rebid. If both 2♠ and 2nt are not forcing, you have serious system issues. The bidding is over now, the guessing has started. Your guess is as good as mine.

S.

[Wackojack]

Thanks for your replies which I largely anticipated. Let me give you more material for guffaws when you read this. We play:

1♠-2♥-2♠ = min nf could be 5 cards if unbalanced
1♠-2♥-2NT = Good 11-13 balanced nf
1♠-2♥-3NT = 14 balanced
1♠-2♥-3♥ = In principle non forcing
♠-2♥-3♣ Yes it is game forcing

Thus with 18-19 balanced we have to make a 3m bid on 3 cards.

Similarly 1♠-2♣ continuations. Except now rebid 2♠will be 6 cards.

This is a fairly regular partner I play with and I will be sending him the link for this topic for interest/critiacal evaluation. So any defence at all for this method?

[helene_t]

Having bid 3♣ I bid 4♥ now which is not a cuebid. But a 3nt rebid would have been better. (Edit: I see it shows 14. OK you have to fake 3♣ with most strong hands then. Sigh).

Well the defense for this method is the same as the defence for Acol, namely that presumably some auctions involving 2-level freebids become similar to the uncontested auctions and therefore easier to remember. I think this is significant. But technically I think it has zero merit to play 2♠ as nonforcing.

If you want more ways to bid non-gf responders other than going through the 1NT response, you might want to play 2♦ as a transfer to hearts, then some auctions after that could end in a partscore.

[ArtK78]

Wackojack, on 2014-December-03, 09:27, said:

Thanks for your replies which I largely anticipated. Let me give you more material for guffaws when you read this. We play:

1♠-2♥-2♠ = min nf could be 5 cards if unbalanced
1♠-2♥-2NT = Good 11-13 balanced nf
1♠-2♥-3NT = 14 balanced
1♠-2♥-3♥ = In principle non forcing
♠-2♥-3♣ Yes it is game forcing

Thus with 18-19 balanced we have to make a 3m bid on 3 cards.

Similarly 1♠-2♣ continuations. Except now rebid 2♠will be 6 cards.

This is a fairly regular partner I play with and I will be sending him the link for this topic for interest/critiacal evaluation. So any defence at all for this method?

If you must bid 3 of a minor on all forcing hands, responder CANNOT RAISE unless he has a very unbalanced hand with 5 card "support." Otherwise, the methods are a disaster waiting to happen.

I doubt that I would want to play these methods anyway. But there is no reason to make them any worse than they already are.

It seems to me that you constructed these methods for matchpoints, not for IMPs. They cater to hands that are at most game hands.

Also, anyone who can refer to a water cooler as a chrono-synclastic infundibulum should be able to construct better bidding methods.

[Fluffy]

Your system clearly makes 3♣ a possible 3 card suit, which makes 4♣ a clear 5 carder.

It is obvious to play a suit contract, either hearts or clubs, as partner will have either ♠Hx or ♠x for his cue, on both cases we want to be able to ruff in dummy.

Even if 5NT is pick a slam there I don't think partner will bid hearts with QJxxx, this is a big problem, we are left guessing no matter what, I prefer 6♣ over 6♥ and I would go for them.

[lowerline]

Wackojack, on 2014-December-03, 09:27, said:

Thanks for your replies which I largely anticipated. Let me give you more material for guffaws when you read this. We play:

1♠-2♥-2♠ = min nf could be 5 cards if unbalanced
1♠-2♥-2NT = Good 11-13 balanced nf
1♠-2♥-3NT = 14 balanced
1♠-2♥-3♥ = In principle non forcing
♠-2♥-3♣ Yes it is game forcing

Thus with 18-19 balanced we have to make a 3m bid on 3 cards.

Similarly 1♠-2♣ continuations. Except now rebid 2♠will be 6 cards.

This is a fairly regular partner I play with and I will be sending him the link for this topic for interest/critiacal evaluation. So any defence at all for this method?

A small change can make a big difference: Include the hands you now rebid 2nt with in 2♠. Only rebid 3minor with a 4crd suit. Rebid a forcing 2nt with the hands that don't fit elsewhere. These can be NT-oriented hands that want to give partner some space to bid his hand or these can be strong hands with a crappy 6crd suit that cannot rebid 3♠.

I don't know how you continue after 1♠-2♥-2♠ but this is what I recommend:

• pass only with spade shortness (and a minimum of course)
• 2nt game-forcing (this implies that your NF 1nt response can be up to 10-11hcp)
• 3♠ exactly a 3crd suit and invitational

After 1♠-2♥-2♠-2nt opener can still show an unbalanced hand with a 4crd minor or a 6crd spade suit or can just raise to 3nt with a balanced hand.

Of course you can also switch to 2/1 GF, but this will require more work.

S.

[helene_t]

lowerline, on 2014-December-04, 04:27, said:

A small change can make a big difference: Include the hands you now rebid 2nt with in 2♠. Only rebid 3minor with a 4crd suit. Rebid a forcing 2nt with the hands that don't fit elsewhere. These can be NT-oriented hands that want to give partner some space to bid his hand or these can be strong hands with a crappy 6crd suit that cannot rebid 3♠.

This.

Quote

I don't know how you continue after 1♠-2♥-2♠ but this is what I recommend:

• pass only with spade shortness (and a minimum of course)
• 2nt game-forcing (this implies that your NF 1nt response can be up to 10-11hcp)
• 3♠ exactly a 3crd suit and invitational

After 1♠-2♥-2♠-2nt opener can still show an unbalanced hand with a 4crd minor or a 6crd spade suit or can just raise to 3nt with a balanced hand.

I think that if Jack's partner doesn't want to play 2/1 GF, and they adopt your suggestion of rebidding 2♠ with balanced minimums, a subsequent 2NT by responder needs to be NF.

But maybe it would help to open 9-12 counts with six spades 2♠ and put the weaker preempts in the multi 2♦. Then the 2♠ rebid will be either unbalanced with a long minor, or 12-13 bal. Then you don't get to an uncomfortable 3♠ in a 6-1 fit.

Then again, maybe we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. Playing SEF or SAYC is an option for those who don't like the very wide-ranging 1NT response.

[Wackojack]

♠-2♥

This was one hand where this question came up. 1♠-2♥ was a different hand.

---

Playing 2 over 1 it looks like this is still tricky to bid. With no Gazilli presumably:
1♠-1NT-? same problem as I had.
With Gazilli:
1♠-1NT
2♣- 2♦
? Now how do you show a good hand with 6 bad spades?

SA and variants
1♠- 2♦
2♠-3♣
3♥?-3♠? or 4♣?

We stumbled into 4♠ after partner raised to 4♣ but to quote mikeh "My view is that having been raised to 4♣, we will no longer be able to bid in such a manner as to reach the right contract other than by pure coincidence"


So can you persuade me and my partner to change our methods to a more normal method which would safely get us to the slam 6♣ 6♠

Footnote:

Partner's actual club holding was 109873. This makes 6♠ more iffy as a contract and 6♣ still reasonable. So any revised bidding with this actual club holding?

[Wackojack]

lowerline, on 2014-December-04, 04:27, said:

I don't know how you continue after 1♠-2♥-2♠ but this is what I recommend:

• pass only with spade shortness (and a minimum of course)
• 2nt game-forcing (this implies that your NF 1nt response can be up to 10-11hcp)
• 3♠ exactly a 3crd suit and invitational

After 1♠-2♥-2♠-2nt opener can still show an unbalanced hand with a 4crd minor or a 6crd spade suit or can just raise to 3nt with a balanced hand.

Of course you can also switch to 2/1 GF, but this will require more work.

S.

On these lines:
1♠ -1NT (up to 10-11 points)
2NT (gf) - 3♦
3♠ (6 bad spades)- 4♠ or 4♣?