[awm]

Another thread made me curious about this. Assume the general agreements are fairly standard with 15-17 notrump openings, and partner's 2♥ bid is a one-round force. I'm also interested in what alternative call you'd make on any of the given hands that are NOT rebidding 3NT.

[The_Badger]

awm, on 2017-June-29, 04:07, said:

Another thread made me curious about this. Assume the general agreements are fairly standard with 15-17 notrump openings, and partner's 2♥ bid is a one-round force. I'm also interested in what alternative call you'd make on any of the given hands that are NOT rebidding 3NT.

I am curious about this too. xavierf's thread got me thinking that the 3NT rebid in competition has to have a specific point range. As wank said on the thread "Partner has shown 18-19 balanced or something off shape with somewhat less." How much 'somewhat less' is what you are driving at in this post, I feel, and it's an awkward area of bidding that's for sure.

With a 2NT rebid assigned to a minimum opener, that leaves potentially a 3NT rebid as anything in the range (14)15-19 that fits and looks like 3NT will be the best contract. Not exactly accurate if responder has a good hand and wants to progress.

+1 for the post as i'll be interested how players more-experienced-than-me vote on the specific hands, or if there are any hard and fast rules (that I don't know of) for dealing with such hands.

[Flem72]

1: 3N (15-17, likely stiff H)
2 & 5: 2N (bal, S stopper, 12-14 or 18-19)
3: 2S (need a forcing call)
4: 3C

[awm]

Flem72, on 2017-June-29, 06:56, said:

1: 3N (15-17, likely stiff H)
2 & 5: 2N (bal, S stopper, 12-14 or 18-19)
3: 2S (need a forcing call)
4: 3C

The 2♥ bid is not necessarily game forcing in standard methods. From your answer on 2 & 5 it seems you're expected it to be? I think it's pretty standard that 2NT rebid is NF here.

[broze]

This is a notoriously tricky auction and is a great spot for transfers in competition. i.e. 1C (1S) 2D* = inv+, 5H+

Otherwise I think standard is probably as below (but would welcome others' thoughts). An important point is that 18-19 bal with 2H will often want to rebid 2S to check if p has 6H planniing on rebidding 3N if he does not. SO:

- A 3NT rebid is an immediate shutout with no interest in hearts. Usually a singleton or a hand v suited to NT.
- 3C rebid is non-forcing
- 2S rebid GF. If followed up by 3N over 3red (or 3C over 2N) it shows a strong hand with a good club suit.

Therefore looking at the hands in more detail (good selection btw).

1. Rebid 3N but might be ugly.
2. This was an upgrade to 1N. If you don't like to upgrade then rebid 2N (and stop bean-counting)
3. 2S then 3N over 3H
4. Close but I would rebid 3C. Might bid 3N at IMPs.
5. 3N immediately since the hand is so NT oriented.

[apollo1201]

Dears, for my non-native speaker understanding, could some one pls explain what is 1-round force?

I understood it as it promises a rebid (unless partner bids game) but is not GF.

So no need to blast 3NT with good 14 or "shaped" 15-17 not suitable for 1NT opening. Which would be necessary if the free 2H bid is just forcing but not auto-forcing and could be a little lighter than a "traditional" non-2/1 2-level bid (eg a good 9-10).

Based on some other thread answers (xavierf) and the ones above, it does not seem so clear to me now...

Thanks!

[awm]

apollo1201, on 2017-June-29, 15:24, said:

Dears, for my non-native speaker understanding, could some one pls explain what is 1-round force?

I understood it as it promises a rebid (unless partner bids game) but is not GF.
Thanks!

One-round force just means the bid itself is forcing -- partner cannot pass. It does not indicate a force to a particular level, or promise any rebid by responder. This distinguishes it from either of:

Non-forcing: partner is allowed to pass, and expected to do so on many minimum hands.
Game-forcing: not only is the bid itself forcing, but we cannot stop below the level of game.

The idea of a call which is both forcing and promises a rebid (but is not forcing to a particular level) is pretty unique to SAYC. Even for SAYC, it does not apply in this auction, where it is typical to play that most continuations by opener (including 2NT, 3♥, and 3♣) are not forcing.

[nige1]

Assume that partner's competitive 2♥ response, although forcing, doesn't promise a rebid. Hence your 2N, 3♣ and 3♥ rebids wouldn't be forcing.
After 1♣ (1♠) 2♥ (Pass); ??
IMO...

• ♠ A Q 9 4 ♥ 2 ♦ K Q 2 ♣ K J 9 8 6: 3N = NAT. Slight underbid
• ♠ K Q T 6 ♥ 4 2 ♦ K 8 6 ♣ A Q T 6: 3N = NAT. Down the middle.
• ♠ K T 2 ♥ 3 ♦ Q 6 ♣ A K Q J 9 8 3: 3N = NAT. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. (2N might go down too)..
• ♠ A 4 2 ♥ 2 ♦ 8 6 4 ♣ A K Q 9 8 7: 3N.= NAT. Ditto.
• ♠ K J T 6 ♥ Q 2 ♦ A Q 4 ♣ K Q J 8: 2♠ = CUE. Too strong for a unilateral decision.

[The_Badger]

Deleted.

[silvr bull]

awm, on 2017-June-29, 07:12, said:

The 2♥ bid is not necessarily game forcing in standard methods. From your answer on 2 & 5 it seems you're expected it to be? I think it's pretty standard that 2NT rebid is NF here.

I did not want to sidetrack the other thread with this comment, but this new thread is a good place to offer it. I tell my partners that my 2 over 1 by an unpassed (so unlimited) hand, even in competition, is forcing to 3M. With that agreement, the 2NT and 3NT rebids take on a different meaning. My 3NT would be a minimum hand that has no slam interest but has high hopes to make game. I might have 12-14 HCP with a doubleton (or maybe a stiff) H, and just want to close out the bidding without giving more information to the opps. That leaves 2NT available for all stronger hands with suitable shape, and it is forward going so partner can at least consider slam if he is interested. With the strong 2NT rebid, the 3 level is open to explore shape and fit before crossing the 3NT hurdle.

[Flem72]

awm, on 2017-June-29, 07:12, said:

The 2♥ bid is not necessarily game forcing in standard methods. From your answer on 2 & 5 it seems you're expected it to be? I think it's pretty standard that 2NT rebid is NF here.

You are correct: I was bidding unopposed. I'd bid 2S with 5 also.

I'd blame my inattention upon trying to remember the auction and hands when the site moved me to the reply page, but now I see the thread reproduced below and a separate-page link to a reproduction of the problem hands.
I am an idiot..

[apollo1201]

awm, on 2017-June-29, 22:41, said:

One-round force just means the bid itself is forcing

The idea of a call which is both forcing and promises a rebid (but is not forcing to a particular level) is pretty unique to SAYC.

Even for SAYC, it does not apply in this auction.

Thanks! We actually have the same "forcing promising a rebid" in French.

So I was really wondering if there was a difference between "forcing" and "forcing 1 round"!

But here in opposition where 2H can be a little shaded, the call is also majoritarily played forcing but does not promise a rebid.

[dokoko]

apollo1201, on 2017-July-01, 01:26, said:

Thanks! We actually have the same "forcing promising a rebid" in French.

So I was really wondering if there was a difference between "forcing" and "forcing 1 round"!

But here in opposition where 2H can be a little shaded, the call is also majoritarily played forcing but does not promise a rebid.

"Forcing 1 round" is just a more precise wording meaning the same as "forcing". I would call a rebid-promising call "auto-forcing" (German Standard calls it "selbstforcierend").

[JLilly]

This is probably too clever, but for hand #4, are there good methods that would allow your partner to be the NT declarer so that a diamond lead goes through your weak-diamond-holding hand rather than into it (and the more probable spade lead is safe since your stopper is ironclad)?

[wank]

i think all weak nts just bid 2NT. yes, this puts all the pressure on responder, but such is life.

[Zelandakh]

I think this comes down a little bit to how we want to play 2♠ followed by 3NT. Nige's post makes it clear that this sequence for him shows more strength than a direct 3NT, which is why he chooses 2♠ on Hand 5. An alternative way of doing it would be to differentiate by shape. So a hand with long clubs and extras bids this way and the 18-19 balanced hand just rebids 3NT. Playing this way, Hand 3 would choose the cue.

What this thread demonstrates is how overloaded this 2♥ response is. It would not at all surprise me to find that bidding systems of the future restrict the hand types for this call, either by strength to one of INV or GF (rather than INV+) or in terms of shape to 6+ hearts. It certainly does not seem optimal for double and 2♥ to have a similar number of hand types despite the former having a whole extra level of bidding space.

[dokoko]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-19, 14:54, said:

What this thread demonstrates is how overloaded this 2♥ response is. It would not at all surprise me to find that bidding systems of the future restrict the hand types for this call, either by strength to one of INV or GF (rather than INV+) or in terms of shape to 6+ hearts. It certainly does not seem optimal for double and 2♥ to have a similar number of hand types despite the former having a whole extra level of bidding space.

I think a good solution (in a natural context) would be to bid 2♥ with 6+ hearts INV or 5+ hearts FG and double with other hands worth a call and containing 4+ hearts. Double followed by a later heart bid could then be nonforcing.

Playing transfers in competition would be even better...