[Phil]

I didn't want to threadjack Kenberg, so I started my own. Plus I put this in the 2/1 section where I think it belongs.

Note: In this auction:

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 2♠
...

It is also important for define opener's follow-ups, what they mean, and whether or not they are forcing. I would suggest the following, and would like others thoughts as well:

2N = Non-forcing, 17-18 or so.

3♣ = Non-forcing, 4-6

3♦ = Artificial force. IMO this needs some clarification as to what types of hands bid 3♦, and not another forcing call. I would also like to see some follow-ups as to what responder's obligations are. Initially, I would think it asks for a diamond stopper with great clubs and extras, but I can also see some good hands with a spade doubleton. I can hear Bluecalm laughing about this sequence from about 9,000 miles away

3♥ = 5-6 or 5-7, but good hearts. Non-forcing.

3♠ = 3415 / 3316 / minimum 3406. NF

3N = 19-20 (more?)

4♣ = forcing, lots of clubs and 0-1 spades. Heart length suspect.

4♦ = Void splinter, very good 3406.

4♥ = 5=6 or 5=7 with extras.

4♠ = singleton diamond, extras.

Thoughts?

[Fluffy]

I am not familiar with this methods, I use 2♠ as GF relay asking opener to pattern out. 2NT with the weak hands.

[junyi_zhu]

Phil, on Sep 2 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

I didn't want to threadjack Kenberg, so I started my own. Plus I put this in the 2/1 section where I think it belongs.

Note: In this auction:

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 2♠
...

It is also important for define opener's follow-ups, what they mean, and whether or not they are forcing. I would suggest the following, and would like others thoughts as well:

2N = Non-forcing, 17-18 or so.

3♣ = Non-forcing, 4-6

3♦ = Artificial force. IMO this needs some clarification as to what types of hands bid 3♦, and not another forcing call. I would also like to see some follow-ups as to what responder's obligations are. Initially, I would think it asks for a diamond stopper with great clubs and extras, but I can also see some good hands with a spade doubleton. I can hear Bluecalm laughing about this sequence from about 9,000 miles away

3♥ = 5-6 or 5-7, but good hearts. Non-forcing.

3♠ = 3415 / 3316 / minimum 3406. NF

3N = 19-20 (more?)

4♣ = forcing, lots of clubs and 0-1 spades. Heart length suspect.

4♦ = Void splinter, very good 3406.

4♥ = 5=6 or 5=7 with extras.

4♠ = singleton diamond, extras.

Thoughts?

I usually use 2S as a weak relay to 2NT, later you can pass 2NT or sign off at 3 levels (of course opener can bid naturally with gf hands after 2S).
2NT would be gf with spades. This treatment is very simple.

[aguahombre]

Only real problem I have is with the 3♥ rebid in your scheme. It maybe should be treated as forcing ---backing up to opening 1H with hands of minimum reverse strength which would really want to stop short of game if pard is minimum with 3 hearts. Then you wouldn't have need to jump to 4H.

[awm]

I think there's a case for some of your NF continuations to be forcing. I agree with aguahombre about 3♥; if I have a very minimum 5-6 I'd just bid 3♣ here with the idea of getting out lower on a possible misfit. It also seems to me that 3♠ should maybe be forcing -- even if both hands are relatively minimum you'll often have game once a true spade fit is located, and playing this as forcing gives you a lot of space to cuebid.

The reverse auction which has always seemed more problematic to me is 1♦-1♠-2♥-2N. The question is how many clubs 3♣ by opener shows, and which calls by opener (if any) are forcing.

[mike777]

FWIW

2s shows 5+s and less than 10

rebids by opener:

1) Bidding the 4th suit(always forcing). If a minor, it shows 5440 distribution. If a major, it must be artificial.

2) raise of partner's suit (if 5 carder) is invite
3) 2nt shows a stopper in unbid suit.
4) 3nt to play.
5) rebid of first suit nf. Does not promise 6 example: x...AKQx..jxx....AKJ9x

[karlson]

I think my style is quite different from most people's here. I would be happy to force to game with 3 spades here, so 3s can be a doubleton for me (NF). I guess I also don't usually bid 2s on any old 5-card suit (a 5-3 fit can still be found next round).

I could see both ways on 3h being forcing or NF, but I play it as forcing where I've discussed it.

[Cascade]

Its not clear to me what you intended the 2♠ bid to mean.

[Phil]

Cascade, on Sep 2 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Its not clear to me what you intended the 2♠ bid to mean.

Wayne, if you reference Mike's primer, the most common use of 2♠ is forcing and natural (5+) but ambiguous.

[kenberg]

As to the 3♦, I think it must be a. I am now committing us to game and b. I don't have the cards to make one of the more closely defined bids.

Suppose, after the 2♠ rebid, you want to force to game. 3♣ can be passed, so says more or less everyone, and you have defined 3♠ as passable. Bidding 3♥ is out if you are not 6-5. You have other defined bids but, for example, if 4♦ shows a void you had better have a void. We may well come to 3♦ as a "what else?" bid.

When a lot of bids are closely defined it is always handy to have a call that says sorry, I don't have the cards for one of those agreements that we have.

The problem of course is that responder's hand is not yet very well-defined. He will have to do his best. For this reason it is useful to build enough flexibility into the rest of the structure so that the 3♦ bid doesn't come up very often.

[Cascade]

Phil, on Sep 3 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

Cascade, on Sep 2 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Its not clear to me what you intended the 2♠ bid to mean.

Wayne, if you reference Mike's primer, the most common use of 2♠ is forcing and natural (5+) but ambiguous.

Thanks

I wasn't sure if you were building on that or a NF variation or Kenberg's 2♠ negative

[aguahombre]

Is there an extra "e" in the thread title?

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on Sep 2 2010, 10:43 PM, said:

Is there an extra "e" in the thread title?

yes there is and clearly opener's partner is a peon.

[mikeh]

Phil, on Sep 2 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

I didn't want to threadjack Kenberg, so I started my own. Plus I put this in the 2/1 section where I think it belongs.

Note: In this auction:

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 2♠
...

It is also important for define opener's follow-ups, what they mean, and whether or not they are forcing. I would suggest the following, and would like others thoughts as well:

2N = Non-forcing, 17-18 or so.

3♣ = Non-forcing, 4-6

3♦ = Artificial force. IMO this needs some clarification as to what types of hands bid 3♦, and not another forcing call. I would also like to see some follow-ups as to what responder's obligations are. Initially, I would think it asks for a diamond stopper with great clubs and extras, but I can also see some good hands with a spade doubleton. I can hear Bluecalm laughing about this sequence from about 9,000 miles away

3♥ = 5-6 or 5-7, but good hearts. Non-forcing.

3♠ = 3415 / 3316 / minimum 3406. NF

3N = 19-20 (more?)

4♣ = forcing, lots of clubs and 0-1 spades. Heart length suspect.

4♦ = Void splinter, very good 3406.

4♥ = 5=6 or 5=7 with extras.

4♠ = singleton diamond, extras. 

Thoughts?

I agree with most of this.

I think that 2N and 3 of opener's minor have to be played as natural and nf.

3 of the other minor has to be forcing, just on bridge logic.....yes, there may be 0=4=5=4 hands on which one reverses then wants to bid 3♣ in a desperate attempt to get out....but for those, one should either risk 2♣ rather than 2♥ (and if one plays meckwell, one has some additional comfort in this approach) or one should rebid 2N and pray.

What it means is another issue entirely. I suppose it could be something like x AKQx xxx AKQxx, and since that hand seems otherwise unbiddable, I think that this is the best use for it......it could also include xx AKQx xx AKQxx, and this may make untangling a spade fit problematic....but no method is perfect and when the hands are awkward, we have to accept that we will sometimes miss par.

However, I feel that 3♠ has to be forcing.

We presumably reversed because we had a strong hand with 3 spades and no convenient raise. Our hand got better when partner rebid spades...we have a better fit than we could count on when we decided to reverse. A method that permits stopping on a dime in 3♠ seems to me to be aiming at a tiny and limited value target, while using 3♠ as trump agreement opposite an unlimited hand strikes me as very useful.

The alternative is to devour a level of bidding space when we hold, say, AQx AKxx x AKQxx...while doing so, on that example, will likely cost little, if anything, as a general rule I think we should try to conserve space on power auctions. Now, if I felt that there was a good argument for being able to stop in precisely 3♠, I'd change my views...but as said earlier, I see that as a low-utility idea.

As for rebid of opener's 2nd suit, I agree with the non-forcing idea, and I agree, also, with 3N being a BIG notrump rebid, typically 5431 but could be 5422 with, for example, AQ in the 3rd suit.

[kenberg]

I have mentioned that 3♠, forcing or not, is under discussion with my partner right now. For the moment, we have settled on NF.

Suppose, for discussion, we play 3♠ as forcing. Steve Robinson suggests that it show two, not three, spades. I think it might be a good idea, especially if it shows something like Qx and denies the ability of opener to bid 3NT. After the raise to 3♠, responder may be in a position to bid 3NT. Maybe warily, maybe happily, but he would have a clear expectation that opener is 2-2 in his short suits. This would take some of the load off of the somewhat vague 3♦ rebid over 2♠. When opener actually has three spades he has options. A direct bid of 4♠ over 2♠ or a slower route of 3♠ and then a correction to 4♠. One could define what the difference is. Something about suit quality, probably.

Among other things, there will be times when responder will elect to play 4♠ in a 5-2 fit. When the fourth suit is unstopped and the spades are strong, this could be right since 3NT is unplayable and in 5♣ you are losing tricks 1 and 2. Sometimes you have the rest, sometimes you don't.