[Bokchoix]

I have a question about bidding, after responder bids 1 over 1 and opener rebids 2NT. Playing ACBL 2/1 with 15-17 NT.

So for example, 1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT (opps silent)

If responder now bids 3♦ or 3♥, is it more useful to play these as accepting the game invite, and showing shape, or
would these bids be more useful as a way of showing a weak distributional hand trying to avoid NT, i.e asking the opener to pass or correct?

If responder instead raises to 3♣, or rebids 3♠, are these best suited as forcing bids or attempts to play there?

And add in the spice of some competition...

1♣ (P) 1♥ (1♠)
2NT (P) ?

Should any of 3♣, 3♦, or 3♥ be forcing or simply attempts to play?


The auction that prompted my entire question was...

1♣ (1♠) X (2♠)
2NT (P) ?

...which is not quite the same as prior examples but I think the negative double is functionally equivalent to a 1 level response and the 2NT rebid is therefore showing invitational strength (feel free to correct me if necessary).
Should we prefer to use 3♦ by responder in this sequence to ask opener to pass/correct, or is it more useful as a game-going bid and shape-showing?

I have always believed that any bids beyond an invitational 2NT "should" be game-forcing, but I don't remember how or when I was taught that (if indeed I ever was). I am less interested in 'who was right and who was wrong' but more for a recommended consistent treatment in all the above cases which we should think about adopting.

Thanks for any ideas!

[sfi]

As you say, the "standard" way to play is that all bids over 2NT are forcing to game. The reason is that it is better to be able to look for the right game and slam than to ensure you find the best partscore.

Of course, there is some merit in being able to sign off as well. So people have come up with ways to do so. For instance, 3C can be defined as either an attempt to sign off at the three-level or to show some set of stronger hands. A more effective solution is to play transfers over 2NT rebids, which gains you the ability to sign off most of the time.

All of which has to be agreed with partner. But if you stick with "all bids are game-forcing" you won't lose out too often.

[apollo1201]

Great question!

I know some ppl play a kind of transfer method, where opener has to accept, as this could be passable. Makes it probably easier for majors and weak hands, not so sure it helps when responder has minor suit interest but does not necessarily want to go past 3NT.

Standard treatment is indeed that any call after 2NT is GF: if you don’t wanna play game, then pass 2NT (even if weak and shapely). In this context, you can have a check back at 3 in the other minor, natural fit at 3 in opener’s majors, and 3 major being natural (54 hand, or 6-cd with slam ambitions if you repeat your suit).

I remember bidding 4S after having stretched a 1S response with QT8xxx x Kxxx xx over 1C from partner. I felt it would play better than 2NT. They played 4S in the other room too FWIW.

In the sequence you give, though, with the X, responder is actually stronger than an unopposed 1H, as he probably has 8+ instead of 6+ HCP. Therefore the 2NT by opener rather shows a 15-17 unable to open a strong NT, probably due to a singleton H, with a (double) S stop, as with 18-19, you know your side had strength for game and should bid 3NT directly (or X maybe if you have 3-cd support to discover if responder has 5 H, and bid whichever game next).

Hope this helps!

[smerriman]

You might like to read this: https://www.bridgeha...lff_Signoff.htm

[steve2005]

Your original question 3♦/3♥ pretty well have to be game force. You don't have space to stop safely after a new suit.
Can show shape.

Standard all bids are game force. Often with other minor as new minor forcing.

Wolf sign-off as mentioned is certainly a way to sign-off. people respond on 5 hcp nowadays so you need a way to stop and 2NT often a poor choice.
With my wife I play rebidding the major or returning to open's minor as non-forcing. The major can be raised to game with good 3-card fit

[Bokchoix]

Thank you everyone for your ideas - and to smerriman, yes I did.

[Vampyr]

My regular partner and I rebid our suit to play and use checkback to force. Primitive, but works OK when it comes up.

[rmnka447]

Certainly Wolff provides a means of escaping from 2 NT to 3 ♦ or 3 of responder's original major.

If you also want to incorporate a 3 ♦ rebid as a checkback as outlined in smerriman's reference, you can cover all possibilities.

But if it's "a bridge too far" to undertake all this bidding at this point in time, you can still use the signoff sequence as a stand alone, so that any other bid than 3 ♣ over the 2 NT is game forcing.

In that case, you might consider one other special sequence over the signoff relay. It occurs after

1 m - 1 ♥
2 NT - 3 ♣
3 ♦ - ?

where you can use either 3 ♠ or 3 NT (your choice) as showing a hand with 4-4 in the majors and a willingness to play 3 NT or 4 of either major. This sequence is unnecessary if you play a checkback, but useful if you want to just limit yourself to the escape sequence without all the permutations of playing checkback sequences also.