[jdonn]

Regarding the (just one side bidding) auction 1♣ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥, it's standard that 2♥ is forcing, but I've long wondered why. It's obvious why 2♥ needs to be forcing after 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ due to lack of room, but when opener has instead rebid clubs there is an obviously forcing and artificial 2♦ call available so I don't see why 2♥ should be forcing. I asked a very good player from the Los Angeles area about this recently, and he said something like '2♥ is forcing because long ago Goren decreed that new suits by responder are forcing except after a 1NT rebid.' That seems to me like a pretty lame reason, sort of like when my dad would always tell me 'because I said so!' as I was growing up. It's true there is danger if responder is 5-4 of having no safety in either major, but there is compensating potential gain in reaching 4-4 heart fits (or even games, like Axxxx Kxxx xx xx and x AJxx xx AKxxxx where 4♥ pretty good). This rings even more true if responder is 5-5. Why should I have to be stuck in a six card club fit instead of a potential nine card heart fit?

I've rambled long enough. Thoughts?

[Kalvan14]

I said in the other thread that in my partnership 1m-1♠-2m-2♥ is non-forcing.
This is the common treatment in 2/1, and IMHO it makes a lot of sense. Please note that this does not mean that advancer is broke: just that he is not in the position to make a forcing bid (after all, opener corrects to 2♠ with all hands including 2 spade cards, and raises even with minimum hands if he holds 6 in the minor and 4 hearts).

IMHO, playing 2♥ as forcing (i.e. any change of suit as forcing) is truly a relic of a past age of bridge.

[mike777]

non forcing but solid invite makes alot of sense, esp. if playing Flop/reverse flannery.

1minor=2h=weak, say around 6-10, with 4+h and 5+s.

[awm]

"Third suit" auctions are among the worst and least-defined in standard bidding. It's a good place for some conventional treatment (bourke relay or something). Fortunately these sequences don't exist in most of my regular partnerships.

Elianna and I have decided to play 2♥ non-forcing in this auction (after a few accidents) since it seems to make things easier.

[pclayton]

Behind the Orange Curtain we play it one of two ways:

1. Either use some form of Reverse Flannery to show the weak / inv hands with 5♠ / 4♥ or;

2. Make the given sequence non-forcing. 1C-1S-2C-2H is easy; 1D-1S-2D-2H less so. Another trouble sequence is 1D-1S-2C-?

[joshs]

In Washington Standard, for instance,
the Auction 1C-1S-2C-2H is Non-forcing.
1C-1S-2C-2D is ART and equivalent to new minor forcing over 1N rebid.

In 1D-1S-2D-2H is natural and forcing, but personally I prefer that also to be an ART force...

[Kalvan14]

If opener has bid just one minor, it makes more sense to keep the sequence 1m-1♠-2m-2♥ non forcing (catering for weakish/invitational hands).

You might also play 1m-2♥ as reverse flannery (weak), but it sounds like a very unnatural bid.

If opener shows both minors (1♦-1♠-2♣), I'm afraid that 2♥ is FSF: it is impossible to stop on a dime, and anyway I'd be surprised if 2♥ were the only (or even the best) spot to play.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Making 2H forcing, more precise a change of
suit by responder, helps to find out, if the
partnership, has enough strength to bid game,
and the most likely game is 4M, if one has a fit,
without unnecessarily raising the level.

Making 2H nonforcing helps to find the safest
part score.

Rubber Bride / IMP's / Total Point Scoring, the
scoring rewards bidding game, i.e. it is more
important to bid game, than to find the right part
score.
Playing MP's this changes a bit, since now going plus
on a regular basis is more important than reaching
thin games.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Chamaco]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 22 2006, 07:49 AM, said:

Hi,

Making 2H forcing, more precise a change of
suit by responder, helps to find out, if the
partnership, has enough strength to bid game,
and the most likely game is 4M, if one has a fit,
without unnecessarily raising the level.

I am not sure about such a statement.

1C-1S-2C-2D can be used as an artificial GF (or inv+) relay , much the same way as after the Precision 2C opener, but asking for a 3 card major.

Actually, in the sequence mentioned in this post, responder is placed much better than after a Precision 2C opener.

The use of 2D as artificial relay frees 2-level rebids for weakish/constructive hands as well as 3-level jumprebids for "picture jumps" slam tries.

I am not claiming this approach is cost-free, but I think that it's quite exaggerated to argue that the use of the artificial 2D relay is bound to be significantly less effective in the search for the best game.

[P_Marlowe]

Chamaco, on Mar 22 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Mar 22 2006, 07:49 AM, said:

Hi,

Making 2H forcing, more precise a change of
suit by responder, helps to find out, if the
partnership, has enough strength to bid game,
and the most likely game is 4M, if one has a fit,
without unnecessarily raising the level.

I am not sure about such a statement.

1C-1S-2C-2D can be used as an artificial GF (or inv+) relay , much the same way as after the Precision 2C opener, but asking for a 3 card major.

Actually, in the sequence mentioned in this post, responder is placed much better than after a Precision 2C opener.

The use of 2D as artificial relay frees 2-level rebids for weakish/constructive hands as well as 3-level jumprebids for "picture jumps" slam tries.

I am not claiming this approach is cost-free, but I think that it's quite exaggerated to argue that the use of the artificial 2D relay is bound to be significantly less effective in the search for the best game.

Hi,

I wont argue against an artificial 2D in the seq.

1C - 1S
2C - 2D

since I play 2D as artifical myself, the same is true
for 2H regarding the seq.

1D - 1S
2D - 2H

sry, if my answer was giving this impression.

I just wanted to give a reason, why 2H natural + forcing
has its merrit in contrast to 2H natural + nonforcing.

There are a lot of useful / useless conventions / treatments
around, one can choose, what one likes, but I just tried to
answer the original question.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

I agree with a lot of whats been said here: Especially the comments regarding the complexity of the topic. As other folks have noted, the availability of a 2♦ rebid has a significant impact on the definition of the 2♥ rebid. I'd like to suggest that the definition of the 2♣ rebid should also factor in to the equation.

These forums have seen a lot of debate regarding the auction 1♣ - 1M - 2♣, and the set of hands that this promises / denies. Some players (myself included) prefer that the 2♣ rebid (typically) shows a 6+ card suit and tends to deny three card support for opener's major. (We often need to jump through some hoops to preserve the purity of the rebid by opening 1♦ or 1N on hands that would present a problem) Other players/systems are more content to rebid a 5 card club suit. Hell, in n some systems like K-S, the 2♣ is, for all intents and purposes, forcing.

I'm not going to make any kind of groundbreaking observation, but merely suggest that the nature of responder's rebid needs to completement the rest of the bidding system. Case in point: assume that the 2♣ rebid explicitly promises a minimum opening hand with 6+ clubs. From my perspective, opener has already identified a good playable trump suit. This decreases the chances that a natural and non-forcing 2♥ rebid is going to improve the contract. In contrast, playing K-S using the 2♥ rebid as non-forcing looks a lot more reasonable.

I haven't thought all of this through completely - for all I know NNF 2♥ is a big win regardless of the nature of 2♣. However, I think that these issues need to be considered.