[mike777]

Scoring: MP

P=P=1S=P
2D=P=?

---

Your choice and why?

[CSGibson]

3N. I assume we play some sort of drury (definitely needed in my partnerships), so partner cannot have spades with me, and I want to go to game opposite most reasonable hands partner can have for his 2♦ bid. 3♣ would be the only other bid I'd consider, because I believe it is forcing, but I'd pretty much bid 3N next anyway unless partner bid 3 ♠ showing a good doubleton, then I'd think before bidding 3N.

[kenrexford]

3♣.

I'm assuming that 2♦ is not some form of Drury and that a 2♦ opening would have been weak.

I want to force game now with options open. If partner bids spades now, this is our strain. If he bids anything else, 3NT. If he raises clubs, 4♠ choice, planning to correct 5♣ to 5♦, and I'll assume hearts went poorly in 3NT.

[Codo]

3 ♦ because this is GF where I life and shows support.

[the hog]

CSGibson, on May 27 2008, 07:06 AM, said:

3N. I assume we play some sort of drury (definitely needed in my partnerships), so partner cannot have spades with me, and I want to go to game opposite most reasonable hands partner can have for his 2♦ bid. 3♣ would be the only other bid I'd consider, because I believe it is forcing, but I'd pretty much bid 3N next anyway unless partner bid 3 ♠ showing a good doubleton, then I'd think before bidding 3N.

I like this bid also. Won't distort my hand with 3C. 3D is second choice.

[Impact]

I have to confess that I regard as bizarre the style which AS A PASSED HAND forces responder to bid a non-forcing NT when he may be able to adequately describe middling values and his longest suit by a natural bid.

Perhaps that is my ACOL tendencies coming to the fore.

However, if there is any purpose to such a style, surely it must be right to bid what we are likely able to make: 3NT with stoppers in both unbid suits and the knowledge that partner does not hold 3S (and is unlikely to hold doubleton Honour) ...it is bizarre to expect that he can envisage stoppers in both outside suits if you bid 3D, and surely you would bid 2NT (nf) with slightly less...

With due respect to Roland, whereas 3D MAY well be GF opposite an unpassed hand but to stipulate that it is forcing opposite a passed hand again seems a push...does this mean that the choice is between passing 2D or committing to game with every hand???

As for anyone who really believes that 2NT is forcing opposite a passed hand, this whole sequence is being built on such a tiny probability base that I find it remarkable that anyone could predicate such...

regards

[whereagles]

I'll bid 3♠. Shows 6 spades and 15-17. Seems like what I have... And I don't care if you think the suit is too crappy.

3NT is also good.

[Codo]

Impact, on May 27 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

With due respect to Roland, whereas 3D MAY well be GF opposite an unpassed hand but to stipulate that it is forcing opposite a passed hand again seems a push...does this mean that the choice is between passing 2D or committing to game with every hand???

As for anyone who really believes that 2NT is forcing opposite a passed hand, this whole sequence is being built on such a tiny probability base that I find it remarkable that anyone could predicate such...

I am a kid of the french school.
So in this sequence with any weak opening hand you rebid 2 Spade, having five or more spades.
So no need to commit to game on every hand, with 11-14 (and no extra shape)you rebid 2 Spade and may or may not pass partners 2 NT or 3 Diamond bid.

But this hand is not minimum, so you can take the game forcing approach.

Within this approach is is unnecessary to rebid 2 NT nonforcing, because you rebid 2 Spade with the weak hand. The idea is that it is very hard for partner to judge with his 10-11 HCP hands whether he should bid game when we may have 11-14 HCPs and bid 2 NT with this. It is much easier for us to judge it when he bids 2 NT with his narrow range of 10-11 HCPs.

I agree that a 3 NT bid which shows a (semi-)balanced hand with Hx in both unbid suits and 15-17 HCPS would be nice. But in the system I play 3 NT shows a slighty different hand and I don't see the necessarity to run to 3 NT already. If pd has nothing in the open suits, I don't want to play 3 NT anyway. And my hand does not look like a hand that must be concealled. I have quite few cards I need to protect (One).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would force to game.

I would choose 3S, but can live with 3NT and 3D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

I like 2NT forcing here. With this agreement I would use it.

[whereagles]

Codo, on May 27 2008, 11:07 AM, said:

I am a kid of the french school.

I think the french school would just make use of the auto-forcing nature of 2♦ and bid it like

pass 1♠
2♦ 2♠
any 3NT

where "any" cannot be pass because 2♦ promises a rebid. Same thing if 2♦ were not by a passed hand.

[CSGibson]

Codo, on May 27 2008, 01:35 AM, said:

3 ♦ because this is GF where I life and shows support.

And after 3 diamonds, what is partner supposed to do? Partner has basically denied a decent 6 card suit in my style (weak 2 diamonds or 3 diamonds would be used), and I'm pretty sure we do not want to be playing in diamonds, as I don't have enough raw power for that. All I do by bidding 3 diamonds is give the opponents information and mislead partner, as I think he'll imagine a much more distributional hand on the auction. I also like the lead into KT of clubs and hiding my relative spade weakness by being declarer.

[whereagles]

CSGibson, on May 27 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Codo, on May 27 2008, 01:35 AM, said:

3 ♦ because this is GF where I life and shows support.

And after 3 diamonds, what is partner supposed to do?

Huh.. how about delayed support with a 2-card spade?? Seems simple. He can't be afraid this shows 3 spades because he SKIPPED Drury.

[karlson]

I think 3D should logically be forcing. Responder has a very narrow range, so it's pretty safe for opener to either GF or pass 2D (with some "courtesy raise"), and otherwise there's no way to show a diamond raise under 3N.

It's an even stronger argument I think than for playing 1s-2d-3d forcing when playing 2/1 not gf, which (I think) most people who have thought about that system seriously do. (With Apologies to ACOLers and all the other "nothing is forcing systems", which I just don't know).

[Apollo81]

I would definitely use 3♦ forcing if that is available. Otherwise I guess I would bid 3N.