[P_Marlowe]

RichMor, on Jan 10 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Hi,

My first reaction was nonforcing, wtp?

But than this should not come as a surprise, given that I passed in the
auction, which started the thread. (*)

Responder has linited its hand fairly tight, sry he has 6-9HCP, and he has
not more.
With the 2D bid, he will also have denied a 6 card spade suit.
Now he showes a 5 card suit, denies a heart stopper (for me the meaning
of 2H would be FSF) and showes min.
If opener thinks 2S in a 5-2 fit is their best spot, why should opener
not be allowed to pass.
Opener knowes his hand, and he knowes .with which hand he did
make the 2H bid.

The answer to the question forcing / non forcing may lie in the answer,
what do you think 2H means.
In my opinion it cant be natural, because than opener would hold reverse
strength, the only possible hand type I am ignoring is a hand with 4441.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(*) I now think, I was wrong as I passed, because 3H implies the willingness
to play 4C.

[1eyedjack]

RichMor, on Jan 10 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Responder hasn't suddenly discovered in his hand a load more values than he had when he bid a non-forcing and dare I say it discouraging 2D preference on the previous round. Fred says that responder could have signed off in 2S over 2C. That may be a reasonable MP technique, but at IMP why risk playing in a total misfit in Spades when he has some diamond support? I know we are not given the conditions of contest in this one.

[fred]

1eyedjack, on Jan 10 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 10 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Responder hasn't suddenly discovered in his hand a load more values than he had when he bid a non-forcing and dare I say it discouraging 2D preference on the previous round. Fred says that responder could have signed off in 2S over 2C. That may be a reasonable MP technique, but at IMP why risk playing in a total misfit in Spades when he has some diamond support? I know we are not given the conditions of contest in this one.

2D is not exactly "discouraging" - it is a relatively wide-ranging bid (6-9 or slighly wider). Opener's hand is considerably more wide-ranging (11-18?) so there could still be a game in the cards.

When opener bids again, one of the messages he is saying is "even though I know you have only 6-9 I still think we might have game". So responder, if he likes his hand in the context of the bidding, is supposed to make some kind of forward-going bid. Since it doesn't make sense (to me at least) that 2S should be a playable contract, 2S is one of the forward-going bids that responder can make.

2H should not be thought of as "fourth suit forcing". It is a semi-natural bid that suggests some heart length, spade shortness, and significant extra values. True you might bid 2H as a "least of evils" with a strong 2254 hand with no heart stopper, but that is not very likely.

IMO you will do just fine if you go through life with the assumption that, when partner bids 2H, he has either a singleton or void in spades (which is why it doesn't make sense that 2S should be a playable contract given that responder could have attempted to sign off in 2S before he knew that his partner was short in spades).

2H does not "ask for a heart stopper" and it would be silly for responder to bid 2NT over 2H whenever he held a stopper in hearts. For example, perhaps responder has a terrible hand with which he does not want to be raised to 3NT or perhaps he has something like Jxxx in spades opposite partner's known shortness.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

so what does 2♠ mean?

I would like to propose 2♠ as a contract with say

JT9xxx Kxx Jxx x

I might have thought 2♦ would play better than 2♠ but 2♠ would play better than 3♦ because it's a level lower, in spite of the fact that I know that partner has 0-1(2) and not 0-2(3) spades.

[fred]

gwnn, on Jan 10 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

so what does 2♠ mean?

To me 2S means "I like my hand too much to bid 3D and I don't want to bid 2NT (or 3C)".

Ideally responder would hold a relatively pure spade holding opposite partner's known shortness (either very little in the way of strength of maybe just the Ace) but given space considerations it is perhaps not practical to be too stringent about the specific requirements for 2S. In other words, going with a simple definition like the one I suggest above and leaving it at that is probably smart.

Quote

JT9xxx Kxx Jxx x

I might have thought 2♦ would play better than 2♠ but 2♠ would play better than 3♦ because it's a level lower, in spite of the fact that I know that partner has 0-1(2) and not 0-2(3) spades.

I am not sure I agree with your assessment of the chances of making 3D versus 2S (or the decision to bid 2D the round before), but even if I grant all of that we are talking about an extremely obscure hand type here (and one for which there is a good alternative). Surely it is more useful to play 2S as I suggest above.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[RichMor]

fred, on Jan 10 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

<snips>
As to your proposed general principle, my first reaction is that on the surface I suspect it is sound but:

- I have not tried very hard to come up with an exception
- I am not sure of the value of trying to come up with principles to cover situations like this (rather than either making partnership agreements or, if necessary, relying on logic to figure out such things at the table)

Fred,

-exceptions
Sure, principles usually have exceptions. If not, the Master Solvers Club would not exist. So principles don't replace judgement.

-princple versus agreement
Most of what are called 'partnership agreements' focus on specific convertions and treatments.

But it should be possible to include some number of principles in a partnership's set of agreements. Something like 'in competetive auctions, doubles through 2♠ are not penalty'. Think that's what Zia and Rosenberg play(ed).

Anyway, as a the partnership refines their principles, the distinction between a principle with exceptions and a partnership agreement starts to vanish.

As the MSC vote demonstrates, any reasonable agreement is better than none and probably better than relying on good old bridge logic.

RichM

[kgr]

fred, on Jan 10 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

2H should not be thought of as "fourth suit forcing". It is a semi-natural bid that suggests some heart length, spade shortness, and significant extra values. True you might bid 2H as a "least of evils" with a strong 2254 hand with no heart stopper, but that is not very likely.

......

2H does not "ask for a heart stopper" ......

Are you sure that all the experts in the MSC think the same about this?
If 2♥ is 4th suit (I would play it like that), then it makes more sense to play 2♠ as non forcing.

[fred]

kgr, on Jan 10 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

fred, on Jan 10 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

2H should not be thought of as "fourth suit forcing". It is a semi-natural bid that suggests some heart length, spade shortness, and significant extra values. True you might bid 2H as a "least of evils" with a strong 2254 hand with no heart stopper, but that is not very likely.

......

2H does not "ask for a heart stopper" ......

Are you sure that all the experts in the MSC think the same about this?

I am not "sure" about any of what follows, but I strongly believe that...

2H meaning what I am suggesting it means, is very much part of "expert standard" here in the USA. I believe the same is true of the concept that "there is no such animal as fourth suit forcing by opener". Of course opener can bid the fourth suit and of course there are auctions where that is forcing, but that does not make it "fourth suit forcing" according to how this term is normally used and understood (at least at the highest levels).

I am guessing that if you took a poll of the top 100 players in the USA (no I don't know how you would determine who these people are) that over 90 of them would agree with me about the nature of 2H. I would have guessed 100 before I read about the (shocking) answers to the MSC problem.

The comments of those who voted for "2S=non-forcing" in the MSC suggested that most, if not all, agreed with me about what 2H means (even though roughly half disagreed with me about 2S). The 2S=non-forcing people typically either offered a hand like gwnn's or gave the usual excuse "I would like to play this as forcing but without prior discussion blah blah blah" to justify their answers (as opposed to uncertainly as to what 2H meant).

This is a relatively easy auction - if opener has extra values he will almost always have a satisfying natural bid to make. There is no need to make 2H artificial (except for that 2254 hand with no heart stopper) and plenty of reason to keep it semi-natural.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Fluffy]

That 2254 hand you are talking about fred, sounds like a 1NT opening for most people nowadays, Ok, I guess with highly concentrated values you might not want to open 1NT, but then, what hand would you rebid 2NT after 2♦?

[fred]

Fluffy, on Jan 10 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

but then, what hand would you rebid 2NT after 2♦?

About 17 HCP and either:

1) 1354 with a positional holding in hearts. Even better if your singleton spade is not a small card.

or

2) 2254 with a heart stopper.

Yes, you could rebid 2NT instead of 2C with some of these hands, but with most such hands and with a strong partner I personally don't like doing that.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com