[AnJoe]

I've been working with my advance class on forcing bids, using standard systems, either SAYC or 2/1.

I thought we had worked it out pretty good until two students presented me with this hand.

Scoring: MP

---

North opened 1 heart, South responded 1 spade, North rebid 2 D (!) and South passed.

North was outraged -- my 2 D bid is forcing!

South didn't think so. North said she would have bid NT if she had known about the cubs. In neither SAYC or 2/1 is South able to bid 2 clubs.

My first answer, just glancing at the hand, was yes, it is forcing, up to 90 percent of the time. South claimed she had a real problem. In this case, what is South to do?

I couldn't answer that with any real assurance.

The board was played 10 times. 2 D making was next to bottom score. Actually 1 or 2 H was bid and made. So did 1, 2 and 3 NT. So did 2 spades. These players are mostly beginner-intermediates, but all working hard to master the game.

Yes, we discussed that North probably should have opened 1 NT. But there are times that a 5 card M just feels right. North took a big chance bidding a 3-card diamond suit with an inexperienced partner. But again, would 1 spade or 1 NT be any better description?

I find these simple little part-score hands are the most confusing to students. Any help here?

love
joan

[cherdanno]

2♦ is not forcing. The normal bid with the North hand is 2Nt over 1♠.

[gwnn]

N should bid 2NT

[qwery_hi]

Perhaps N should open 1NT, also as south I would respond 1NT initially which N can then raise to 2NT

[skjaeran]

Agree with others that the correct rebid over 1♠ is 2NT.

I'm used to playing the 2♦ rebid as in principle forcing, as the OP said (90% forcing). That means there are hands that might pass 2♦. The south hand here is borderline, but IMO just too strong to pass out 2♦. I'd give false preference to 2♥.

Then partner is able to bid on with some stronger hands (2♠/2NT), getting us to 3NT, or with 5-5 and a light invite rebid 3♦.

The downside of rebidding 2♥ is playing in a 5-1 fit instead of a 4-3 fit when partner is minimum. (But even that might on occasion turn out to be good for us.)

[the hog]

2D is not forcing and holding the South hand i would also pass. The stiff H does not lend itself well to a false presefence to 2H.
I would definitely have opened 1Nt with the Nth hand, and the given hand is a good advertisement as to why. Some might upgrade the hand and then bid 2NT over 1S. I think this is a borderline action.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the opening in a suit promises another bid, unless responder limits is hand.
Since 1S does not limit responders hand, opener has to find a bid, i.e. 2D
does not promise add. strength.
And because 2D does not promise add. strength, it is nonforcing.

The North hand is the example hand, why there are problems with req. not
to open 1NT with a 5 card major suit (1), you have to find a bid, the choosen
option is a valid one (2), and so is the Pass by South (3).
In general responder should give preference to openers major, unless the
difference between the suit is 2 or higher, in the given scenario passing is right,
most of the time you will end up in a 4-3 fit, which will play better than the 5-1 fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(1) There are also disadv. opening 1NT with the North hand, you have to decide
which way to go.
(2) Another alternative is 2NT, which I dont like, but it is also a common agreement,
that in this seq. 2NT showes a strong NT type hand and not 18/19, but as I said, I
dont like this treatment.
(3) South could also bid 2H, if he wants to keep the bidding open, because he has
8HCP, I think the hand is not strong enough, but add another HCP and bidding on
will be quite often right.

[skjaeran]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 20 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

(2) Another alternative is 2NT, which I dont like, but it is also a common agreement,
that in this seq. 2NT showes a strong NT type hand and not 18/19, but as I said, I dont like this treatment.

I think all of us advocating a 2NT rebid intends it to show an 18-19 NT. That's my evaluation of the hand.

[whereagles]

In my book, the correct theoretical auction is

1♥ 1♠
2♦ 2♥
2NT 3NT

Comments:

1♥: good add for opening 1NT on and bal 15-17. But 1♥ certainly is ok.

2♦: the book bid, although you could upgrade to 18 hcp and bid 2NT, yes. 2♦ is by no means forcing. It shows 11-17 or thereabouts, so responder passes with 5-6 and a clear preference for diamonds.

2♥: this is another book bid. You go back to hearts because you want pard to make another bid if he has extras. 2♥ should have some play for, even if pard is min. Also, 2♦ could be on a mere 3 cards if pard has the bal 15-17 hand (which he does).

2NT: rather obvious now, showing around 16-17. Not more because you'd have rebid either a jumpshift or 2NT with 18+.

[helene_t]

2♦ shows 11-17 points since 3♦ would be game force (18+). Some say 11-18 and 19+. Anyway, by rebidding 2♦ North has denied a hand able to game force opposite the 1♠ response. So South can pass only with an absolute minimum.

South can take a view and pass with some nonminimal hands with he is stuck, say 5134 and 8 points. WIth the given hand I think pass is reasonable. 3♦ would be ok too, but you would like a slightly better hand for that bid. Most hands with 8 points take a false preference to hearts, but not with a singleton.

North can upgrade his hand to 18 points and rebid 2NT. Alternatively, either open 1NT, or rebid 2♦ as he did here.

[gwnn]

whereagles, on Jun 20 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

In my book, the correct theoretical auction is

1♥ 1♠
2♦ 2♥
2NT 3NT

Comments:

1♥: good add for opening 1NT on and bal 15-17. But 1♥ certainly is ok.

2♦: the book bid, although you could upgrade to 18 hcp and bid 2NT, yes. 2♦ is by no means forcing. It shows 11-17 or thereabouts, so responder passes with 5-6 and a clear preference for diamonds.

2♥: this is another book bid. You go back to hearts because you want pard to make another bid if he has extras. 2♥ should have some play for, even if pard is min. Also, 2♦ could be on a mere 3 cards if pard has the bal 15-17 hand (which he does).

2NT: rather obvious now, showing around 16-17. Not more because you'd have rebid either a jumpshift or 2NT with 18+.

shouldn't north show support?!?!

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Jun 20 2009, 05:45 AM, said:

2♥: this is another book bid. You go back to hearts because you want pard to make another bid if he has extras.

Which book please.

Btw for all who would open 1NT, not only does it seem clearly too good unless you are nothing but a point counter, but it's normal to upgrade even fair 17s with a 5 card major simply because of the added advantage of getting the major shown. Show it as 18-19 balanced by all means, but it's simply bad evaluation to open 1NT.

[Lobowolf]

forcing "up to 90% of the time" means "non-forcing." Opener's natural forcing rebids are jump-shifts, and reverses. Simple rebids in lower ranking suits are NOT forcing. Very often, responder will have another call over 2♦, including a false preference to 2♥ on a doubleton, but that's not at all the same thing as saying 2♦ is remotely forcing.

North doesn't jump-shift because he's not strong enough, and that means that with a minimum response and the appropriate distribution, responder can pass 2♦.

North undervalued his hand, presumably by relying exclusively on point count. I think the takeaway lesson point is that not all 17-point hands are created equal... What are the other factors that go into hand evaluation? Aces (and to a lesser extent, kings) are undervalued by the 4321 point count system. Here, 14 of opener's 17 points are in aces and kings. Moreover, he has a 5-card suit with 3 honors. He'd open 1NT with a 17-count that doesn't have a 5-card suit and has a lot more queens and jacks. I'd draw up a number of different 17 point balanced hands, and have a discussion with the class about which ones were better, and why. As has been suggested, this one is worth treating as an 18-pointer. Opener should have rebid 2NT.

[gnasher]

I think this is an excellent teaching hand. You can use it to demonstrate the mess you get into if you have a balanced hand and bid it like an unbalanced hand.

[Phil]

I would bid 2N but I don't hate 2♦. It's a little unlucky responder had a max without a doubleton heart (so couldn't make a false preference).

Obviously 2♦ is non-forcing. I would think if you are teaching an advanced class you would already know this.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Jun 20 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

I think this is an excellent teaching hand. You can use it to demonstrate the mess you get into if you have a balanced hand and bid it like an unbalanced hand.

I think it illustrates a different point. The fact that North happened to have a balanced hand is not the point IMHO. Give him a 2542 with the same playing strength and they would have the same problem.If North had a balanced hand which he considered to be in the 15-17 range but has the policiy of not opening 1NT with a 5-card majors, the partnership may have other problems but missing a game on this auction is not likely.

I think the problem it illustrates is that when opener is 17-18 with a two-suited hand and responder 7-8 with shortness in opener's first suit, you can end in a part score although you have game values. A partnership will need to do some fine tuning here. If responder often chooses to pass with borderline hands, opener must try to avoid this nonforcing rebid with borderline hands, and consider a slightly offshape 2NT or a jump shift instead.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Jun 20 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

I think the problem it illustrates is that when opener is 17-18 with a two-suited hand and responder 7-8 with shortness in opener's first suit, you can end in a part score although you have game values.

Since this is an advanced class, we could use it to illustrate that 25 HCP and a misfit don't always make a good game:

Scoring: MP

---

[Fluffy]

I would had also played 2♦ on my system.

Rebidding a 3 card minor is one of the ways to handle the 15-17 NT hand with a card major. You cannot bid perfectly every hand. Specially those that play partscores.

No worries, 2♦ is not forcing, and you hit a whole in the system. Nobody is to blame.