[Echognome]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

The OP isn't/wasn't aware of our partnership agreements.

1♣=2+
1♠=6+, 4+♠
2N=balanced 18-19

Anything other than what you would reasonably expect?

Yes! The fact that 2N is forcing is definitely alertable.

[vuroth]

jillybean2, on Sep 6 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

There's some risk partner will pass 2nt but with opps silent isnt that very unlikely?
1m:1M 4M takes up a lot of room!

I don't think that opponents being silent influences this much. Partner should pass on up to ~7 points, and should raise to 3NT on a stronger, semi-balanced hand. Furthermore, won't partner undervalue his distributional strength, believing you don't have a fit in spades?

1m-1M-4M DOES take up a lot of room. In SAYC, which I guess wasn't in use here, it strikes me as very descriptive. I wonder if there's a standard way to show a hand this strong, with 4 card support, while staying at a lower level.

V

[bid_em_up]

Echognome, on Sep 6 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

The OP isn't/wasn't aware of our partnership agreements.

1♣=2+
1♠=6+, 4+♠
2N=balanced 18-19

Anything other than what you would reasonably expect?

Yes! The fact that 2N is forcing is definitely alertable.

Oh please.

[Echognome]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

Oh please.

What do you mean "Oh Please!"? Do you think for one minute that if 2NT is forcing it is not alertable? That is a very important concern. One of the issues which people have with the 2NT bid as made is that it is non-forcing. The second issue here is that you said that your 1♣ opening was 2+. That was not alerted either. I think you need to give some serious consideration to your disclosure.

[bid_em_up]

Echognome, on Sep 6 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

Oh please.

What do you mean "Oh Please!"? Do you think for one minute that if 2NT is forcing it is not alertable? That is a very important concern. One of the issues which people have with the 2NT bid as made is that it is non-forcing. The second issue here is that you said that your 1♣ opening was 2+. That was not alerted either. I think you need to give some serious consideration to your disclosure.

1) It wasn't my disclosure, so don't bitch at me. However, I will bring it to my partners attention. Again. He should be alerting 1C, and I always do (or at least try to). I have asked him to do it before, and I cannot reach from Raleigh NC to NYC to press the alert button for him. It is beyond my control. He is also Egyptian, and does not play in ACBL land, and I am not certain that an alert is required where he comes from. (I am not saying an alert for a 2 card one club opening is not required there, just that I do not know). I can tell you that I ALWAYS announce that 1C openings can be two card suits whenever we commence play with new opponents, which is the best I can do to compensate for his failure to alert it.

2) In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise. Since when do 6+18 not equal game? How can it not be considered forcing? Since when is 1S and a 2N rebid alertable? Since when is 2N not natural in this sense? It is not conventional. It has no special meaning. If you think 2N is alertable, then I think you are nuts. The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning, it is responders decision to bid or pass over it. Responder can still pass the 2N response, however, the odds of doing so are effectively nil since they have made a response to 1C. This is no different than you or anybody else plays it.

3) I attempt to disclose everything I am supposed to. It is your opinion that the 2N bid is alertable. If you prove to me otherwise, I will be happy to alert it, but so far you have failed to do so. Until you do, it is just that. Your opinion. Nothing more.

4) Your last statement verges on the edge of insinuating that I am being unethical and I do not appreciate it at all. I, myself, try to make any and all information available to whoever asks for it. I believe you owe me an apology.

If you have problems with my partners disclosure, please take it up with him. I've tried numerous times and you can tell how much success I have had. Short of refusing to play with him (and thats not going to happen), I cannot force him to alert 1C. I agree it is alertable, at least in ACBL land, and I do my best to alert it. And as stated above, it is always announced in advanced so the opponents at least have some warning of it ahead of time.

[pbleighton]

Quote

How can it not be considered forcing?

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding.

Peter

[bid_em_up]

pbleighton, on Sep 6 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

Quote

How can it not be considered forcing?

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding.

Peter

You can sit there and say "its not forcing in standard" all you want to. The facts are assuming responder actually has his response, he is not passing the 2N rebid (or he shouldn't be). So the 2N bidder is getting another chance to take a call.

The 2N rebidder does not know that responder does or does not have his actual response until responder were to pass 2N. As far as he is concerned, 2N IS forcing, whether you wish to recognize that fact or not. Unless, of course, you also believe you don't belong in 3N on 18 opposite 6, which is an entirely different debate. The 2N bidder is expecting another call from partner even in standard bidding.

Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

[han]

I didn't mean to attack bid_em_up's partner or their agreements. I just think that playing standard methods 2NT is a really poor bid.

[Echognome]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

You can sit there and say "its not forcing in standard" all you want to. The facts are assuming responder actually has his response, he is not passing the 2N rebid (or he shouldn't be). So the 2N bidder is getting another chance to take a call.

The 2N rebidder does not know that responder does or does not have his actual response until responder were to pass 2N. As far as he is concerned, 2N IS forcing, whether you wish to recognize that fact or not. Unless, of course, you also believe you don't belong in 3N on 18 opposite 6, which is an entirely different debate. The 2N bidder is expecting another call from partner even in standard bidding.

Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

I didn't mean to attack bid_em_up either as I know he was responder and didn't need to alert his bid.

I do think that 1♣ should be alerted if 2+. I also think 2NT should be alerted if it is forcing. The question I would pose is what you would respond on xxxxx xxx xxxx x (if you want throw in a couple of Qs), in particular over a 1♣ bid that could be as short as 2. Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid. If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard. But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert.

[vuroth]

This is all becoming rather personal.

In the context of a B/I forum, should B/Is be expected to consistently move to game with 24+ points? I suspect that many expert+ players would consider it an affront to stop short of 3NT with "only" a 24 point fit, but as beginners/intermediates, is this what we should be learning?

I'm asking, because I don't really know the answer here.

V

[han]

For beginning players I would recommend only bidding 2NT with balanced hands that have 18-19 points and not 4-card support.

Don't worry about what partner will do yet, that's up to partner.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

Non forcing isn't a command to pass

In my experience 1x-1y-2NT is passed between 10%-15% of the time, by opps as well as my partnerships.

Peter

[skjaeran]

pbleighton, on Sep 6 2007, 09:36 PM, said:

Quote

How can it not be considered forcing?

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding.

Peter

I'll second that statement. 2NT is definitely not considered forcing in any standard natural system, whether a response promises 6 hcp or not.

[bid_em_up]

vuroth, on Sep 6 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

This is all becoming rather personal.

In the context of a B/I forum, should B/Is be expected to consistently move to game with 24+ points? I suspect that many expert+ players would consider it an affront to stop short of 3NT with "only" a 24 point fit, but as beginners/intermediates, is this what we should be learning?

I'm asking, because I don't really know the answer here.

V

I agree. This was not a question or discussion for BIL. Sorry.

I have already acknowledged that our particular treatment is non-standard or not the way it is taught. Kathryn did not know this when she initiated the discussion.

I would not recommend this style for BIL players. Hell, I don't even like it myself but it's what partner insists on playing and it seems to work.

[bid_em_up]

Echognome, on Sep 6 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

The question I would pose is what you would respond on xxxxx xxx xxxx x (if you want throw in a couple of Qs), in particular over a 1♣ bid that could be as short as 2.  Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid.  If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard.  But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert.

We would pass this hand after a 1C opening, even with a couple of queens thrown in. Exceptions to this would be something like QJxxxxx xxx xx x or a hand similar to the one I actually held, Qxxxxx Qxxx xx x but even in these cases, responder is still bidding over 2N. There are very few hands where responder would bid over 1C and pass 2N.

You say "Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid.", we say, "if I have xxxxx xxx xxxx x", and I pass, my LHO is likely to balance. Now the 2N bidder should know not to get carried away later in the auction. We prefer to err on the side of caution, than what if's. Even if you respond 1S, there is no guarantees you can now stop any lower than 4S which probably goes down, but if you pass now, you may still be able to enter the auction later. (1C-p-p-x-xx-p-1S, is one way to do it.)

"If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard." This is essentially what I am saying, it is so rare that 2N will be passed, you may as well consider it forcing.

"But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert."

I don't agree for reasons already stated. But as I said, show me that it does, and I will be happy to alert it. That is a far cry from "not providing adequate disclosure". The bid simply is a standard 2N rebid, balanced 18-19, which does not require any alert whatsoever. If asked by an opponent, could partner could pass my 2N rebid, my answer would be "Its not likely, since he has made a 1 level response, we practically always promise another call". But I do not believe it requires an alert.

[bid_em_up]

Hannie, on Sep 6 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

For beginning players I would recommend only bidding 2NT with balanced hands that have 18-19 points and not 4-card support.

Don't worry about what partner will do yet, that's up to partner.

I can agree with this.

[helene_t]

4♠ describes your hand well. You didn't splinter and you have 19-20 support points. I one partnership I rebid 2NT (forcing) with 4-card support and scattered values. Then 4♠ would describe this hand even better.

I can hardly think of a style in which 4♠ would not be the correct bid with this hand. Maybe if 4♠ showed 5116 ....

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

2) In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.  Since when do 6+18 not equal game?  How can it not be considered forcing?  Since when is 1S and a 2N rebid alertable?  Since when is 2N not natural in this sense?  It is not conventional.  It has no special meaning.  If you think 2N is alertable, then I think you are nuts.  The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning, it is responders decision to bid or pass over it. 

I would hope that you now realize that this statement is wrong. It is incorrect according to experts (and non-experts) posting from Europe and NA.

You may argue that it 'has to be forcing' all you like. It isn't. And any good player knows that: now, if you AGREE to play it forcing, that is fine.. and in the context of your stated methods (which I will hope to persuade you are bad), you can certainly play it as forcing... but don't go telling others (who are correct) that they are 'nuts' for disagreeing with you.

As to your methods: 2 points.

Do you mean to tell me that with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx you pass 1♣?

Do you mean to tell me that with Kx AQx Jxx AK10xx you open a 15-17 1NT?

I can assure you that virtually all good players, in a std or 2/1 or Acol style would respond to 1♣, and seriously wonder how anyone could pass. And almost as many would look at the 17 count hand and open 1♣, intending to rebid 2N over any response... the hand has a chunky 5 card suit, and 6 controls... to treat it the same way as Kxx AQx Jxx AK10x (a maximum) shows a lack of understanding of hand evaluation.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 6 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

2) In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.  Since when do 6+18 not equal game?  How can it not be considered forcing?  Since when is 1S and a 2N rebid alertable?  Since when is 2N not natural in this sense?  It is not conventional.  It has no special meaning.  If you think 2N is alertable, then I think you are nuts.   The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning, it is responders decision to bid or pass over it. 

I would hope that you now realize that this statement is wrong. It is incorrect according to experts (and non-experts) posting from Europe and NA.

You may argue that it 'has to be forcing' all you like. It isn't. And any good player knows that: now, if you AGREE to play it forcing, that is fine.. and in the context of your stated methods (which I will hope to persuade you are bad), you can certainly play it as forcing... but don't go telling others (who are correct) that they are 'nuts' for disagreeing with you.

As to your methods: 2 points.

Do you mean to tell me that with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx you pass 1♣?

Do you mean to tell me that with Kx AQx Jxx AK10xx you open a 15-17 1NT?

I can assure you that virtually all good players, in a std or 2/1 or Acol style would respond to 1♣, and seriously wonder how anyone could pass. And almost as many would look at the 17 count hand and open 1♣, intending to rebid 2N over any response... the hand has a chunky 5 card suit, and 6 controls... to treat it the same way as Kxx AQx Jxx AK10x (a maximum) shows a lack of understanding of hand evaluation.

Try and be realistic Mike.

Would you pass the 2N rebid on AJ9xx xxx xxx xx?