[helene_t]

2N as forcing is very common here in NL, maybe due to influence from (I think it was) Ed Hoogenkamp hoe recomends this style to intermediates.

Nice to know that I would have to alert this in the US. Will I also have to alert in next week in Croatia? Nobody alerts it over here. You might as well alert a non-forcing 2NT.

[gwnn]

I think the crux of the argument is this: if a bid can be passed, but in practice will be passed only once in 100 times it has been made, can it be considered forcing? bid_em_up seems to say that in a certain practical way it can be. Others, I think the rest of the posters, or the vast majority of the rest of the posters, seem to disagree, and furthermore, they state that 2NT is a bad bid primarily because of this: 2NT risks to be passed out when the expected score of 4♠ will heavily outweigh the one of 2NT. If we think game has to be reached, we need to make sure we get to game, not making any bids that have any chances (even those that are accepted to be very low) of being passed out.

For what it's worth, I think any call that can be passed is non-forcing and do not like drawing an arbitrary line based on the likeliness of it being passed out (1NT-3NT is passed out 99.999%, that's non forcing, etc, 1M-1NT-2x is passed out quite rarely, like 25%, but ok, let's say it's non forcing, 1m-1M-2NT will be passed out 1%, that has to be forcing. [I know the percentages are approximate] where's the line? 10%? 5%? 2.5%? who is to measure it? et cetera.). Simplest would be applying word "forcing" only when the bid is not allowed to be passed out ever ever ever.

[ochinko]

sceptic, on Sep 6 2007, 09:49 PM, said:

I am wondering why 1m 1M 4M is not used showing 19 hcp  unless 2NT has a special meaning with a fit and no stopper in one suit

It is not about the points when you have such a good fit. It is mostly about controls, and the easiest way to count them is losers.

1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand.

It's nice to be able to distinguish it from say AJxx-KQ-KQ-Axxxx which has the same ponts and distribution but much less slam potential.

[the hog]

"1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand."

A large number of people use 1C 1S 4C to show that hand type - 4 card S support and a solid C suit. This hand qualifies admirably, and this is a far more despriptive bid than the afforementioned 2NT.

[Codo]

The_Hog, on Sep 7 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

"1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand."

A large number of people use 1C 1S 4C to show that hand type - 4 card S support and a solid C suit. This hand qualifies admirably, and this is a far more despriptive bid than the afforementioned 2NT.

obvious.
4 Club: 10 points
4 Spade: 3 Points
2 NT: Nut points
4 NT: no points
anything else: no bridge or a very special agreement

[ochinko]

The_Hog, on Sep 7 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

"1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand."

A large number of people use 1C 1S 4C to show that hand type - 4 card S support and a solid C suit. This hand qualifies admirably, and this is a far more despriptive bid than the afforementioned 2NT.

I didn't know that, and I didn't exactly defend the 2NT bid, just the need to have a bid that shows a hand better than a game.

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

[pbleighton]

Quote

I think the crux of the argument is this: if a bid can be passed, but in practice will be passed only once in 100 times it has been made

Most people, of course, pass it more than 1% of the time.

Peter

[gwnn]

Of course the percentage is higher than 1%, my question was in a way more theoretical than concerning the 2NT rebid.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Sep 7 2007, 12:22 AM, said:

What part of this:

I know that. That's why I put up the link.

The point is, whether something is alertable is up to documents like this, and the opinions of TDs, not whether you have what you consider to be proof.

Quote

PART I: NATURAL CALLS
Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

Wow, nice stop. Try reading the next sentence.

As to length, ACBL accepts as NATURAL any offer to play in a suit for the first time that shows:

The bold, italics, and capitalizations are in the original.

Virtually every person in the U.S. considers an unlaerted bid of 2NT here an offer to play in No Trump. A rebid of 6NT, or a check for aces and then 6NT, is not uncommon.

You apparently do NOT have the bid as natural, because it is not an offer to play in No Trump. And apparently, you have banned sequences where partner takes you straight to 6NT, or checks for aces and then bids 6NT, because when I pointed it out to you you said it wasn't going to happen.

Now, you can argue that since it 'isn't a suit' that somehow, a bid of NT that is not an offer to play in NT is not alertable. But you won't find any evidence for that anywhere in the document. For example, a Forcing NT response has to be announced even if the bid promises a balanced hand.

It's not the shape that's unexpected.

It's whether the bid is an offer to play in No Trump, whether two, three or six.

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Sep 7 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

You apparently do NOT have the bid as natural, because it is not an offer to play in No Trump.  And apparently, you have banned sequences where partner takes you straight to 6NT, or checks for aces and then bids 6NT, because when I pointed it out to you you said it wasn't going to happen.   

Now, you can argue that since it 'isn't a suit' that somehow, a bid of NT that is not an offer to play in NT is not alertable.   But you won't find any evidence for that anywhere in the document.  For example, a Forcing NT response has to be announced even if the bid promises a balanced hand. 

It's not the shape that's unexpected. 

It's whether the bid is an offer to play in No Trump, whether two, three or six.

I just love the way you assume things.

It is an offer to play in NT. Could be 2N (although, as I have said, it is unlikely), could be 3N, 4N, 6N or 7N.

I don't know where you reached the conclusion it is not an offer to play in NT.

Quote

You apparently do NOT have the bid as natural, because it is not an offer to play in No Trump. And apparently, you have banned sequences where partner takes you straight to 6NT, or checks for aces and then bids 6NT, because when I pointed it out to you you said it wasn't going to happen.

Because again you assume that partner automatically will just up and blast 6N. We would go thru a form of checkback sequence before bidding 6N. So its simply not going to happen that it goes 1x-1y-2N-6N. Doesn't mean we won't or can't end in 6N though, just not via your described method. I suppose we could go back to simply blasting 6N, but since we have other inquiries that follow 2N, there is absolutely no reason to do so.

[mikeh]

I was asked to do a simulation, but am not going to.

To work out, via a simulation, whether rebidding 2N with a balanced 18-19 hand with 4 card support is effective would require a large number of hands and a fair amount of guesswork/subjective assessment of responder's decision over the 2N.

Frankly, from my perspective, doing a simulation in which opener can have 4 spades and a doubleton is silly.... if you are playing that 2N is non-forcing, and in the styles I play, no other treatment makes sense, then I refuse to risk playing in a hopeless 2N with 9 or 10 tricks available in spades. And while I suspect that the losses on 4=3=3=3 hands would be significantly less, I am not going to distort my (pretty effective) rebidding scheme over 2N rebids in order to allow responder to check back for 4 card support.

So partly because the simulation would take too much work to yield significant results, and partly because my 30+ years of bridge experience tell me that rebidding 2N with 4 spades is losing bridge, I am declining the request.

As to how often I or partner pass 2N rebids... not often... and I don't track this kind of thing, but it happens often enough that it is non-trivial.

[ochinko]

Jlall, on Sep 7 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

ochinko, on Sep 7 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

This looks like a textbook 3S bid...

And what does your your textbook prescribe for Kxxx-xxx-Kx-AKQx? Same 3S or just 2S?

[mikeh]

ochinko, on Sep 7 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 7 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

ochinko, on Sep 7 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

This looks like a textbook 3S bid...

And what does your your textbook prescribe for Kxxx-xxx-Kx-AKQx? Same 3S or just 2S?

I open 1N

If playing 15-17, which is standard

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 7 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

I was asked to do a simulation, but am not going to.

Thanks anyway, and I appreciate your reasons for not doing so.

[FrancesHinden]

Back to the original hand, and the original question implied in the first post.

If you play a 2NT rebid as 18-19 balanced (and not as some artificial game forcing bid), then I think it is a poor call on the hand.

_Even_ if I assume that 2NT is effectively never passed (because partner requires a decent 6-count or so to respond) so that the risk of playing in exactly 2NT is minimal, it is a mis-description. For one thing, the hand is not really balanced. For a far more important point, it's too good a hand. If partner treats this rebid in the same way as Axx Kxx Ax AKxx (and that's a control rich 18-count so I'm not being mean) we're going to miss too many slams.

If you don't like jumping to 4S because of the room it takes up, add some system - play 2NT as artificial and forcing, or 3D as artificial and forcing (that's what I do). But 4S is not a mis-description of this hand, it's pretty accurate.

So I don't like this bid...

As for the alert, I can't comment on ACBL rules, but then I understand this was played online, so the rules are whatever the TD thought they were. As a point of interest, I'm going to tell you what the rules are in England, with a mild side-track into the EBL.

But: if you play it as 18-19 balanced, not forcing although partner won't pass if he has a normal 6+ HCP response, that isn't alertable in the EBU.

If you play it as systemically including balanced(ish) hands with 4-card support, that is alertable in the EBU.

I am basing that on the following fairly vague statement in the English alerting rules:
"a pass or bid must be alerted if
(a) it is not natural; or
( it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning."

Well, a 'natural' 2NT rebid that might have 4-card trump support is an unexpected meaning. Definitely.

--------------------------------
An anecdote.
Playing in the European Open Pairs in Tenerife, our opponents bid uncontested 1C - 1H - 2NT - 3NT. I screwed up the defence because I did not think that opener could have four hearts. On discussion with the TD it was ruled that

- if 2NT systemically could include four spades it was alertable
- the rebid was asystemic and thus there was no MI

So the EBL alerting rules (same as the WBF ones) agree with me!

[ochinko]

mikeh, on Sep 7 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

ochinko, on Sep 7 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 7 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

ochinko, on Sep 7 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

This looks like a textbook 3S bid...

And what does your your textbook prescribe for Kxxx-xxx-Kx-AKQx? Same 3S or just 2S?

I open 1N

If playing 15-17, which is standard

Ok, you got me there.

How about KJxx-x-KJxx-AKxx then? Doesn't it look like at least a trick shorter than Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx? Could both deserve a 3♠ rebid? Or you rebid only 2♠ with this one?

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 7 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

--------------------------------
An anecdote.
Playing in the European Open Pairs in Tenerife, our opponents bid uncontested 1C - 1H - 2NT - 3NT. I screwed up the defence because I did not think that opener could have four hearts. On discussion with the TD it was ruled that

- if 2NT systemically could include four spades it was alertable
- the rebid was asystemic and thus there was no MI

So the EBL alerting rules (same as the WBF ones) agree with me!

Quick question: Should

"- if 2NT systemically could include four spades it was alertable"

read

"- if 2NT systemically could include four hearts it was alertable"

I'm guessing that there is a typo (lord knows I make enough of them)

If not, I am somewhat surprised. I would expect that many people would rebid
2NT with any balanced hand in the right range, regardless of the Spade holding

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 7 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

--------------------------------
An anecdote.
Playing in the European Open Pairs in Tenerife, our opponents bid uncontested 1C - 1H - 2NT - 3NT. I screwed up the defence because I did not think that opener could have four hearts. On discussion with the TD it was ruled that

- if 2NT systemically could include four spades it was alertable
- the rebid was asystemic and thus there was no MI

So the EBL alerting rules (same as the WBF ones) agree with me!

Quick question: Should

"- if 2NT systemically could include four spades it was alertable"

read

"- if 2NT systemically could include four hearts it was alertable"

I'm guessing that there is a typo (lord knows I make enough of them)

If not, I am somewhat surprised. I would expect that many people would rebid
2NT with any balanced hand in the right range, regardless of the Spade holding

[kfay]

I don't understand this entire post.

1x-1y-2N is 18-19 and completely non forcing. I don't know anyone who would say it's forcing who gives it the same meaning that was intended here (18-19 balanced). Whatever happened to responding with an ace (4 HCP)? Doesn't 18+4=22 not meet your minimum point standards for game, which is your entire argument is for why 2NT is forcing?

To argue against the idea that 2NT is non-forcing shows me that you haven't discussed whether it's forcing or not with anyone with a pulse other than your partner and are just arguing for argument's sake with everyone in this forum.

All that said I agree with Han that 2NT is a terrible bid here with the meaning given either in this universe or any other. It is a gross misdescription of the hand. This, of course, is under the presumption that you're playing in the ACBL since it seems this is not standard practice across the pond.