[paulsim]

Hi all,

A)
1♥......1♠
2♣......2NT
3♣?

a.- Is it pass or correct?
b.- Is it forcing?
c.- Is it a partnertship agreement?

B)
1♠......1NT
2NT.....3♦?

a.- Game forcing
b.- not forcing?
c.- partnership agreement?

Ty all
Kind Regards

Paul_S

[LBengtsson]

what system are you playing with your partner? and have you any agreements in place?

[mw64ahw]

LBengtsson, on 2021-June-10, 05:56, said:

what system are you playing with your partner? and have you any agreements in place?

Without knowing players systems I would guess
A) 2NT says invitational with ♣ support if your 2♣ bid is a 2nd suit so 3♣ is a sign-off
B) I play 2NT is Str+ & shows 4+♦ or 5323 so 3♦ would be weak. Partner corrects if 5323. In the absence of that agreement 2NT says 18-19 (semi)balanced so 3♦ is forcing to 3NT

[Winstonm]

If I were called in as a substitute and my pard said we play 2/1 I would take the auctions to mean: a) to play and b) to play. I would take neither as an invitation to do anything other than pass.

In b it matters how you bid as responder a weak minor hand but I think most people start with 1nt

[shyams]

paulsim, on 2021-June-10, 05:41, said:

A)
1♥......1♠
2♣......2NT
3♣?

a.- Is it pass or correct?
b.- Is it forcing?
c.- Is it a partnertship agreement?

The 3♣ bid is not forcing but I don't treat it as a sign off.

Opener has shown 5-5 or 6-5 in the black suits with limited HCP. (I know some people who open a 5cM in preference to a 6cm. To them, the bidding might include a 5-6 distribution).
Responder's 2NT was invitational, so after the 3♣ rebid, responder should reevaluate their hand, especially with a 3+ card club fit.

paulsim, on 2021-June-10, 05:41, said:

B)
1♠......1NT
2NT.....3♦?

a.- Game forcing
b.- not forcing?
c.- partnership agreement?

Agree with other posters that 3♦ is to play. Barring special agreements, responder would usually have a weak hand with a long diamond suit and would prefer to play in diamonds

[mycroft]

B depends on agreements. With anyone I play with, it's forcing. Because "everything is forcing over 18-19 balanced 2NT except pass", and this auction (with a forcing NT) shows 18-ish 5332 or so. If you bid 1NT with a stiff spade and KJxxxx in diamonds, hoping to get out in 2♦, decide what to do. (which could even be 3NT and hope, especially at IMPs, knowing that you're not making *exactly* 8 tricks).

Obviously, if you're not playing 2/1 or with these agreements about 1♠-1NT; 2NT, then other decisions apply.

[helene_t]

A) is clearly nonforcing. A less obvious question is whether 3♥ would be forcing. Justin Lall describes a convention https://csbnews.org/...by-justin-lall/ which may apply here: use 3♦ artificially to distinguish between a good and a bad 3♥ bid.

B) is not obvious, and GIB uses transfers here to allow responder to bid both with good and bad hands with diamonds. You could also use 3♣ as an artificial Wolf sign-off. One Dutch pair who featured in a Dutch Magazine's version of Master Solver's Club (Brulleman/Wijma) had the agreement that here, 3m is to play while 3♥ is forcing. The logic being that responder will often want to offer a choice-of-game between hearts and NT, but not often between a minor and notrump.

B) depends somewhat on your style: if the NT response is 6+ and the 2NT rebid is a genuine 18-19, you probably play 2NT as GF, or at least as "everything is now forcing except pass" as Mycroft says. OTOH if responder has an invitational 3♦ available at his first turn (or an Acolish light 2♦ response), there is not much need for a forcing 3♦ now.

[gszes]

I echo the opinion that all both are non forcing. They are suggestions that opposite a "normal" 2N bid the minor suit at the 3 level is probably the way to go. They both show that extra length that requires good hand reevaluation skills.

Hand 1 would readily be willing to bid 3c with void AKxxx xxx KQxxx and would rarely be disappointed with any normal looking dummy. If dummy contains something exceptional it is probably a good idea to consider 5m as a final contract. xxxx Q Axxxx AJx just might be the magic hand to make 5m and I would try 3d as responder to make a 5c game try which opener should happily bid.

The same principle would apply to example B. The 1n response limits responder's power no matter the system. The 3d bid should show some exceptional length (6+)
and the mere presence of the 6 card suit brings 5m or 3n into the picture. This once again requires opener to reevaluate their hand opposite this new information.
Both non forcing but informative nonetheless. The main thing to consider is that the dia suit should not be as good as 2 of the top 3 honors since 3n would seem
to be a vastly superior choice of final contract vs 3 of a mere minor. AKxxx Axx Kxx Ax Qx x Qxxxxx Kxxx an easy 5d possibly 6 while 3n is in serious trouble with a heart lead.

[mikeh]

The first one is a classic dilemma for players without agreements.

Frequency-wise, it has to be non-forcing.

Opener may be light with 5-5 and responder has less than game force values and some of those values are likely wasted, being in opener’s short suits. Therefore opener has to be allowed to bid 3C ‘to play’. Otherwise your system forces you into too many purely voluntary minus scores with the opponents passing throughout.

Meanwhile, when opener has, say, a 15-16 count, 5-5, he can often survive by bidding 3N. With an extreme hand he can bid 4C and hope to survive.

There is a solution.

Transfers.

3C to play
3D to transfer to 3H, over which opener passes with a weak 6-4
3H to show extras with 5=5 hearts and clubs
3S to show extras with 1=5=3=4, keeping diamonds in play....picture Qxx Jx KJxxx Axx opposite x AKxxx AQx Kxxx

The same sort of approach works even better, and more simply, in the second auction.

1S 1N
2N

3C is a transfer to diamonds. Responder may be passing 3D so the transfer is mandatory
3D shows hearts, again mandatory
3H shows spades, often a limit raise but, if you play this style, maybe a hand too weak to have bid 2S
3S shows clubs. This is not mandatory. Opener bids 4C only with a good hand for a high level club contract, bidding 3N otherwise.

[nullve]

helene_t, on 2021-June-10, 16:02, said:

A) is clearly nonforcing. A less obvious question is whether 3♥ would be forcing. Justin Lall describes a convention https://csbnews.org/...by-justin-lall/ which may apply here: use 3♦ artificially to distinguish between a good and a bad 3♥ bid.

Lall's article doesn't deal with the case where Opener's second suit is clubs, so like you I can only guess that he would then use 3♦ (instead of 3♣) as the lebensohl-like device, resulting in a scheme like

1♥-1♠; 2♣-2N; ?:

P = bad minimum, usually neither 6+ H nor 5+ C
3♣ = 5+ C, NF
3♦ = puppet to 3♥
...3♥ = forced
......P = 6+ H, wanted to get out in 3♥
......3♠ = (by elimination) 5+ C, FG
......3N = diamond suit or fragment (so either 1534 or 0544)
3♥ = 6+ H, FG
3♠ = 3 S, FG
3N = contract

This type of problem is also dealt with in part III of Gitelman's Improving 2/1 GF series, but for some reason only after 1M-1N; 2new-2N and not 1♥-1♠; 2new-2N.

But based on Gitelman's scheme over 1♥-1N; 2♣-2N:

1♥-1♠; 2♣-2N; ?:

P = bad minimum, usually neither 6+ H nor 5+ C
3♣ = 5+ C, NF
3♦ = puppet to 3♥
...3♥ = forced
......P = 6+ H, wanted to get out in 3♥
......3♠+ = GF hands with 6+ H or 5+ C. The article doesn't go into details but I'm guessing
......3♠ = 6+ H, FG
......3N = 5H5C, NF
......(...)
3♥ = diamond suit or fragment (so either 1534 or 0544), FG
3♠ = 3 S, FG
3N = contract