rhm

If you have this option I really do not understand why you do not want to use it. Looks like a perfect description of the hand to me. I am not worried getting passed out. In most cases I need at least one entry to dummy plus a club finesse to succeed in 3NT. I am not claiming that 2♣ then 2N balanced 22-23 does not show equivalent strength, but it does not hint at the club length. If you miss a club slam serves you right in my opinion. Rainer Herrmann

I would hardly stop on this auction and would likely go down in 6♥ Rainer Herrmann

I understand this, but this is a different discussion, whether you are allowed to pass a forcing or game forcing bid. This has nothing to do with the question of experts or non experts and there are 2 sides to every coin. We were not dealing with sub minimum repsonses, but with the question whether you should have system sequences stopping short of game by design when opener jumps in a new suit. There are numerous hands on BBO, where many refused to open very strong hands with a game forcing 2♣ because strong two and three-suiters are often hard to describe if you start with an artificial game forcing (2♣). So you don't in spite of the risk that your one-level opening may be passed out. But if responder next passes your game forcing rebid I wonder how you want to deal with these very strong hands in practice. Rainer Herrmann

Reverses are different in the sense that opener has no other way showing the reverse suit Nevertheless due to the bidding space they consume, reverses are strong and forcing, that is "almost" game forcing with only few exceptions. (There are different opinions what these exceptions should be) A jump in a new suit is different in the sense that opener can always show the suit without a jump. For this reason a jump in a new suit tends to be even more expensive in term of bidding space than a reverse. If openers initial opening bid was wide ranging, skipping a whole level is not very sensible unless you want to force unconditionally to game opposite a minimum response. Stopping on a dime thereafter is a poor idea. Rainer Herrmann

What has money exchange to do with our discussion? There is no page 39 Rainer Herrmann

Sorry but you are mistaken and this is part of any beginner lesson. In fact a rebid in a lower ranking suit like 2♣ is wide ranging (12-18 HCP), precisely because the jump is unconditionally game forcing showing 19+ HCP, whether you play Standard American or ACOL or almost any other natural system with wide ranging one-bids. (This is different in strong club systems where opener is already limited by not opening 1♣. Kaplan-Sheinwuld is insofar an exception for this particular sequence because KS plays a 2♣ rebid already as strong and forcing) For example http://www.rpbridge.net/1t69.htm Rainer Herrmann

A jump in a new suit by opener has been forcing to game in all natural systems I know for ages. I also do not think that this is different between 2/1 , Standard American or any of its forerunner. Whether I would jump to 3♣ with the actual hand is less clear. Probably not. From West point of view there are 3 possible trump suits and you do not know where you belong and you need room to find out. I consider the chance that 2♣ will get passed out minimal. (Where are all the spades?) When opener forces to game on the second round he will have trouble finding out how strong responder really is. Rainer Herrmann

Jacoby or transfers is not a natural concept , nor is Stayman, not even "fairly natural" whatever that means. Natural means if you bid spades you have spades and if you bid diamonds you have diamonds. When you bid Stayman there is no implication about responder holding clubs. Therefor it is artificial. If opener responds to Stayman in a major you could call this "fairly" natural, but 2 diamonds in response to Stayman has little to do with diamonds. When you transfer you may show length in the suit immediately above, therefor it is not a natural bid. When opener accepts the transfer he does not say he himself has length in the suit bid. Just because we are used to this artificiality does not make it natural, only standard. As far as I know originally the famous Portland club in England prohibited all these conventions Natural would mean after a 1NT opening responder bids his suit at the two level if weak and at the 3 level if strong. Finding a 4-4 major suit fit would be difficult. Rainer Herrmann

In a sense you are of course correct. But "Natural Bidding Discussion" is a fuzzy concept. Almost nobody plays natural responses over a strong 1NT any more, simply because they are inefficient. Would then any discussion about sequences after 1NT be out of place in "Natural Bidding Discussion" ? Well running out of space is a relative matter. In the end we often have to guess on strain and level. For example good minor suits slams are often played in 3NT - 2/1 game forcing or not. Most players shrug their shoulders when most of the room misses the slam too, but it is still a missed opportunity. Guessing does not mean all outcomes are equally likely and we often guess right, but constructive bidding tries to reduce this guess by exchanging information. Like after 1NT you want to be able to exchange as much information as possible in constructive sequences before making a decision about strain and level. What I wanted to allude to is that packing balanced game forcing hands into a 2♣ response after one of a major is not a serious problem. Gitelman was wrong. What creates the issues he discusses is playing natural responses over them. In fact jumping to 2NT over one of a major with game forcing balanced hands creates problems of its own (when opener is unbalanced), because you do not enough room between 2NT and 3NT to exchange enough information to decide on strain and level. Rainer Herrmann

I do not know Ambra or Big Bang, but I do know that if 1♠-2♣ is game forcing, then natural repsonses are inefficient. The reason is simple that in game forcing auction bids, which require little bidding space should cover a wide range of hands and bids, which consume bidding space should be specific. If for example 1♠-2♣ a 2 ♦ rebid by opener shows a diamond suit while 2NT shows a balanced hand you are violating this principle, because opener can have many more and many more frequent hands where he is balanced than holding at least 5-4 in spades and diamonds. Simply switching the meaning of 2♦ and 2NT would make your system more efficient. For example you could agree that opener will bid 2♦ after 1♠-2♣ or 1♥-2♣ with any balanced or semi-balanced hand (no singleton or void) and if opener bids 2NT he shows a diamond suit in an unbalanced hand. In this context if opener now rebids spades he does not only promise 6 cards but also an unbalanced hand If the bidding goes 1♠-2♣ (clubs or balanced, game forcing)-2♠-3♠ responder agrees spades and opener will show where his shortage is. If the bidding goes 1♠-2♣-2♦ responder can bid the other major at the 2-level to show clubs. (An idea which I think is originally from Eddy Wold). So if responder bids 2♥ after 1♠-2♣-2♦ he shows clubs and other bids show a balanced hand. This is only a rough outline of course. Rainer Herrmann

Not against competent defense. What do you discard from dummy on the diamonds? Presumably a club and a spade. Then you want to go to the second heart and play a club to the ten. East wins with the jack and returns a heart. What do you want to discard on the third heart from dummy? Rainer Herrmann

Mikeh, I understand if you do open 1♥ instead of 2♣. There are wins and losses either way. But do not claim this to be a marginal hand for opening 2♣. This is a very strong hand and a fit is a priory likely somewhere, which of course finding is also the problem. The only risk is not only that you languish at the one-level if you open 1♥. It will often be very hard to convince partner with a weak hand that his meager values are sufficient not for game but slam. The guesswork will continue after the one level opening and the strong hand will get little cooperation in many cases. Of course there are different methods showing very weak hands after 2♣. But given the actual methods used I still think 3♣ is a better rebid than 2NT. Rainer Herrmann

No help? What would you call North singleton spade? A liability? If you think North is too weak to splinter, then he should have made a second negative (2NT looks very dubious) to be able to splinter. Rainer Herrmann

What is marginal about this hand escapes me. Rainer Herrmann

While I understand the dissatisfaction with the Fantoni / Nunes case I see little similarity with the case in Buenos Aires. Yes I know Alan Truscott was convinced Reese / Shapiro cheated, but I do not think Truscott was unbiased. It's like claiming because Person X was guilty of murder Person Y in an unrelated case must also be. Obvious nonsense. The cases have little in common and top Bridge players from ACBL country are not the supreme court in Bridge with the final decision to decide, who did cheat and who did not. I know some bridge players from the US find this hard to accept. Rainer Herrmann

My point was, once you have a very powerful hand with lots of slam potential like the one here (♠43,♥AKT742,♦AKT,♣A8) it is very unlikely that you can not even make game. I agree it happens, but catering for this scenario costs more than it gains. And of course it is easy to construct bidding sequences after opening with a one-level, which lead to the right contract when looking at both hands. At the table where you do not have this advantage the outcome is not always the same, not to mention that opponents sometimes interfere with your bidding. Rainer Herrmann

Why are you so keen stopping one trick below game? I do not care for these very rare occurences and consider 2♣ game forcing except for a 2NT rebid. No other exception. It makes life so much easier. Yes I sometimes go down in game when I open 2♣, but I do go down in game 20 times more often when I do not open 2♣. Big deal. But if you play Kokish it is a good idea after 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ to exchange the meaning of 3♣ and 3♥ So 2♣-2♦ 2♥-2♠ 3♣: one suiter in hearts 3♥: two suiter hearts and clubs A one-suiter is much more frequent than a specific two suiter. You could now agree that 3♥ after 2♣-2♦ 2♥-2♠ 3♣ by responder is nonforcing and 4♣ or 4♦ agrees hearts and is an invite to more. As I said I do not care. Rainer Herrmann

I think the issue is that we have 2 trends in modern standard bidding which have a cost 1) opening bids got lighter 2) exalted requirements for opening with a game forcing 2♣. Together they create a rather wide range of hands to be handled after one-level opening bids. I understand not opening 2♣ when a hand may be difficult to describe. However, one-suiter are not difficult to describe after opening 2♣ and playing tricks is not the most important requirement, slam potential being much more important. I do not see why it should be difficult to reach slam once you decide that this hand is good enough to open 2♣. I think the risk of getting too high with this hand by opening 2♣ is negligible. Rainer Herrmann

I do something similar in Polish club. A 2♣ opening shows 6 pieces. If I have at least a doubleton in both major and 5 cards in clubs I will open 1♣ If I have a singleton in a major, say 4♠=1♥=3♦=5♣ or 1♠=4♥=3♦=5♣ I will open 1♦. Since these are rare hands partner will initially assume 4 cards in ♦ If partner bids 1♠ over 1♦ and I have 1♠=4♥=3♦=5♣ I will rebid 1NT. If I am 3♠=4♥=1♦=5♣ and partner bids 1♠ over my 1♣ opening I will raise on three. This works very well and I do not see the fly in the ointment, but it does not seem to be popular Rainer Herrmann

This observation is at odds with the fact that NFB are almost universally played in Poland and quite popular in surrounding countries. They do not play an "extremely conservative game" over there. It is my impression that the trade-offs are poorly understood in the US. Rainer Herrmann

Opener could also hold a minimum hand with 4441 or even 4450. If they have 9 clubs between them you are unlikely to do well at either Matchpoints or IMPs. I think there is no alternative to doubling 3♣. So while Opener doubles 3♣ when holding a strong hand, a responsive DBL does not guarantee such a hand. I like to play negative free (NFB) bids at the two level for many reasons. The advantages and disadvantages of this concept are generally poorly understood. With hands below game forcing strength you have to show a good 5 card or longer major immediately. Playing NFB, a new suit 3♠ in your sequence 1♦-(2♣)-DBL-(3♣)-3♥ would show a game forcing hand by responder and at least 5 cards. As I said above opener should make a responsive DBL with both majors and this is what responder assumes. If responder has not the weak variety negative dbl, responder jumps in his 5 card major over a responsive DBL or bids 4♣ with slam aspirations. Rainer Herrmann

I think no rebid by opener over 3♣ up to 3NT would be forcing. So double must cover almost all hands where opener wants to force, but can not be certain about strain and level and does not want to bid 4♣ at this point. In other words DBL is the default bid with all strong hands. That's the way it should be since DBL is openers cheapest bid besides pass. However, since responder does not promise both majors, responder should assume a minimum opening hand with both majors and short clubs. So if responder bids a major over the DBL it is not forcing either, but any subsequent bid by opener below game after the DBL is forcing. If opener first doubles and then bids 3NT he shows doubt about the final contract. He could be 18-19 balanced with a poor club holding. Rainer Herrmann

Agreed, but why people continue to evaluate such a hand as 5 loser when it is closer to 3 loser escapes me. Apparently when it comes to counting loser they do not know the difference between Qxx, Axx and AJT and they do count loser to justify their poor bidding decision. With xxxx Kx Qxx Qxxx slam may be marginal though not poor, but with xxxx x Qxx KQxxx it is excellent I would bid 3♠ (assuming no special agreements) followed next by a heart bid. The hand is clearly too strong for an immediate 4♥ bid. Rainer Herrmann

I agree that a trump switch caters to most conditions. A diamond switch looses when declarer has something like AKxxxxxx A Kx xx A club continuation is only necessary if declarer has AKxxxxxx Kx A xx and partner has the spade ten or the above when partner has the king and declarer 8 spades and no loser in the red suits.

Hard to see how a club continuation can hurt. For a diamond switch to be right, declarer must have something like 3 hearts and a slow diamond loser. Among others this means the 4♠ preempt would have to be based on a 6 card spade suit. My QJ in spades argues against that. If he has bid that way with ♠AKT9xx ♥Axx ♦Ax ♣xx or ♠AKT9xx ♥AKx ♦xx ♣xx I pay of. Rainer Herrmann