gordontd

The basis of this appeal seems tenuous in the extreme, and I would not be surprised if it had led to a lost deposit. The 2NT bid is agreed to be 1 HCP more than might have been expected. That does not of itself make it game forcing. But in any case it's quite possible for NS to have 29 points between them. West has three tricks, without any obvious prospect of more, and in the process of taking them is likely to create two tricks for declarer. An overtrick in 3NT is the outcome that should have been anticipated by West.

With this hand you'll play in 4♠ opposite a double anyway.

If South had not opened 1♠, wouldn't EW have ended up in a non-making 4♥? So, where's the damage to EW, the advantage to NS?

I have on one occasion ruled that a player was misinformed by his opponent leaving a bidding card from the previous hand on the table, and the WBF Chief TD agreed with me, but the wording of 47E2a is rather more specific than just "misinformation", and I don't think you could apply it in that way to this situation.

Very interesting. A powerful question in fact.

I can't see any reason to disallow the 5♣ bid, but I would like to ask why North passed it. Was there any UI involved in the form of South agonising over the 4♠ bid? If I was presented with this auction, I'd expect South still to have spades, but to have a hand that wishes to make a slam-try once the apparent spade fit is discovered.

You can't show three different strengths of hands with club suits below the level of 3NT. As you suggest it seems best just to show a hand without a heart stop that wants to play in 3NT.

For whom would 3♠ be non-forcing?

But you aren't balancing the second time round - which is why I'd bid 2♠ on the first round in spite of the lack of high cards.

The only person I've known play this ("reverses in competition show extra but are not forcing") reached the Semi-Final of the Bermuda Bowl, having knocked out the Italian team. But he wouldn't play 3S as natural, because the reason he thought 2S should be non-forcing was because there is a cue-bid available if you want to force.

OB7D1e

That's what L12 says is the minimum to give to a pair in no way at fault.

These two pieces of information, if verifiable, seem to me to make quite a difference.

Well, he might start by running off all his spade winners, and now he's not in such good shape.

If South believed that 3♥ was non-forcing, he can't make use of UI to be put back on track, even if 3♥ really was forcing.

Interesting system notes (including that you play a 2NT rebid as forcing) but I can't see what it has to do with the original post. Maybe they were playing traditional Acol, with a 12-14 NT, 15-16 1NT rebid, and 17-18 2NT rebid? If so it wouldn't be surprising for 3H to be non-forcing.

I wonder what action he thinks is weaker than a non-forcing 3H? I play those methods with one of my partners. With him, I would pass 3H with the given hand. Do you consider all methods that allow you to stop short of game with a mis-fitting combined 22-count after a 2NT rebid to be absurd, or just these particular ones?

I'll leave it for them to decide - as I said, I've never met such a player. The whole "2/1 promises a rebid" concept is in my mind a standard American thing, though there may be other strong NT systems that define their 2/1s the same way.

I've heard players say they're playing Acol with a strong NT and five-card majors, but but I've never heard any Acol player say their 2/1s promise a rebid.

If they all do it, they'll meet each other in the next round.

I learned that it shows 8-10 points with four diamonds in basic Acol. With fewer points you can respond 1♦. With four clubs you can raise, since opener is also known to have four.

Not in any Acol book I've read.

How about making bx) produce it, and leave B-) for lists

Not necessarily. So, for declarer it doesn't matter whether or not a defender has seen the card, if it has not yet been played. For a defender, it is possible for an opponent to have seen the card before it had reached a position where his partner could have seen it.

I feel a bit like that about restricted choice :rolleyes: