Playing with a new partner...

[mikeh]

If 2♠ promises another bid, thereby driving you to game most of the times, you will get to a no play game more often than not in my opinion. Here is just one example:

 

KQJxx

Axx

xx

xxx

 

Axxx

Qx

Qxx

AQxx

 

1♣ (2♦) 2♠

 

I suppose we agree that opener must support to 3♠. Now, according to mikeh responder raises to game because he promised another bid. I even gave opener a goodish minimum, and yet you will go down in 4♠ even on the most favourable lie of the cards.

 

I find this unsound.

 

Roland

I apologize for two reasons: the first is the delay in posting my response to Roland, and the second is that my first post was incomplete.

 

I was earlier addressing the question posed by the thread and in the interests of brevity (my posts tend to be long enough), I did not address the one exception to the '2♠ promises a rebid'. For me, 2♠ promises a rebid with only one exception: if opener raises ♠, he has several ways to do so.

 

4♠ shows a hand that would accept opposite 10+ hcp, but denies any slam interest. Splinters are also available. A cue-bid is initially ambiguous (altho nowhere near as murky as 'standard' methods), and may be the beginning of a strong ♠ raise.

 

This leaves 3♠ as non-forcing: indeed, it is sometimes a bid of desperation.

 

So Roland, your example would not actually find me in game: it would find me in 3♠. That is not to say that playing 2♠ promises a rebid is a walk in the park, for the reasons set out by all of the posters. Every approach comes with a cost. For me, my subjective experience suggests that my method is sufficiently useful on game/slam hands that it offsets the admitted (but in my view infrequent) cost of being a level too high.

 

It may be that my experience is tempered by the fact that I play a lot of weak notrump: typically 11-14 1st and 2nd, any vul, or in another serious partnership, 11-13 1st and 2nd, white. This does add some meat to the 2N rebid by opener. But I also play the same style with 15-17.

[Kalvan14]

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP.

This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable.

There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing].

 

Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing.

 

I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

[EricK]

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP.

This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable.

There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing].

 

Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing.

 

I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

As a matter of terminology, there is a difference between "Non-Forcing" and "Sign off".

 

A Sign-off places the contract and tells partner not to bid any more, a non-forcing bid simply allows partner not to bid anymore.

 

A 1NT opening is non-forcing, but it is a descriptive bid and doesn't place the contract. Just as a NF 2NT in this sequence is a descriptive bid. The person who is in position to decide the contract is responder, not opener.

 

Eric

[Kalvan14]

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP.

This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable.

There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing].

 

Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing.

 

I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

As a matter of terminology, there is a difference between "Non-Forcing" and "Sign off".

 

A Sign-off places the contract and tells partner not to bid any more, a non-forcing bid simply allows partner not to bid anymore.

 

A 1NT opening is non-forcing, but it is a descriptive bid and doesn't place the contract. Just as a NF 2NT in this sequence is a descriptive bid. The person who is in position to decide the contract is responder, not opener.

 

Eric

I used "non-forcing" with due consideration of the meaning.

As an example, after opener re-bids 2N, responder can propose another suit at 3-level. So the 2N bid is "non-forcing", i.e. responder is not committed to a re-bid but can do it if feasible and useful.

OTOH, responder has also -more or less - clarified his hand: invitational, with 5 spades. Do you think that opener is committed to a bid? In my way of playing bridge, opener is entitled to pass (minimum hand, and likely misfit), but I do recognise that mine is a minority position.

What is important is to identify the "forcing bids": I had proposed a 2N "lebensohl", in order to free all direct bids as forcing.