I like this bid :)

[pbleighton]

How can it not be considered forcing?

 

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding.

 

Peter

[bid_em_up]

How can it not be considered forcing?

 

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding.

 

Peter

You can sit there and say "its not forcing in standard" all you want to. The facts are assuming responder actually has his response, he is not passing the 2N rebid (or he shouldn't be). So the 2N bidder is getting another chance to take a call.

 

The 2N rebidder does not know that responder does or does not have his actual response until responder were to pass 2N. As far as he is concerned, 2N IS forcing, whether you wish to recognize that fact or not. Unless, of course, you also believe you don't belong in 3N on 18 opposite 6, which is an entirely different debate. The 2N bidder is expecting another call from partner even in standard bidding.

 

Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

[han]

I didn't mean to attack bid_em_up's partner or their agreements. I just think that playing standard methods 2NT is a really poor bid.

[Echognome]

You can sit there and say "its not forcing in standard" all you want to. The facts are assuming responder actually has his response, he is not passing the 2N rebid (or he shouldn't be). So the 2N bidder is getting another chance to take a call.

 

The 2N rebidder does not know that responder does or does not have his actual response until responder were to pass 2N. As far as he is concerned, 2N IS forcing, whether you wish to recognize that fact or not. Unless, of course, you also believe you don't belong in 3N on 18 opposite 6, which is an entirely different debate. The 2N bidder is expecting another call from partner even in standard bidding.

 

Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

I didn't mean to attack bid_em_up either as I know he was responder and didn't need to alert his bid.

 

I do think that 1♣ should be alerted if 2+. I also think 2NT should be alerted if it is forcing. The question I would pose is what you would respond on xxxxx xxx xxxx x (if you want throw in a couple of Qs), in particular over a 1♣ bid that could be as short as 2. Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid. If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard. But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert.

[vuroth]

This is all becoming rather personal.

 

In the context of a B/I forum, should B/Is be expected to consistently move to game with 24+ points? I suspect that many expert+ players would consider it an affront to stop short of 3NT with "only" a 24 point fit, but as beginners/intermediates, is this what we should be learning?

 

I'm asking, because I don't really know the answer here.

 

V

[han]

For beginning players I would recommend only bidding 2NT with balanced hands that have 18-19 points and not 4-card support.

 

Don't worry about what partner will do yet, that's up to partner.

[pbleighton]

Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

 

Non forcing isn't a command to pass :P

 

In my experience 1x-1y-2NT is passed between 10%-15% of the time, by opps as well as my partnerships.

 

Peter

[skjaeran]

How can it not be considered forcing?

 

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding.

 

Peter

I'll second that statement. 2NT is definitely not considered forcing in any standard natural system, whether a response promises 6 hcp or not.

[bid_em_up]

This is all becoming rather personal.

 

In the context of a B/I forum, should B/Is be expected to consistently move to game with 24+ points? I suspect that many expert+ players would consider it an affront to stop short of 3NT with "only" a 24 point fit, but as beginners/intermediates, is this what we should be learning?

 

I'm asking, because I don't really know the answer here.

 

V

I agree. This was not a question or discussion for BIL. Sorry.

 

I have already acknowledged that our particular treatment is non-standard or not the way it is taught. Kathryn did not know this when she initiated the discussion.

 

I would not recommend this style for BIL players. Hell, I don't even like it myself but it's what partner insists on playing and it seems to work.

[bid_em_up]

The question I would pose is what you would respond on xxxxx xxx xxxx x (if you want throw in a couple of Qs), in particular over a 1♣ bid that could be as short as 2.  Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid.  If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard.  But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert.

We would pass this hand after a 1C opening, even with a couple of queens thrown in. Exceptions to this would be something like QJxxxxx xxx xx x or a hand similar to the one I actually held, Qxxxxx Qxxx xx x but even in these cases, responder is still bidding over 2N. There are very few hands where responder would bid over 1C and pass 2N.

 

You say "Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid.", we say, "if I have xxxxx xxx xxxx x", and I pass, my LHO is likely to balance. Now the 2N bidder should know not to get carried away later in the auction. We prefer to err on the side of caution, than what if's. Even if you respond 1S, there is no guarantees you can now stop any lower than 4S which probably goes down, but if you pass now, you may still be able to enter the auction later. (1C-p-p-x-xx-p-1S, is one way to do it.)

 

"If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard." This is essentially what I am saying, it is so rare that 2N will be passed, you may as well consider it forcing.

 

"But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert."

 

I don't agree for reasons already stated. But as I said, show me that it does, and I will be happy to alert it. That is a far cry from "not providing adequate disclosure". The bid simply is a standard 2N rebid, balanced 18-19, which does not require any alert whatsoever. If asked by an opponent, could partner could pass my 2N rebid, my answer would be "Its not likely, since he has made a 1 level response, we practically always promise another call". But I do not believe it requires an alert.

[bid_em_up]

For beginning players I would recommend only bidding 2NT with balanced hands that have 18-19 points and not 4-card support.

 

Don't worry about what partner will do yet, that's up to partner.

I can agree with this. :P

[helene_t]

4♠ describes your hand well. You didn't splinter and you have 19-20 support points. I one partnership I rebid 2NT (forcing) with 4-card support and scattered values. Then 4♠ would describe this hand even better.

 

I can hardly think of a style in which 4♠ would not be the correct bid with this hand. Maybe if 4♠ showed 5116 ....

[mikeh]

 

2) In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.  Since when do 6+18 not equal game?  How can it not be considered forcing?  Since when is 1S and a 2N rebid alertable?  Since when is 2N not natural in this sense?  It is not conventional.  It has no special meaning.  If you think 2N is alertable, then I think you are nuts.  The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning, it is responders decision to bid or pass over it. 

I would hope that you now realize that this statement is wrong. It is incorrect according to experts (and non-experts) posting from Europe and NA.

 

You may argue that it 'has to be forcing' all you like. It isn't. And any good player knows that: now, if you AGREE to play it forcing, that is fine.. and in the context of your stated methods (which I will hope to persuade you are bad), you can certainly play it as forcing... but don't go telling others (who are correct) that they are 'nuts' for disagreeing with you.

 

As to your methods: 2 points.

 

Do you mean to tell me that with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx you pass 1♣?

 

Do you mean to tell me that with Kx AQx Jxx AK10xx you open a 15-17 1NT?

 

I can assure you that virtually all good players, in a std or 2/1 or Acol style would respond to 1♣, and seriously wonder how anyone could pass. And almost as many would look at the 17 count hand and open 1♣, intending to rebid 2N over any response... the hand has a chunky 5 card suit, and 6 controls... to treat it the same way as Kxx AQx Jxx AK10x (a maximum) shows a lack of understanding of hand evaluation.

[Guest Jlall]

For starters I would just like to point out that bid_em_up has completely contradicted himself in this thread and is reacting emotionally rather than rationally (I'm sure that's obvious but I'll just make it crystal clear.)

 

That said, I acknowledge this is a non-standard treatment.

 

In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise...The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning.

 

So it's a non standard treatment but it is forcing in any standard meaning? What? Does it make sense that you think echognome is dreaming and nuts for thinking a non-standard treatment should be alerted, or are you perhaps just being defensive? You are the one attacking him.

 

I know for a fact that we cannot pass 2N after a response to 1C, which makes 2N just fine. It is not going all pass.

 

Responder can still pass the 2N response, however, the odds of doing so are effectively nil since they have made a response to 1C.

 

So which is it, can you never pass or can you pass? Seems like you are trying to backpedal.

 

You then contend in most of your posts that simple math is 18+6=game, and the response is always 6+. How many HCP did you have on the actual hand that you responded on? (hint, less than 6).

 

As far as a bridge method if 2N shows 18-19 balanced regardless of whether it will ever be passed or not, it is a terrible bid with this hand. The hand is worth WAY more than 18-19 HCP, especially in support of spades, and 2N does not describe your hand at all. Sure 4S may take up a lot of room but at least it's descriptive. What gain is there from bidding 2N?

[bid_em_up]

 

2) In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.  Since when do 6+18 not equal game?  How can it not be considered forcing?  Since when is 1S and a 2N rebid alertable?  Since when is 2N not natural in this sense?  It is not conventional.  It has no special meaning.  If you think 2N is alertable, then I think you are nuts.   The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning, it is responders decision to bid or pass over it. 

I would hope that you now realize that this statement is wrong. It is incorrect according to experts (and non-experts) posting from Europe and NA.

 

You may argue that it 'has to be forcing' all you like. It isn't. And any good player knows that: now, if you AGREE to play it forcing, that is fine.. and in the context of your stated methods (which I will hope to persuade you are bad), you can certainly play it as forcing... but don't go telling others (who are correct) that they are 'nuts' for disagreeing with you.

 

As to your methods: 2 points.

 

Do you mean to tell me that with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx you pass 1♣?

 

Do you mean to tell me that with Kx AQx Jxx AK10xx you open a 15-17 1NT?

 

I can assure you that virtually all good players, in a std or 2/1 or Acol style would respond to 1♣, and seriously wonder how anyone could pass. And almost as many would look at the 17 count hand and open 1♣, intending to rebid 2N over any response... the hand has a chunky 5 card suit, and 6 controls... to treat it the same way as Kxx AQx Jxx AK10x (a maximum) shows a lack of understanding of hand evaluation.

Try and be realistic Mike.

 

Would you pass the 2N rebid on AJ9xx xxx xxx xx?

[bid_em_up]

For starters I would just like to point out that bid_em_up has completely contradicted himself in this thread and is reacting emotionally rather than rationally (I'm sure that's obvious but I'll just make it crystal clear.)

 

That said, I acknowledge this is a non-standard treatment.

 

In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise...The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning.

 

So it's a non standard treatment but it is forcing in any standard meaning? What? Does it make sense that you think echognome is dreaming and nuts for thinking a non-standard treatment should be alerted, or are you perhaps just being defensive? You are the one attacking him.

 

I know for a fact that we cannot pass 2N after a response to 1C, which makes 2N just fine. It is not going all pass.

 

Responder can still pass the 2N response, however, the odds of doing so are effectively nil since they have made a response to 1C.

 

So which is it, can you never pass or can you pass? Seems like you are trying to backpedal.

 

You then contend in most of your posts that simple math is 18+6=game, and the response is always 6+. How many HCP did you have on the actual hand that you responded on? (hint, less than 6).

 

As far as a bridge method if 2N shows 18-19 balanced regardless of whether it will ever be passed or not, it is a terrible bid with this hand. The hand is worth WAY more than 18-19 HCP, especially in support of spades, and 2N does not describe your hand at all. Sure 4S may take up a lot of room but at least it's descriptive. What gain is there from bidding 2N?

Justin, it is non-standard in terms of what beginners and intermediates are "taught" in a book.

 

I have not backpedalled one bit. Whether you, mike, matt, or anyone else here thinks the bid is alertable, I defy any of you to show me any proof that it is. I wont say that the bid can NEVER be passed (ok, maybe I did), but the original intent of this statement means the odds of it being passed are minute.

 

The bid is natural. It contains the same meaning as anyone else plays it. Explain to me how that is possibly alertable. I say its "non-standard" because MOST people think its passable. In reality, it shouldnt be, as you have essentially shown the values for game.

 

On this particular hand, I realize I have a 5 count. I also realize that I know I have a bid available over a 2N rebid that does not totally misconstrue my hand. Otherwise, I wouldnt bid 1S. Sorry if you think this is funny, but you know what? I really dont care what you or the others think.

 

As far as what I said to gnome goes, I think if you go back and reread his original post, he is the one attacking me regarding our failure to provide full disclosure. I simply responded in kind.

[pbleighton]

Dude, you're not backpedalling, you're turning somersaults with your bicycle!

 

Totally awesome!

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

Try and be realistic Mike.

 

Would you pass the 2N rebid on AJ9xx xxx xxx xx?

I can't speak for Mike but I would pass 2N with this hand.

 

Justin, it is non-standard in terms of what beginners and intermediates are "taught" in a book.

 

So in what terms is it standard? What beginners and intermediates are taught in books is what is standard. A huge majority of advanced and expert players that play 2N as non artificial would consider 2N non forcing as well.

 

I have not backpedalled one bit..I wont say that the bid can NEVER be passed (ok, maybe I did)...

 

lol ok, you have gone from will NEVER be passed to can be passed. No one would say that 2N is alertable if you think it can be passed (you have changed your view from the strongly worded post on the first page though). If it is forcing, it is a non standard agreement, and thus should be alerted. Isn't this what alerting is for? Since you now say it is not forcing, nobody is going to say it should be alerted.

 

However, it nullifies your initial point about 2N being fine since it will never be passed. It is a silly and needless risk to rebid 2N with the hand in question when it might be passed, and makes it an even worse bid than if it had been a forcing 2N bid.

 

I really dont care what you or the others think.

 

Then why do you post on an online internet forum?

[awm]

To return to the original question, what do you accomplish by bidding 2NT instead of a more standard 4♠. Consider some possible follow-ups:

 

(1) Partner passes 2NT. Oops. Surely spades is a better strain, and you may even be making 4♠.

(2) Partner bids 3NT, which presumably you correct to 4♠. You've shown your hand, but bidding a direct 4♠ also shows this hand (fit, game values, no singleton or void). You haven't gained any space for cuebidding.

(3) Partner makes some sort of checkback bid. You show spades. But as far as partner knows, you could have three spades on this sequence, when you actually have both better support and better playing strength. Bidding this way will not really assist your slam bidding.

(4) Partner bids gerber. Okay, you can show your aces, but partner won't know about the fit. There's a good chance partner chooses 6NT when 6♠ or 7♠ is better.

(5) Partner makes a quantitative call. You're getting to slam, but you're going to have a less scientific auction than you could've had by starting with a more descriptive fit-showing rebid, over which partner could've bid keycard or cuebid. You might get to slam off two quick heart tricks for example.

(6) Partner makes a slam try in a minor. It will be difficult to backtrack into spades at this point, since spade bids may well become cuebids for the minor. Partner (holding say 4♠+5♦ or 4/4 in the blacks) is unlikely to believe that spades is the right slam after the 2NT rebid.

[bid_em_up]

Then why do you post on an online internet forum?

Beats me, I sure don't enjoy this type of abuse.

 

Feel free to keep it up though. You can believe your position all you want to.

 

So far though, I have asked for proof that the 2N rebid is alertable, and nobody has managed to provide any. Instead, they simply give me their authoritative opinions which are nothing more than bullshit.

 

But hey, you're the star, along with mike, so I guess that makes your opinions the final authority.

 

I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something? I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses. I have simply stated this is what we play. I think somewhere in all of this that I have stated that I did not necessarily agree with it, but for the time being, it is what we play. So why are you coming down on me?

 

You don't like it? Fine. You want to state you dont like it? Fine, nobody is asking you to agree with me (and I certainly wouldnt expect you too).

 

But that certainly gives you no right to attempt to mock me, ridicule me or the rest of the ***** that has gone on here.

[pbleighton]

So far though, I have asked for proof that the 2N rebid is alertable

 

That depends on whether it's forcing. You started out saaying yes, now it seems you say no, but rarely passed. In the first case it's alertable, since it's not the standard agreement, in the second it is not.

 

Peter

[mikeh]

I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something? I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses. I have simply stated this is what we play. I think somewhere in all of this that I have stated that I did not necessarily agree with it, but for the time being, it is what we play.

You are still over-reacting. The point is that you called someone who disagreed with you (and happened to be right in doing so) 'nuts', You claim, repeatedly, that a non-standard treatment is non-alertable. You make silly assertions such as that I would not pass 2N with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx... I and the majority of experts would pass.

 

We are not telling you what should bid: I expressly said that you could play 2N forcing in your methods, but when you post as you have done, you invite comment. I told you why I think your methods are poor, and, interestingly enough, it is clear that you think so as well, because you VIOLATED your own methods :)

 

So loosen up.

[Guest Jlall]

So far though, I have asked for proof that the 2N rebid is alertable, and nobody has managed to provide any. Instead, they simply give me their authoritative opinions which are nothing more than bullshit.

Ok, let's review.

 

1) You say 2N is forcing, and acknowledge this is a non standard agreement

2) Echognome says it should be alerted

3) You say 2N can be passed, is completely standard, and ask how it could be alertable.

4) I say if 2N can be passed it's not alertable.

 

So, if you are not changing your new position that your 2N bid is NON FORCING then no one would say it's alertable.

 

If you are going back to saying that your 2N bid is FORCING, then I will go back to saying it is alertable. My logic would be:

 

The 2N bid is forcing which is non standard. This effects your later bids, and effects the type of hands 2N can be bid on. In standard bidding 2N can not be bid on AKxx Kx xx AKQ9x. This would be an unexpected hand for declarer to have for the opponents. Bidding on over 2N with 5 counts would be unexpected for opponents. They have a right to know what is going on, and that is why the alert system is in place, so they can know a non standard bid has been made.

 

As far as "proof" there are no alerting regulations on BBO that I know of, so I can't really look up some chart, and even if there were some chart I doubt this specific auction is covered. We must fall back on the fundamental principles of bridge; full disclosure and everyone being entitled to know what is going on.

 

But hey, you're the star, along with mike, so I guess that makes your opinions the final authority.

 

Why are you so bitter? This is not the first time you have resorted to this. Your debating tactics include:

 

1) Being emotional

2) Being stubborn

3) Offering no compelling logic or reasoning

4) Using phrases like "youre dreaming" "*****ing nuts" "bullshit opinions" etc while ignoring all main points of the debate

5) Saying you don't care what anyone thinks.

6) Demanding "proof" yet offering none of your own. Why is the burden on the other person?

7) Changing your position to enhance your position.

 

I always offer logic and often offer quotes to back up my claims. Yet you act like my only argument is "I'm a star and better at bridge than you."

 

I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something?

 

1) The OP asked what we thought of this bid.

2) I never told you how you should play this. I agreed with Matt 100 % that IF you do play it as forcing, you should alert it. I know some people play 2N as an artificial force, which is fine, but they alert it. I do not even mind this agreement.

3) If you play 2N as 18-19 and non forcing, which you are now saying is how you play it (unless you've changed your mind), I think 2N is a bad bid with the hand in question. I already stated my reasons why. If you are wondering why I decided to say this, well this is a discussion forum, and someone posted this hand for discussion.

 

I do invite you to show me where I told you how to play anything. I told you that you have a duty to alert a non standard bid for full disclosure reasons, at which point you said it was a standard bid (ie natural and can be passed), at which point I said you do not have to alert this bid and that it was simply a horrible bid.

 

I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses.

 

See, you have a major concept flaw here. The point of a forum is to discuss things. If you make any statement on here, it can be debated or discussed. That is how these things work. If you do not want something to be discussed, do not post it. By posting anything it becomes fair game. If you do not like this then be more careful with what you post, or don't post.

 

So why are you coming down on me?

 

Because you told Matt he was "*****ing nuts" for saying a bid that is non standard by your own admission should be alerted. At the point he told you it should be alerted you had said it was forcing and would NEVER be passed. Thus you "abused" someone when he was right, and you were wrong, and then changed your position. You never had the decency to apologize of course.

 

But that certainly gives you no right to attempt to mock me, ridicule me or the rest of the ***** that has gone on here.

 

Yes clearly I, the one who has only stated facts and given my opinions on them, have mocked and ridiculed you. The only thing I have said about you is that you have contradicted yourself in this thread (offered proof), that you backpedaled (offered proof), and that your arguments are emotional not rational. If you think this is mocking and ridiculing you, you are seriously delusional. I think telling someone they are "*****ing nuts" and dreaming is more closely related to ridicule.

[jtfanclub]

But hey, you're the star, along with mike, so I guess that makes your opinions the final authority.

Actually, it's opinions of people like me who are the final authority. It makes life difficult for us TDs when we have to adjust a board because somebody heard on a forum somewhere that it was OK to not alert a bid.

 

On behalf of TD's everywhere, PLEASE don't go around telling people that some bid isn't alertable on the B/I forum unless you have actual, documented proof that it isn't alertable. Burden of proof is necessarily on the person who says a call is not alertable (I've never punished anybody for overalerting). If you really want a FINAL final authority, write to rulings@acbl.org and Mike Flader or Rick Beye will be happy to answer in a week or two.

 

Sorry for being so pompous.

[neilkaz]

This bid is most definately not standard and is passable. Would you bid 1♠ over 1♣ with AJ9x,xxx,xxxx,xx ? I would and when 2NT is rebid you have to pass.

 

What about Jxxxx,Kxx,Qxx,xx This is a 1♠ bid but you don't want to Wolff s/off that junkie suit, and opposite a 18-19 2NT, 3NT seems anti-percentage so I'd pass again.

 

The direct jump to game takes lots of room and this hand has a very fine 21 support points and loads of potential for slam if you can avoid 2 quick red losers. For that reason, some players play 2NT as artificial GF, and use other methods to show 18-19 balanced.

 

However, in standard one is forced to bid 4♠ to show 4 card support and GF and if PD has some extras, he can try for slam.

 

Note that I tried a false reverse on a 21 HCP hand like this with a stiff and PD was totally confused with the subsequent bidding but at least her failure to use lebensohl, established a GF. However, I ended up just having to blast to 6♠.

 

.. neilkaz ..