2NT poll

[gwnn]

What should partner's rebids be after I bid 2NT invitational after some sequence?

 

Say,

 

1m-2NT

3m

 

1♠-1NT

2♥-2NT

3♠

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-2NT

3♣

 

1♥-1♠

2♦-2♠

2NT-3♦

 

of course there are sequences that are obviously GF, like

 

1♦-2NT

3♠

 

I'm talking about the rest of the sequences, that could conceivably be useful as natural NF (or even signoff). If you think it depends, what does it depend on? What meta-agreement do you have?

[JLOL]

If you rebid your first minor its clearly NF (1m 2N 3m)

 

If you rebid your second suit it is debatable how you should play it, I now think NF is right, but forcing has a lot of merit obv.

 

S H S is forcing.

 

3D is weird in your last auction, but I could think of bidding that way with KQJxxx x xxxx xx. I think the logic of the auction is that 3D is NF given that 2S and 2N were both NF.

[gnasher]

I think that any return to a suit that the bidder has already shown should be a signoff, unless it implies a shape that means you can't have a weak hand. If you're English, in some auctions you can use the fourth suit to deal with game-forcing 5-5s. For example:

 

1♥-1♠; 2♦-2NT; 3♦ is a signoff, but

1♥-1♠; 2♦-2NT; 3♥ is forcing, because you wouldn't bid 2♦ with a weak 6-4.

1♥-1♠; 2♦-2NT; 3♣ is fourth-suit forcing, and includes good 5-5s.

 

1♠-1NT; 2♥-2NT; 3♠ depends on whether opener can have a weak 6-4 for this sequence. If he can, this is non-forcing. With a good 6-4, you might bid a minor-suit fragment to fish out spade support.

[whereagles]

1.

1m-2NT

3m

 

2.

1♠-1NT

2♥-2NT

3♠

 

3.

1♦-1♠

2♣-2NT

3♣

 

4.

1♥-1♠

2♦-2♠

2NT-3♦

1. NF. If pard had good clubs, he'd bid 3NT. So he's got typically a broken 6 card suit.

 

2. Same thing. If pard had good spades, he'd bid 4♠.

 

3. NF. Familiar argument by now.

 

4. See 1,2,3.

[helene_t]

S H S is forcing.

Yes. We have had that discussion a couple of times before. The argument is that if opener had a minimum 6-4 he would probably pass 2NT, and if not, he should probably have rebid 2♠ rather than 2♥.

[petergreat]

Rebid shows a desire to play in suit contract, possibly inviting 3NT?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 NF

 

#2 NF. although one could agree that this seq. is forcing,

but you have FSF av.

 

#3 NF, well opener simply describes his shape further,

in this seq. it may make sense to play 3C as forcing,

but for memory sake, I would go with NF as well, you

have FSF av.

 

#4 NF, opener is tightly limited, responder is limited, if

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hatchett]

1♠-1NT

2♥-2NT

3♠

 

A useful adjunct in this sequence to play 3♣ as artificial asking opener to bid 3♦. Then a 3 major continuation is GF and 3NT shows a ♦ fragment.

 

Then you can play a direct 3 major rebid over 2NT as NF,

[helene_t]

1♠-1NT

2♥-2NT

3♠

 

A useful adjunct in this sequence to play 3♣ as artificial asking opener to bid 3♦. Then a 3 major continuation is GF and 3NT shows a ♦ fragment.

 

Then you can play a direct 3 major rebid over 2NT as NF,

You mean 3♣ by opener (over responder's 2NT) asks responder to bid 3♦, don't you? Otherwise I don't quite follow.