RONF?

[Bbradley62]

[hv=lin=pn|kadso,~~M49139,~~M49137,~~M49138|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S9KHTKD45TQKC456K%2CSTH4589JAD69JC279%2CS467QH26QD28C38JQ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%208%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7CWeak%20two%20bid%20--%201-4%20C%3B%201-4%20D%3B%206%20H%3B%201-3%20S%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%209%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7Crebiddable%20S%3B%2014%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC9%7C]360|270[/hv]Apparently not...

[calm01]

What is the bridge principle/rules/lookup tables that underlies this bidding failure by GIB West?

 

With 2S non-forcing responder has many fewer forward-going bids with which to locate the best suit/NT contract at game or slam level - and will sometimes pay a high price for failing to find the best suit and or level. In other words if 2S is non-forcing, a weak 2H opening can become a pre-empt of your side too.

 

Just as it makes sense to support with support, it also makes sense to subside in a misfit - you want the opponents to declare in a misfit.

 

So taking out a weak 2 is only done with tolerance for hearts or there is near game or better in responders hand despite a misfit. Either way 2S must be forcing.

 

The choice of 2S is perhaps near the cusp in this hand - but perhaps it can just stand 3H non-vulnerable but game is unlikely.

 

But openers subsequent pass makes no sense if 2S is forcing.

 

A forcing 2S says if you like spades (3+) raise, or return to 3H as I can stand this or better. 2NT is also acceptable rebid showing precisely 2S (or one of AKQ of spades) and upper point range for the original 2H bid. 3 of a minor says I am upper range with a feature(/4 carder according to partnership agreement).

 

You will note that all these bids are constructive and cooperative communications between bridge-savvy partners. Palookas often engage in unilateral bidding based upon "I can see my hand and I don't like your bid partner" or "I am minimum and ashamed of my bid and so will pass your forcing bid partner" and so treat this kind of bid to be non-forcing until they experience several expensive results in what are likely to be misfit hands. Some of course never learn.

 

GIB East has its bid but GIB West seems to be the palooka of the partnership treating 2S as non-forcing.

[barmar]

This looks like a glitch in the bidding rules. Although the CC says RONF, the bid isn't actually marked as forcing in the rule.