Jump to content

Forcing, Invitational, or Weak


awm

  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. 1H-1S-2H-2S (uncontested): What is standard?

    • Less than invitational (and NF, obviously)
      37
    • Invitational, but NF
      14
    • Invitational-plus and forcing one round
      0
    • Game forcing
      0
  2. 2. 1H-1S-2H-2S (uncontested): What do you prefer?

    • Less than invitational (and NF)
      26
    • Invitational, but NF
      18
    • Invitational-plus and forcing one round
      2
    • Game forcing
      1
    • Some artificial meaning
      4


Recommended Posts

Before answering, you should probably tell us what 1 - 2 would have meant. Traditional standard for 1 followed by 2 is weak and this is what I play in Acol. In my (strong club) system, 1 was a relay and 2 showed a strong one-suited opening (GF). That means 2 is a relay (asking for heart length and fragments)...but I guess that is not awfully useful for you! ;)
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that traditionally it's mildly constructive, but less than invitational.

 

I voted for invitational, but I actually prefer it to cover a wider range, from constructive to invitational.

 

Yep. None of the above. The "drop dead" hands do not occur very often and it's no crime to pass. Hands in the 8-10 range are much more frequent and useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard many times that if a direct 2 response would have been "weak" (say 4-7) , bidding 1 and rebidding 2 has to be invitational (or at least constructive).

I wasn't convinced by this argument - I think there are hands where you would like to leave room to explore alternative strains , before comitting to 2, like:

xxxxxx

-

KQxxx

Jx

 

Responding 2 directly risks missing a good diamond contract, but still after opener rebid's 2 I like my chances in 2 better than pd's chances in 2 and therefore would like to rebid 2 without this showing a constructive/invitational values.

 

 

When the bidding started 1 -1 - 2/ it seems to me there is even more reasons to consider 2 non-constructive. Responder might be 6-4 in the majors, in a weak hand , and with that he would not have responded a direct weak 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard many times that if a direct 2 response would have been "weak" (say 4-7) , bidding 1 and rebidding 2 has to be invitational (or at least constructive).

I wasn't convinced by this argument - I think there are hands where you would like to leave room to explore alternative strains , before comitting to 2, like:

xxxxxx

-

KQxxx

Jx

 

Responding 2 directly risks missing a good diamond contract, but still after opener rebid's 2 I like my chances in 2 better than pd's chances in 2 and therefore would like to rebid 2 without this showing a constructive/invitational values.

 

 

When the bidding started 1 -1 - 2/ it seems to me there is even more reasons to consider 2 non-constructive. Responder might be 6-4 in the majors, in a weak hand , and with that he would not have responded a direct weak 2.

 

why do you like your chances in 2?

i would never bid 2 spades with your hand even when its non forcing. partner can have xx or x and then 2 is always the better contract.

dunno why you try to make the life for opponents easy cause now they can always dbl you

only time i would bid 2 spades with that hand is when opponents already penalty doubled us in 2 hearts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...