2C then jump rebid should be GF (#2)

[1eyedjack]

I remind all y'all about the earlier thread posted here:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/63675-2c-then-jump-rebid-should-be-gf/page__view__findpost__p__765993

 

It is with some dismay that I read Georgi's response in that thread, which stated that the rebid would not be made game forcing, but the requirements would be adjusted to reduce the frequency with which it would be passed.

If you are going to go to the trouble of making any adjustment at all, why on earth not simply impose a rule that it is Game forcing? Full stop. End of chat.

 

Be that as it may, and mindful of the aforementioned thread, along comes this hand:

 

[hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SAKQJT93H74DAKTCA&wn=Robot&w=S8752H963D962CJ64&nn=Robot&n=S6HAKJ8DQ7543CK92&en=Robot&e=S4HQT52DJ8CQT8753&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=P2C(Strong%20two%20club%20--%2019+%20HCP%3B%2023+%20total%20po)P2D(2D%20bid%20waiting%20--%20forcing%20to%202N)P4S(5+%20S%3B%2019+%20HCP%3B%2023+%20total%20points)P6N(12-16%20HCP)PPP&p=S4SAS2S6SKS7C2C8SQS8H8H5SJS5HJC7STC4D3CTS9H3D4D8DAD2D5DJCAC6C9C5H4H9HKH2D7C3DKD9DTD6DQCQHAHQH7H6CKHTS3CJ]380|270[/hv]

 

Paranoid that (uncontested) 2♣-2♦-3♠ is non-forcing at present (AND WILL REMAIN NON-FORCING IN V.29!!) I rebid 4♠

No doubt this is also non-forcing, but at least it is game.

Spotlight on North

 

North has heard partner open 2♣ and is already essentially worth a slam force on general values.

He hears his partner rebid, not 2♠, not 3♠ but 4♠. 4♠ is presumably a stronger bid than 3♠ if 3♠ is non-forcing.

 

And still has no grand slam aspiration? Or perhaps I am supposed to punt 7?

[georgi]

As long as i recall, neither in copied previous post or somewhere previously i haven't said 2M or 3M is not forcing.

 

I said there are issues with expressing the hand after

 

2♣ - 2♦

2M/3M - and here. because of the second negative calls and etc.

 

Also the point was rather uplifting instead of discouraging that it won't be fixed, but the 2♣ opening and followons will have boost in v29.

 

So not reason for paranoia.

[1eyedjack]

OK, it is confusing to run a dialogue in two threads, for which I shall accept responsibility, and I shall take this back to thread 1, with cross reference to this.

 

In a sense, whether 6N is a reasonable bid on the stated auction in this thread is a separate issue, which depends in part on the meaning of 4♠

 

But as it seems that there will be some changes to the 2♣ structure already scheduled for v.29, perhaps it is futile to waste time discussing the shortcomings of v.28 for now.