A baby hand - well I think so anyway.

[Player]

Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback. I am wondering how you would agree to bid the following hand:

1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)

1NT shows 12-14
You hold:
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx

Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback. I
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

This hand doesn't quite seem good enough to force to game. I'll bid
2NT, assuming that if partner has an accept with three-card spade
support, he'll bid 3S.

[Douglas Newlands]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Player
Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback. I
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

This hand doesn't quite seem good enough to force to game. I'll bid
2NT, assuming that if partner has an accept with three-card spade
support, he'll bid 3S.

I agree it is not good enough to force to game.
If vul and playing 2wcb, I would try 2C-2D-2S.
However, it's all green which is essentially the same as pairs
so I might just bid 2S expecting to play there.
If they bid and make game (say 4S) and I don't,
my score is 170-420 = -6.
If it doesn't make my score is +140+50 = +5.
Besides someone who can't handle checkback might not be the
best declarer in the world and, without a spade fit, the play
might need a degree of aptitude.
I hate playing 2N and 3M!
Also, if "imps" implies some sort of Butler/cross-imp then
you never lose full value for missing a game.

doug

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

... - 2C (natural, no CB) seems too weak a call, and could be passed. And why playing in 2C with bal hands when 1NT would do it? But ...-3C seems too strong a call.
Like David, with 11HCP I would rather like to hear about op's possible 3cS support. So, I'd bid 2NT (could be passed by op), and hopefully op gives "preference" by showing his 3cS support with a 3S bid. A further raise to 4S seems exaggerated (even considering the "advance trial" in C), but possibly thinkable...

Post by Player
... so I might just bid 2S expecting to play there.

Remember, we had this discussion only recently, resp repeating a 5cS... (and then it was after op's semi-forcing 2C rebid, here it is even after a weak 1NT rebid)!

Berti

[Player]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

... - 2C (natural, no CB) seems too weak a call, and could be passed. And why playing in 2C with bal hands when 1NT would do it? But ...-3C seems too strong a call.
Like David, with 11HCP I would rather like to hear about op's possible 3cS support. So, I'd bid 2NT (could be passed by op), and hopefully op gives "preference" by showing his 3cS support with a 3S bid. A further raise to 4S seems exaggerated (even considering the "advance trial" in C), but possibly thinkable...

Post by Player
... so I might just bid 2S expecting to play there.

Remember, we had this discussion only recently, resp repeating a 5cS... (and then it was after op's semi-forcing 2C rebid, here it is even after a weak 1NT rebid)!
Berti

Well I bid 2NT. Pd raised to 3NT with his 3433 14 count. He went 1 off in 3N with 4S on ice.
Berti, this situation is TOTALLY different to the other post. Her pd has at least 2 card support for your S and maybe even 3. In the other hand he could have had a void.
The reason for my post was a derogatory comment made by a so called Israeli expert about the 2NT bid.
Doug, I guess vul vs not you would bid 2NT?

[Berti Rupsli]

...

Post by Player

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Player
... so I might just bid 2S expecting to play there.

Remember, we had this discussion only recently, resp repeating a 5cS... (and then it was after op's semi-forcing 2C rebid, here it is even after a weak 1NT rebid)!

Berti, this situation is TOTALLY different to the other post. Her pd has at least 2 card support for your S and maybe even 3. In the other hand he could have had a void.

Is it really TOTALLY different? I know, it's (more) *LIKELY* after a 1NT rebid that op holds 2/3cS. But...

1C-1S-1NT-? This bidding sequence (if standard) shows either 3cC (3=4=3=3 "better minor") or 4c/5c length in C (else op would rather repeat C instead of 1NT). And there's no 5cMajor, nor a 4cS, nor is there a longer/equal D than C length (else op should have opened 1D; unless maybe holding D:5432 and C:HHxx).

So, what about a (weak) 1=4=3=5 holding (or maybe even 1=4=4=4), would you bid 2C instead of 1NT, especially with a weak C holding (apart from the problems this would create if you play 2C as semi-forcing, as mentioned by me before - I would HAVE to bid 1NT here)?
And further, would you always bid 2C instead of being happy to stop in 1NT (as resp showed S!) with a weak holding like 0=4=4=5, when the C is rather weak?

Question: Sorry for my poor Bridge-English understanding, but what actually means "...with 4S on ice"? Is it the same as "... 4S is cold" (= laydown)?

David, Ron: Do I understand both of you correctly, and ...1NT-2NT-3S is *forcing* in your opinion (playing Standard)? Just "because" op could have passed 2NT? What about a simple "showing preference"? In "Standard" a repeat of a suit is basically NF. I would see it as invitational (at best).

Berti

[[e-mail]]

"David, Ron: Do I understand both of you correctly, and ...1NT-2NT-3S is *forcing* in your opinion (playing Standard)? Just "because" op could have passed 2NT? What about a simple "showing preference"? In "Standard" a repeat of a suit is basically NF. I would see it as invitational (at best)."

After the auction 1C - 1S ; 1NT - 2NT ; ? opener can never have a reason to believe that 3S is a safer *partscore* than 2NT. If it turns out that way, tough luck.

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by ***@verizon.net
After the auction 1C - 1S ; 1NT - 2NT ; ? opener can never have a reason to believe that 3S is a safer *partscore* than 2NT. If it turns out that way, tough luck.

Never? Sorry, but I *strongly* disagree: a standard (non-forcing) ...-1NT rebid by op does NOT necessarily show a balanced hand (only 12-14HCP), it might also say that there's no better bid (now, then even 12-15/16HCP), and I'd rather go for it than something else on level2(+).

And resp's following 2NT doesn't say it either, in Standard it shows 10-12HCP invit (plus here a 5cS), with no better bid (length) available. Op MAY pass, but if op sees an advantage in signalling the 5-3 S-fit with a 3S bid (esp on a non-bal hand) that can hardly be disadvantageous, even in a part-score.
Agreed, resp should regularly have a harder time then to decide between pass, (3NT), and possibly 4S...

... unless your partnership agreement ...1NT-2NT-3S *IS* forcing... But in the given framework (see top: "1NT shows 12-14") how can op's 3S be forcing then, resp could hold as little as 10/11HCP bal...? It only makes sense if your 2NT rebid has a wider range than in Standard...
Or would you (as resp) rather settle for 1NT with some good points and a possible 5-3 in S?

Berti

[[e-mail]]

Never?

Yes never. The only way that opener can know that responder's spades are not 5432 is if he himself has some of the low spades. And then he has no reason to believe that responder's spades are not 876x, where x is the spade opener doesn't have.

Of course 3S CAN turn out to be safer. But there is never a reason for opener to believe it WILL be safer.

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Berti Rupsli
Never?
Yes never. The only way that opener can know that responder's spades are not 5432 is if he himself has some of the low spades. And then he has no reason to believe that responder's spades are not 876x, where x is the spade opener doesn't have.
Of course 3S CAN turn out to be safer. But there is never a reason for opener to believe it WILL be safer.
Carl

IMHO the main problem is that one round before I made a choice
1NT over 2S
And so if partner had one point less we would play 1NT

If I choose 1NT over 2S, then its hardly possible that I so urgently
would choose 3S over 2NT

So if I had
AKx
xx
xxx
AJxxx
then I would prefer to play 3S over 2NT, but with this hand a 2S rebid
would be way better then 1NT

If I had
Kxx
Ax
xxx
AJxxx
I would bid 1NT the second round but now I may still think that 3S is
better then 2NT
But its far less certain anyway, so why bother?

So 3S as "preference" is to rare and to unlikely
And 3S as showing "en passant" a 3card spades is very useful if one does
not play checkback or nmf

Co Wiersma

[[e-mail]]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Berti Rupsli
Never?
Yes never. The only way that opener can know that responder's spades are not 5432 is if he himself has some of the low spades. And then he has no reason to believe that responder's spades are not 876x, where x is the spade opener doesn't have.
Of course 3S CAN turn out to be safer. But there is never a reason for opener to believe it WILL be safer.
Carl

IMHO the main problem is that one round before I made a choice
1NT over 2S
And so if partner had one point less we would play 1NT
If I choose 1NT over 2S, then its hardly possible that I so urgently
would choose 3S over 2NT
So if I had
AKx
xx
xxx
AJxxx
then I would prefer to play 3S over 2NT, but with this hand a 2S rebid
would be way better then 1NT
If I had
Kxx
Ax
xxx
AJxxx
I would bid 1NT the second round but now I may still think that 3S is
better then 2NT
But its far less certain anyway, so why bother?

No. You *fear* 3S may be better. But nothing has happened since you bid 1NT to make you *think* your 1NT decision was wrong.

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Berti Rupsli
Never?
Yes never. The only way that opener can know that responder's spades are not 5432 is if he himself has some of the low spades. And then he has no reason to believe that responder's spades are not 876x, where x is the spade opener doesn't have.
Of course 3S CAN turn out to be safer. But there is never a reason for opener to believe it WILL be safer.
Carl

IMHO the main problem is that one round before I made a choice
1NT over 2S
And so if partner had one point less we would play 1NT
If I choose 1NT over 2S, then its hardly possible that I so urgently
would choose 3S over 2NT
So if I had
AKx
xx
xxx
AJxxx
then I would prefer to play 3S over 2NT, but with this hand a 2S rebid
would be way better then 1NT
If I had
Kxx
Ax
xxx
AJxxx
I would bid 1NT the second round but now I may still think that 3S is
better then 2NT
But its far less certain anyway, so why bother?

No. You *fear* 3S may be better. But nothing has happened since you bid 1NT to make you *think* your 1NT decision was wrong.
Carl

I fear that you are making my point here :P

Co Wiersma

[[e-mail]]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by ***@verizon.net
After the auction 1C - 1S ; 1NT - 2NT ; ? opener can never have a reason to believe that 3S is a safer *partscore* than 2NT. If it turns out that way, tough luck.

Never? Sorry, but I *strongly* disagree: a standard (non-forcing) ...-1NT rebid by op does NOT necessarily show a balanced hand (only 12-14HCP), it might also say that there's no better bid (now, then even 12-15/16HCP), and I'd rather go for it than something else on level2(+).

If you are saying that opener's 1NT could be a psych with a red singleton, that is different. But at least in ACBL, your system cannot make allowances for psychs.

Carl

[Player]

snipped

Berti

"On ice" means cold, as you have guessed. Another term is "in the refrigerator."

3S is 100 percent forcing and does not promise 5S. Responder could have a good 11 through to a 12 count count. 3S is accepting the invite and showing 3 cards in S in case responder has 5. This is the problem if you do not play some form of checkback, which most strong pairs do now.

"Is it really TOTALLY different?"
Yes it is. Opener will NEVER have a void, and rarely a singleton. Opener may even have 3 in a balanced hand as he did here. By the way I don't like Douggie's 2S bid much either and think if you are going to take this road, 2C is better.

As I posted before, if you bid 2S with me, I would pass on most hands even with a void as I would expect a decent 6 carder. With a 1444 I would always open 1D and rebid 2C unless I held something like
H xxxx xxxx AKQx Now at least I would have one honour card in S if responder decided to rebid S.

Look at Co's post. I agree with every point he makes. I am surprised this hand has generated so many posts. Maybe it is not such a "baby" hand after all?

Ron

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Player
Maybe it is not such a "baby" hand after all?

Right, IMO this was again a discussion at the very base of (Standard) bidding logic.

Post by Player
3S is 100 percent forcing ... 3S is accepting the invite and showing 3 cards in S in case responder has 5.

I do understand your position: after 1NT "both" partners here will only continue bidding if they are in good max. And once *BOTH* do, *THIS* creates the forcing...

Ok, but I do NOT see the *NEED* for the forcing, if both are max they will re-evaluate and might go for full game anyhow. But if not... why not letting them try to find a better contract in a purely invitational manner? And remember, in "Standard" a repeat of a suit may be passed! The first priority in such a borderline situation should be to check a M fit... Is it really better to not question the 1NT when "in doubt"?

According to the OP the 1NT showed 12-14HCP. Resp's 2NT rebid here should show max (good 11-12HCP). The combined strength (especially if both are more or less balanced!) could be enough, or too little for more than 1NT; it could also be sufficient for 4S or even 3NT. IMO the "stripline" between pass and risk/trial shouldn't be a forcing bid, and I feel that's in conformity with "Standard" bidding.

Berti

[Player]

Berti, sorry but your arguments are illogical. You agree 2nt is invit and does not promise a 5M. So if you are saying 3S is not forcing, what does it mean? Pd I am not going to answer your qn as to whether I am min or max, but I will tell you I have 3S. So now you can guess to pass and play in maybe a 4-3 fit at the 3 level; or maybe you can bid 3nt without 5 S and you don't know whether I have 12, 13 or 14. Or maybe you guess to bid 4S with the same lack of knowledge about my strength
Anyway the argument is moot because in all serios partnerships I would play 2 way or transfer checkback.

[[e-mail]]

So now you can guess to pass and play in maybe a 4-3 fit at the 3 level;

I happen to enjoy declaring 4-3. But not when the 4 is xxxx.

And only responder knows. Even xxxx facing AKQ is awful.

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Player
Berti, sorry but your arguments are illogical. You agree 2nt is invit and does not promise a 5M. So if you are saying 3S is not forcing, what does it mean? Pd I am not going to answer your qn as to whether I am min or max, but I will tell you I have 3S. So now you can guess to pass and play in maybe a 4-3 fit at the 3 level; or maybe you can bid 3nt without 5 S and you don't know whether I have 12, 13 or 14. Or maybe you guess to bid 4S with the same lack of knowledge about my strength
Anyway the argument is moot because in all serios partnerships I would play 2 way or transfer checkback.

Can only expert systems be discussed here?
Do only expert players matter in the world of bridge?

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Player
Berti, sorry but your arguments are illogical. You agree 2nt is invit and does not promise a 5M. So if you are saying 3S is not forcing, what does it mean? Pd I am not going to answer your qn as to whether I am min or max, but I will tell you I have 3S. So now you can guess to pass and play in maybe a 4-3 fit at the 3 level; or maybe you can bid 3nt without 5 S and you don't know whether I have 12, 13 or 14. Or maybe you guess to bid 4S with the same lack of knowledge about my strength

To make a long story short: *IF* you read 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only as a quantitative invite in NT then you are right in seeing it as a min/max question to be answered with pass or 3NT or a 3cS-"suggestion" along the way to 3NT/4S; insofar you could call this situation "forcing". Evidently this is the predominant view.

I am not convinced this is the best way to handle the situation, because the 1NT is in no way showing a bal holding only, it could also be the "cheapest" escape with shortness in S! Insofar it's not like 1C-1S; 2NT showing bal 18-19HCP (in Standard). So, INSOFAR, I have difficulty to see any other meaning (especially here, with those "tight" ranges) but primarily exploring the M fit. Then it's just a matter of how aggressively you go for the M fit, *provided* you are not happy with the NT contract.

Following the latter reasoning, actually none of both pds asserted to have a (really) bal holding when bidding 1C-1S; 1NT-2N ! At a time seen from the other pd's perspective and in conformity with the bidding sequence here e.g. op could hold 3=1=4=(weak)5, resp could hold (good)5=3=4=1 (or many other even less bal holdings are thinkable "before" crossing the 1NT threshold).

Actually resp's concern here should more be his H:Jx and D:Kx which could be 4 losers from start, AND a holey holding in both black suits! You require quite a lot from a 12-14 (possibly bal) op, even if he's max!

But the core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Thanks,
Berti

[[e-mail]]

e core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Post by Berti Rupsli
Thanks,
Berti

IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.

Carl

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Berti Rupsli
e core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Post by Berti Rupsli
Thanks,
Berti

IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.
Carl

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Berti Rupsli
e core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Post by Berti Rupsli
Thanks,
Berti

IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.
Carl

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

The point is that if you have like 12 points and partner has 6 and pass,
you play 1NT (and will probably have a hard time making it)
Maybe 2C or 2S will play better, but you play NT anyway

If you have 12 points and partner has 9 and pass, then you also play in
no trump (but your chances are better)
Maybe 2C or 2S will play better, but you play no trump anyway

If you have 12 points and partner has 11 and bid 2NT, how can you be so
sure that no trump is a bad and you need move to another partscore then
2NT ?

Co Wiersma

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Berti Rupsli
e core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Post by Berti Rupsli
Thanks,
Berti

IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.
Carl

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

The point is that if you have like 12 points and partner has 6 and pass,
you play 1NT (and will probably have a hard time making it)
Maybe 2C or 2S will play better, but you play NT anyway
If you have 12 points and partner has 9 and pass, then you also play in
no trump (but your chances are better)
Maybe 2C or 2S will play better, but you play no trump anyway
If you have 12 points and partner has 11 and bid 2NT, how can you be so
sure that no trump is a bad and you need move to another partscore then
2NT ?
Co Wiersma

Co: sorry, this question has been replied 100 times now. IMO *BOTH* PARTNERS HAVE ***NOT*** INDICATED HOLDING A *BALANCED* HAND HERE..., remember the bidding started 1C-1S; 1NT-...
... and the 2NT bidder must know what he does (see post before)!

If both *WERE* (bal 12-14 opposite bal 11HCP), yes, you should basically consider playing in 2NT (eg after PASS of the 2NT rebid).

Berti

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Berti Rupsli
e core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Post by Berti Rupsli
Thanks,
Berti

IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.
Carl

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

The point is that if you have like 12 points and partner has 6 and pass,
you play 1NT (and will probably have a hard time making it)
Maybe 2C or 2S will play better, but you play NT anyway
If you have 12 points and partner has 9 and pass, then you also play in
no trump (but your chances are better)
Maybe 2C or 2S will play better, but you play no trump anyway
If you have 12 points and partner has 11 and bid 2NT, how can you be so
sure that no trump is a bad and you need move to another partscore then
2NT ?
Co Wiersma

Co: sorry, this question has been replied 100 times now. IMO *BOTH* PARTNERS HAVE ***NOT*** INDICATED HOLDING A *BALANCED* HAND HERE..., remember the bidding started 1C-1S; 1NT-...
... and the 2NT bidder must know what he does (see post before)!
If both *WERE* (bal 12-14 opposite bal 11HCP), yes, you should basically consider playing in 2NT (eg after PASS of the 2NT rebid).
Berti

But I did NOT say or suggest in any way that both partners would have a
balanced hand

Co Wiersma

[[e-mail]]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Berti Rupsli
e core question (for me): is 1C-1S; 1NT-2NT only a quantitative invite in NT and nothing else?

Post by Berti Rupsli
Thanks,
Berti

IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.
Carl

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

If by agreement 1NT does not suggest suitability for a NT contract, then responder's game invitation of 2NT must say "I am prepared to play NT no matter what flaws you think your hand possesses." Or at least that is what you as opener must assume. Never never never take an action that presumes partner does not have his bid.

Carl

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by ***@verizon.net
IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

If by agreement 1NT does not suggest suitability for a NT contract, then responder's game invitation of 2NT must say "I am prepared to play NT no matter what flaws you think your hand possesses." Or at least that is what you as opener must assume. Never never never take an action that presumes partner does not have his bid.

Carl: Thanks for your reply.

In "Standard" op's 1NT-rebid NEVER actually promises a balanced holding, nor does it promise a "tight" HCP range of 12-14, you do not need any agreement for that.

Agreed, "pure theory" defines the ...-1NT rebid as 12-14 bal (with bal 15-17 you would have opened 1NT; and with bal 18-19 you jump-rebid 2NT; and with 20+ ...), else you rebid "something" in suits... - that's theory, and you will follow it whenever feasible.

But what do you rebid in reality with a non-bal holding in the weak to medium HCP range (12-17) when your holding does NOT qualify for a raise of pd's suit, nor a repeat of your own suit (after having opened 1C you have no other choices)? You can't pass resp's bid, so you will rebid 1NT, because this the rebid-"lie" with the smallest damaging impact (especially if pd bid you short suit). This seems basic bidding technique and should happen frequently... Consequently, pd can NEVER rely on your bal 12-14 holding insofar... Am I really wrong here?

Post by ***@verizon.net
... then responder's game invitation of 2NT must say "I am prepared to play NT no matter what flaws you think your hand possesses."

Yes, of course, resp must always be prepared to handle the reply, and that includes op's pass.

Berti

[[e-mail]]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by ***@verizon.net
IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

If by agreement 1NT does not suggest suitability for a NT contract, then responder's game invitation of 2NT must say "I am prepared to play NT no matter what flaws you think your hand possesses." Or at least that is what you as opener must assume. Never never never take an action that presumes partner does not have his bid.

Carl: Thanks for your reply.
In "Standard" op's 1NT-rebid NEVER actually promises a balanced holding, nor does it promise a "tight" HCP range of 12-14, you do not need any agreement for that.
Agreed, "pure theory" defines the ...-1NT rebid as 12-14 bal (with bal 15-17 you would have opened 1NT; and with bal 18-19 you jump-rebid 2NT; and with 20+ ...), else you rebid "something" in suits... - that's theory, and you will follow it whenever feasible.
But what do you rebid in reality with a non-bal holding in the weak to medium HCP range (12-17) when your holding does NOT qualify for a raise of pd's suit, nor a repeat of your own suit (after having opened 1C you have no other choices)? You can't pass resp's bid, so you will rebid 1NT, because this the rebid-"lie" with the smallest damaging impact (especially if pd bid you short suit). This seems basic bidding technique and should happen frequently... Consequently, pd can NEVER rely on your bal 12-14 holding insofar... Am I really wrong here?

Post by ***@verizon.net
... then responder's game invitation of 2NT must say "I am prepared to play NT no matter what flaws you think your hand possesses."

Yes, of course, resp must always be prepared to handle the reply, and that includes op's pass.
Berti

And therefore opener's nervousness about his 1NT rebid is not relevant to bidding problem. He cannot say "yes, I know you said 2NT will be OK, but I think you're wrong, and we'll play 3S." When he rebid 1NT he renounced all such misgivings.

Really, you seem to believe that although opener's 1NT rebid may have wide range of types and strengths, responder's raise may have a comparable range. No it can't.

Carl

[Berti Rupsli]

Carl, Co, Lorne & al: Thanks for all your replies, but sorry, I give up... the topic twists and rocks and curls and rolls all the time, and back in circles... I already invested too much time in this overly simple issue...

Berti

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by ***@verizon.net
IF the partnership's 1NT rebid is non-suggestive, then the raise to 2NT MUST deny nervousness about the strain.

Carl: sorry, I don't understand that...

If by agreement 1NT does not suggest suitability for a NT contract, then responder's game invitation of 2NT must say "I am prepared to play NT no matter what flaws you think your hand possesses." Or at least that is what you as opener must assume. Never never never take an action that presumes partner does not have his bid.

Carl: Thanks for your reply.
In "Standard" op's 1NT-rebid NEVER actually promises a balanced holding, nor does it promise a "tight" HCP range of 12-14, you do not need any agreement for that.
Agreed, "pure theory" defines the ...-1NT rebid as 12-14 bal (with bal 15-17 you would have opened 1NT; and with bal 18-19 you jump-rebid 2NT; and with 20+ ...), else you rebid "something" in suits... - that's theory, and you will follow it whenever feasible.
But what do you rebid in reality with a non-bal holding in the weak to medium HCP range (12-17) when your holding does NOT qualify for a raise of pd's suit, nor a repeat of your own suit (after having opened 1C you have no other choices)? You can't pass resp's bid, so you will rebid 1NT, because this the rebid-"lie" with the smallest damaging impact (especially if pd bid you short suit). This seems basic bidding technique and should happen frequently... Consequently, pd can NEVER rely on your bal 12-14 holding insofar... Am I really wrong here?

Yes.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Berti Rupsli
Ok, but I do NOT see the *NEED* for the forcing, if both are max they
will re-evaluate and might go for full game anyhow. But if not... why
not letting them try to find a better contract in a purely
invitational manner? And remember, in "Standard" a repeat of a suit
may be passed!
Berti

Your comment is illogical. If the auction starts:
1m 1M
1N 2N

which is what is being discussed you do not know if responder has 4S or
5S. If you play 3S as not forcing what does responder do when they have
4S ? It can't be right to play a 4-3 fit when both hands have said they
are balanced so he should bid 3N and you have the bizarre situation that
you force to game when there is a 7 card fit but stop in a part score
when you find an 8 card fit !!!!!

[[e-mail]]

It can't be right to play a 4-3 fit when both hands have said they
are balanced

Of course it can. Easy to construct examples.

What is hard is detecting the desirability in the auction.

Carl

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Lorne Anderson
It can't be right to play a 4-3 fit when both hands have said they
are balanced
Of course it can. Easy to construct examples.
What is hard is detecting the desirability in the auction.
Carl

The fact you can construct examples that work is irrelevant. Bridge is
a game of odds - if you have 2 balanced hands and a 4-3 major fit then
NT will be better more than 50% of the time so it can't be right to play
in the 4-3 fit unless you want to take some big gamble that will go
wrong more than half the time.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Lorne Anderson
It can't be right to play a 4-3 fit when both hands have said they
are balanced
Of course it can. Easy to construct examples.
What is hard is detecting the desirability in the auction.
Carl

The fact you can construct examples that work is irrelevant. Bridge is
a game of odds - if you have 2 balanced hands and a 4-3 major fit then
NT will be better more than 50% of the time so it can't be right to play
in the 4-3 fit unless you want to take some big gamble that will go
wrong more than half the time.

that statement is true only if you ignore actual hands.

Analogous. If you have a 5-card suit and 12 hcp total, then it is very unlikely that the long suit will have no high cards. the hands that have no highs in the long suit will have insignificant impact on the result statistics.

But if you are dealt the exceptional hand, the statistics won't help you at all.

Similar: Being dealt AKQx of spades and xx in another suit is unlikely, and will not impact the gross statistics. But if you are dealt it ....

And if an angel whispered in your ear that partner has xx in the same suit....

Carl

[jogs]

Post by ***@verizon.net
"David, Ron: Do I understand both of you correctly, and ...1NT-2NT-3S is *forcing* in your opinion (playing Standard)? Just "because" op could have passed 2NT? What about a simple "showing preference"? In "Standard" a repeat of a suit is basically NF. I would see it as invitational (at best)."
After the auction 1C - 1S ; 1NT - 2NT ; ? opener can never have a reason to believe that 3S is a safer *partscore* than 2NT. If it turns out that way, tough luck.

One of my pet peeves. Being in the three level, unforced by opponents, down 1 for a bad score.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Berti Rupsli
David, Ron: Do I understand both of you correctly, and ...1NT-2NT-3S is
*forcing* in your opinion (playing Standard)? Just "because" op could
have passed 2NT? What about a simple "showing preference"?

Well, there are two ways to play the bid. It can be just a preference,
choosing a partscore in order to stop on a dime at the 3-level. Or,
it can be an acceptance in order to offer a choice of games.

In traditional bidding, getting to the better game is thought more
important than getting to the better partscore. And I'd say that's
correct thinking.

Better still, of course, is to play two-way puppet checkback, so
that you can use the sequence ...1NT; 2C-2D (forced); 2S to show an
invite with five spades. That way if opener has a minimum with three
spades you can play 2S, and if opener has a maximum with three spades you
can play 4S.

But that's not the conditions of the problem.

[Player]

Of course some form of checkback is FAR better.

Post by David Goldfarb
Better still, of course, is to play two-way puppet checkback, so
that you can use the sequence ...1NT; 2C-2D (forced); 2S to show an
invite with five spades. That way if opener has a minimum with three
spades you can play 2S, and if opener has a maximum with three spades you
can play 4S.
But that's not the conditions of the problem.
--
David Goldfarb |"It is curious that a dog runs already

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

I would bid 2N but if partner signs off in 3S I would raise as the
secondary club fit whould be worth a bit extra and the lead coming up to
my hand could be valuable as well with those holdings.

Mind you I can't remember far enough back to know what to do when not
playing checkback.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback.
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

I would bid 2N but if partner signs off in 3S ...

Not playing checkback, surely 3S over 2N is forcing? The message is
"I accept your invitation and show you my three spades in case you
have five and prefer the 5-3 fit." If partner has a minimum, partner
passes 2N.

[Player]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Player
Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback.
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

I would bid 2N but if partner signs off in 3S ...

Not playing checkback, surely 3S over 2N is forcing? The message is
"I accept your invitation and show you my three spades in case you
have five and prefer the 5-3 fit." If partner has a minimum, partner
passes 2N.
--
David Goldfarb |"For some reason, most of my clearest memories

I would certainly think so, David.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Player
Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback.
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

I would bid 2N but if partner signs off in 3S ...

Not playing checkback, surely 3S over 2N is forcing? The message is
"I accept your invitation and show you my three spades in case you
have five and prefer the 5-3 fit." If partner has a minimum, partner
passes 2N.

When I posted I did not think it through (partly because I have no
memory of ever playing without checkback) but obviously you do not know
if partner has 4 or 5 spades and it makes no sense to bid on unless you
have enough for 3N when partner has only 4 spades.

[Bruce Evans]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Player
Imps all Green
You are playing with a player who does not play any form of checkback.
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

I wouldn't assume that, since it is a limit raise. The limit raise
would be ideal with your black suits reversed. Then you have no
interest in a spade games, but some interest in 3NT and 5C and want
to play in clubs if not game.

"Standard" seems to be almost unplayable. Everything below 2NT is to
play. 2NT and 3C are only invitational, and usually result in finding
the wrong partscore. You never want to play in 2NT, since if partner
has 3 spades then 2S is better and 3S is just as good, while if partner
has 2 spades then he has 4+ clubs so 2C is better and 3C is just as
good. If you bid 3C or even 2C, partner will surely have 3=4=3=3
shape.

Since invitations usually find the wrong partscore and the scoring is
imps in a weak field, I want to bid all 40%+ games even not vulnerable
and they turn out to be 25%, I just force to game. The only game
forcing bids seems to be 3D and 3H, with 3D possibly artificial. So
I bid 3D. This is not ideal, but perhaps the opponents will help by
doubling or not doubling it when partner's diamonds are weak or the
diamond K is offside. If the auction develops badly then I might pass
3S or run from 3NT(X) to 4/5C(X).

I was going to bid 2D (forcing since it is a new suit) until I checked
how bad "standard" is. Even if this is not agreed and NMF (new minor
forcing, and also artificial), it might be artificial for the same
reasons that 3D is -- the system is so unplayable that it hs no natural
or agreed conventional way to force. "Standard" has many such explicit
and implicit artificialities like 4th suit forcing, fake reverses, and
jump shifts in fake suits.

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by David Goldfarb

I would bid 2N but if partner signs off in 3S ...

Not playing checkback, surely 3S over 2N is forcing? The message is
"I accept your invitation and show you my three spades in case you
have five and prefer the 5-3 fit." If partner has a minimum, partner
passes 2N.

When I posted I did not think it through (partly because I have no
memory of ever playing without checkback) but obviously you do not know
if partner has 4 or 5 spades and it makes no sense to bid on unless you
have enough for 3N when partner has only 4 spades.

Indeed, all of partner's bids except possibly 3C must show extras. 3D,
and 3H might show spade support and something about club length or
stoppers, but that would take agreements and tell the opponents a lot.
Perhaps use it only at matchpoints, for stopping in 3S on unsuitable
extras, or better use it to choose between 3S and 3NT with 5-3 spade
fits.

Bruce

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Bruce Evans
"Standard" seems to be almost unplayable. Everything below 2NT is to
play. 2NT and 3C are only invitational, and usually result in finding
the wrong partscore.
Since invitations usually find the wrong partscore...
...until I checked how bad "standard" is... the system is so unplayable that it hs no natural or agreed conventional way to force.

Bruce: that's really your understanding of Standard...? So you believe you can't do without a "low" forcing option after op's 1NT rebid, while you do not even know about op's strength and holding? What about simple logic and consecutive re-evaluation (as I showed in my former posts here, and in the other thread - my approach would have found the S-fit easily in both situations).

You are right insofar as the OP is *illogic* in itself! 3C *cannot* be GF here such as the indication "3C would be game forcing" says (this shows a complete misunderstanding of "Standard" bidding rules IMO). But it's even more the fact that the opening was NOT a weak 1NT (12-14) but 1C-1S; 1NT and thus it can NEVER be limited to 14HCP as stated in the OP. This ...-1NT covers many more situations and (theoretically) holds up to 17HCP! Eg in a 1=3=4=(weak)5.

Or OTOH the indication "1NT shows 12-14" might just have explained which kind of 1NT opening the partnership WOULD play, IF they'd opened with 1NT. But they did NOT! So again, the 1C-1S; 1NT could show some HCP more... there is *NO* 14HCP "limitation" here, and *THIS* is the decisive criterion IMO!

So any alleged "quantitative" raise here with 2NT, expecting a min/max response seems wool-gathering IMO - *THIS* is illogic and unplayable, because you do not know op's HCP tight enough! Yes, (The Standard) 2NT is simply an invitation (with 10-12 AND a reason!), NEVER creating a forcing situation, and the reason here can only be to learn more about pd's holding (TMM principle - Tell Me More). So there is a strong implicit tendency to S in the 2NT bid here. Thus, if op is min he will pass, and if he holds a 3cS he will show it, and if he's max without 3cS he might consider raising to 3NT.
But if 2C would have been the best contract, I'd regularly prefer to play 1NT instead!

A further hint to the illogic min/max question seems the range issue for the 2NT. In Standard this shows 10-12. But considering ...-1NT shows 12-14 (as indicated in the OP), this 2NT range is too low, it should rather be (good)11-13 to make sense in a min/max question.

But as I tried to show, there is no problem WITHOUT the "low" forcing option in Standard! And you are absolutely right, (instead of the 2NT rebid) resp's forcing would have to happen *BEYOND* 3C. Also 3S would not be forcing in Standard, although op should have a very good reason to pass it.

Berti

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Berti Rupsli
A further hint to the illogic min/max question seems the range issue
for the 2NT. In Standard this shows 10-12. But considering ...-1NT
shows 12-14 (as indicated in the OP), this 2NT range is too low, it
should rather be (good)11-13 to make sense in a min/max question.

There is no way raising 1N to 2N shows 10-12 in standard - whatever
system you play it shows a hand too good to pass 1N but not good enough
to force to game. In this case that means 11-12 points, but if the 1N
rebid had a different range it would mean the 2N bid also had a
different range but it will always be whatever range means too good to
pass but not good enouhg to force game.

The only time raising 1N to 2N has a different meaning to this is when
you have other bids like 2C as an artificial enquiry and want to use 2N
for something else.

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Berti Rupsli
A further hint to the illogic min/max question seems the range issue
for the 2NT. In Standard this shows 10-12. But considering ...-1NT
shows 12-14 (as indicated in the OP), this 2NT range is too low, it
should rather be (good)11-13 to make sense in a min/max question.

There is no way raising 1N to 2N shows 10-12 in standard - whatever
system you play it shows a hand too good to pass 1N but not good enough
to force to game. In this case that means 11-12 points, but if the 1N
rebid had a different range it would mean the 2N bid also had a
different range but it will always be whatever range means too good to
pass but not good enouhg to force game.
The only time raising 1N to 2N has a different meaning to this is when
you have other bids like 2C as an artificial enquiry and want to use 2N
for something else.

Sorry, we seem to run in endless circles, and I do not want to discuss FACTS. Here 2NT does NOT "raise" a "balanced 1NT", it does exactly what was discussed lately, it INVITES for more. And, of course, the 2NT bidder must know what he does - he must be ready to handle any rebid he will receive from op. Whatever this means in HCP or whatever. Else he should pass or bid full game or... (with whatever HCP)!
Here the specific issue was the interpretation of 2NT as a min/max question, while no one knows what the 1NT rebid actually meant in HCP (possible range 12-17 up to the 1NT rebid, bal or unbal)...

Berti

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Berti Rupsli
Here the specific issue was the interpretation of 2NT as a min/max question, while no one knows what the 1NT rebid actually meant in HCP (possible range 12-17 up to the 1NT rebid, bal or unbal)...
Berti

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Berti Rupsli
Here the specific issue was the interpretation of 2NT as a min/max
question, while no one knows what the 1NT rebid actually meant in HCP
(possible range 12-17 up to the 1NT rebid, bal or unbal)...
Berti

Maybe you did not read the original post that said clearly that 1N
showed 12-14 points, which is normal in strong NT auctions.

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Berti Rupsli
Here the specific issue was the interpretation of 2NT as a min/max
question, while no one knows what the 1NT rebid actually meant in HCP
(possible range 12-17 up to the 1NT rebid, bal or unbal)...
Berti

Maybe you did not read the original post that said clearly that 1N
showed 12-14 points, which is normal in strong NT auctions.

Yes I read it, and I explained in detail a 100 times why this statement is WRONG in playing Standard!!! After 1C-1S; 1NT nobody knows for sure what 1NT really meant; the bal 12-14 is just one of the possibilites, but there are others (see before)!

Berti

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Berti Rupsli
After 1C-1S; 1NT nobody knows for sure
what 1NT really meant; the bal 12-14 is just one of the possibilites,
but there are others (see before)!

In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton
spade you do something else. My preferred solution with 1=3=4=5
is to open 1D in the first place; or, with weak diamonds and
strong clubs, to pretend that I have a sixth club by opening 1C
and rebidding 2C. But I'll never rebid 1N with a singleton spade:
that's begging for partner with a minimum response and five spades
to take out to 2S.

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Berti Rupsli
After 1C-1S; 1NT nobody knows for sure
what 1NT really meant; the bal 12-14 is just one of the possibilites,
but there are others (see before)!

In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton
spade you do something else. My preferred solution with 1=3=4=5
is to open 1D in the first place; or, with weak diamonds and
strong clubs, to pretend that I have a sixth club by opening 1C
that's begging for partner with a minimum response and five spades
to take out to 2S.
--
David Goldfarb |"That which can be destroyed by the truth

David: ok, that's VALID alternatives with shortness in S (less than 2cS). The problem in this thread is that we (also you) started with considering op's possible 3cS situation, and how to find the S fit - at least, that's how I understood it. Then Doug mentioned "resp repeating a 5cS", and then the discussion broadened and curled by giving examples for other situations, including op's short S holdings. Honestly, I lost the clear view on all of that already. That's why I finally "gave up"...

Berti

[Player]

Berti its not my style as I prefer not to play standard. With this particular pd 3c was a gf. I dont like it either. But seriously a 1nt rebid shows 12-14 in Standard or 2/1. I would accept a really poor 15, but 16/17 no.
Anyway enough for me on this hand as well.

[jogs]

Post by David Goldfarb
In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton
spade you do something else. My preferred solution with 1=3=4=5
is to open 1D in the first place; or, with weak diamonds and
strong clubs, to pretend that I have a sixth club by opening 1C
that's begging for partner with a minimum response and five spades
to take out to 2S.

Those theories are dated. Today it's legal to open 1NT with a stiff ace
or king.
1=3=4=5

1C - 1S
1NT

Partner needs KQJTx to rebid 2S.

[Player]

Post by jogs

Post by David Goldfarb
In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton
spade you do something else. My preferred solution with 1=3=4=5
is to open 1D in the first place; or, with weak diamonds and
strong clubs, to pretend that I have a sixth club by opening 1C
that's begging for partner with a minimum response and five spades
to take out to 2S.

Those theories are dated. Today it's legal to open 1NT with a stiff ace
or king.
1=3=4=5
1C - 1S
1NT
Partner needs KQJTx to rebid 2S.

Agree.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by jogs

Post by David Goldfarb
In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton
spade you do something else. My preferred solution with 1=3=4=5
is to open 1D in the first place; or, with weak diamonds and
strong clubs, to pretend that I have a sixth club by opening 1C
that's begging for partner with a minimum response and five spades
to take out to 2S.

Those theories are dated. Today it's legal to open 1NT with a stiff ace
or king.

It's legal, but I still don't think it's a good idea.

[KWSchneider]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Berti Rupsli
After 1C-1S; 1NT nobody knows for sure
what 1NT really meant; the bal 12-14 is just one of the possibilites,
but there are others (see before)!

In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton
spade you do something else. My preferred solution with 1=3=4=5
is to open 1D in the first place; or, with weak diamonds and
strong clubs, to pretend that I have a sixth club by opening 1C
that's begging for partner with a minimum response and five spades
to take out to 2S.
--
David Goldfarb |"That which can be destroyed by the truth

I have some sympathy for Berti here. After 1C 1S, I will almost always rebid 1N on something like x AQxx xxxx AQxx. There is never any guarantee that opener has at least 2 spades - and yes, I've played 2S in a 5-1 fit after 1C 1S; 1N 2S.

Kurt

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by KWSchneider

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Berti Rupsli
After 1C-1S; 1NT nobody knows for sure
what 1NT really meant; the bal 12-14 is just one of the possibilites,
but there are others (see before)!

In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton...

I have some sympathy for Berti here. After 1C 1S, I will almost always rebid 1N on something like x AQxx xxxx AQxx. There is never any guarantee that opener has at least 2 spades - and yes, I've played 2S in a 5-1 fit after 1C 1S; 1N 2S.

***THANK YOU !!!***

Berti

[Player]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by KWSchneider

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Berti Rupsli
After 1C-1S; 1NT nobody knows for sure
what 1NT really meant; the bal 12-14 is just one of the possibilites,
but there are others (see before)!

In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades. With a singleton...

I have some sympathy for Berti here. After 1C 1S, I will almost always rebid 1N on something like x AQxx xxxx AQxx. There is never any guarantee that opener has at least 2 spades - and yes, I've played 2S in a 5-1 fit after 1C 1S; 1N 2S.

***THANK YOU !!!***
Berti

However where is Berti's "up to 17 points?"
Kurt, your hand is a 1D opening and a 2C rebid for me.

[Player]

Post by Berti Rupsli

Post by Bruce Evans
"Standard" seems to be almost unplayable. Everything below 2NT is to
play. 2NT and 3C are only invitational, and usually result in finding
the wrong partscore.
Since invitations usually find the wrong partscore...
...until I checked how bad "standard" is... the system is so unplayable that it hs no natural or agreed conventional way to force.

Bruce: that's really your understanding of Standard...? So you believe you can't do without a "low" forcing option after op's 1NT rebid, while you do not even know about op's strength and holding? What about simple logic and consecutive re-evaluation (as I showed in my former posts here, and in the other thread - my approach would have found the S-fit easily in both situations).
You are right insofar as the OP is *illogic* in itself! 3C *cannot* be GF here such as the indication "3C would be game forcing" says (this shows a complete misunderstanding of "Standard" bidding rules IMO). But it's even more the fact that the opening was NOT a weak 1NT (12-14) but 1C-1S; 1NT and thus it can NEVER be limited to 14HCP as stated in the OP. This ...-1NT covers many more situations and (theoretically) holds up to 17HCP! Eg in a 1=3=4=(weak)5.
Or OTOH the indication "1NT shows 12-14" might just have explained which kind of 1NT opening the partnership WOULD play, IF they'd opened with 1NT. But they did NOT! So again, the 1C-1S; 1NT could show some HCP more... there is *NO* 14HCP "limitation" here, and *THIS* is the decisive criterion IMO!
So any alleged "quantitative" raise here with 2NT, expecting a min/max response seems wool-gathering IMO - *THIS* is illogic and unplayable, because you do not know op's HCP tight enough! Yes, (The Standard) 2NT is simply an invitation (with 10-12 AND a reason!), NEVER creating a forcing situation, and the reason here can only be to learn more about pd's holding (TMM principle - Tell Me More). So there is a strong implicit tendency to S in the 2NT bid here. Thus, if op is min he will pass, and if he holds a 3cS he will show it, and if he's max without 3cS he might consider raising to 3NT.
But if 2C would have been the best contract, I'd regularly prefer to play 1NT instead!
A further hint to the illogic min/max question seems the range issue for the 2NT. In Standard this shows 10-12. But considering ...-1NT shows 12-14 (as indicated in the OP), this 2NT range is too low, it should rather be (good)11-13 to make sense in a min/max question.
But as I tried to show, there is no problem WITHOUT the "low" forcing option in Standard! And you are absolutely right, (instead of the 2NT rebid) resp's forcing would have to happen *BEYOND* 3C. Also 3S would not be forcing in Standard, although op should have a very good reason to pass it.
Berti

""3C would be game forcing" says (this shows a complete misunderstanding of "Standard" bidding rules IMO). But it's even more the fact that the opening was NOT a weak 1NT (12-14) but 1C-1S; 1NT and thus it can NEVER be limited to 14HCP as stated in the OP. This ...-1NT covers many more situations and (theoretically) holds up to 17HCP! Eg in a 1=3=4=(weak)5."

Wtf are you talking about Berti? A 1NT rebid shows 12-14. From where are you pulling this 17 points from. Secondly as I stated in the condition. you can assume that 3C is gf.

"there is *NO* 14HCP "limitation" here, and *THIS* is the decisive criterion IMO! " This is totally incorrect and shows you have very confused about bidding. Sorry to be blunt, but this is true. The hand is limited to 12-14.


"But what do you rebid in reality with a non-bal holding in the weak to medium HCP range (12-17) when your holding does NOT qualify for a raise of pd's suit"
Something else, not 1NT!

[Berti Rupsli]

Post by Player
...
Wtf are you talking about Berti? A 1NT rebid shows 12-14. From where are you pulling this 17 points from. Secondly as I stated in the condition. you can assume that 3C is gf.
"there is *NO* 14HCP "limitation" here, and *THIS* is the decisive criterion IMO! " This is totally incorrect and shows you have very confused about bidding. Sorry to be blunt, but this is true. The hand is limited to 12-14.
"But what do you rebid in reality with a non-bal holding in the weak to medium HCP range (12-17) when your holding does NOT qualify for a raise of pd's suit"
Something else, not 1NT!

Ron: ok, if this is *YOUR* bidding style, so be it... it's definitely NOT regular Standard style as I know it. In any normal system (especially with a weak hand) you will try to bid the most riskless "lie", *IF* you have to lie, and every lie else than 1NT here should be more risky (with an unlimited pd between 5 and "100"HCP, but he "covers" your M shortness). Unless you have good reason to go the risk (eg holding a good 4cH, so you might instead rebid a weak 2C in order to enable pd's possible H rebid; etc)...

But, thankfully, finally we can focus on the core issue here.

If 3C here is GF in your style, then - also sorry - you DO NOT bid Standard here! As 1C-1S; 1NT-2C would be "to play" (the weakest possible contract here), you need an invit bid for C with 3C (although it's "strongly" invit; the same as 3S). Further, in regular Standard every REPEAT of a suit (own, pd's) *MAY* be passed; you cannot generate a forcing with it, although in some situations pd would need a very good reason to pass it. This is often an unlucky idea, but this is fundamental in Standard bidding, no matter you like it or not... And in certain situation this might even be of advantage...

And I do not say this is the best thinkable way to handle it, nor that Standard is such a good system. But if you play Standard then you should keep to the rules, or not call it Standard.... (endless discussion)...

Where 17HCP derive from? The 1C opening (not qualifying for a raise of pd's suit S nor a repeat of your own suit C), not being (semi)bal 15-17, as it does not yet qualify for a 2NT rebid (showing 18-19). But, agreed, with 16/17 HCP you might more easily risk an alternative bid...

At least this is the regular Standard I know...

Berti

[jogs]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

There is at best a marginal game. A pass could be the winning call.
2C non forcing. If partner passes, you will probably get a plus score.
Even if there is a 5-3 spade it may be difficult to win 10 tricks
with spades as trumps.

1C - 1S
1NT - 2C
2S - 3S
4S

Dont be surprised by 4S-1.

[Dave Flower]

Post by jogs

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

There is at best a marginal game. A pass could be the winning call.
2C non forcing. If partner passes, you will probably get a plus score.
Even if there is a 5-3 spade it may be difficult to win 10 tricks
with spades as trumps.
1C - 1S
1NT - 2C
2S - 3S
4S
Dont be surprised by 4S-1.

I agree with 2C - at IMPs one should be looking for the safest part-score.

It is, of course, a totally different problem at match-pointed pairs

Dave Flower

[p***@infi.net]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

I would usually pass with 11, but this is just enough to offer 2NT.

[Steve Willner]

Imps all Green You are playing with a player who does not play any
form of checkback.
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

Like everyone else, I bid 2NT. 3NT GF is uncommon these days, though I
agree with Richard Pavlicek that it's superior to the more common
invitational.

On the actual opener's hand, a 3433 14 count, opener might have
considered bidding 3S on the third round instead of 3NT. We'd have to
see the exact hand to know whether his 3NT was unlucky or unwise. For
anyone who thinks 3S by opener would have been non-forcing, please show
me a hand where opener can believe 1NT will be a better part score than
2S but 3S will be a better part score than 2NT.

The more interesting question than the one Ron asked is whether you
would use a checkback bid if you had one. I'd say it depends on your
agreements about opener's raising on 3c support. If that's rare, of
course you check back. If 3c raises are common, opener should have a
good reason for bidding 1NT instead, and there's a lot to be said for
inviting with 2NT anyway. I suppose it depends on how shapely opener
can be for the 1NT rebid.

In standard bidding, at least as I was taught it, a 1NT rebid
absolutely guarantees either two or three spades.

I suspect that is indeed what most teachers say. However, if you choose
a style where 3c raises are frequent, the 1NT rebid will rarely contain
3c support. In that style, it makes sense to allow a 1NT rebid when
holding a singleton to avoid some awkward rebid problems. Of course
responder has to take the style into account. I noted one example of
that above (check back or not). Another is with a weak hand whether to
pass 1NT or sign off in 2M. As usual, there are plenty of hands where
one style will work well and the other badly.

[Co Wiersma]

For anyone who thinks 3S by opener would have been non-forcing, please
show me a hand where opener can believe 1NT will be a better part score
than 2S but 3S will be a better part score than 2NT.

I asked more or less the same question, but someone insisted that the
answer was already given "100 times"

Co Wiersma

[Sandy Barnes]

Post by Player
Imps all Green
1C (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P)
1NT shows 12-14
KTxxx
Jx
Kx
ATxx
Assume that 3C would be game forcing.

System is everything, and you should give some thought about the "garden variety hands" when deciding on a system. If your first call settles the question of game force or not, later bidding allows for exploration. This being said, i will argue for fit showing jumps as a base approach. if the fit-Jump shows game values, a good suit (which I suggest as 2 of the top 3 honors), and at least a 3-card support for openers suit, the lack of this action shows some limitation to the hand, suit quality or overall fit or strength. In this case, 1S would limit the hand value, and allow for a 3C rebid, Opener now in charge.