[Zelandakh]

 GBinUS, on 2014-May-13, 07:36, said:

The problem is that you opened those 11-14 hands 1NT.

♠xx ♥KQJxx ♦AQxx ♣xx - open 1NT? How about ♠x ♥KQJxx ♦AQxx ♣xxx? The 11-14 being referred to here does not represent balanced hands so much as hands with ♥ + ♦. Those are the problem case for methods where 2NT is forcing. Not insurmountable and you have gains elsewhere but you know you are poorly placed in those auctions when you play such a method.

[steve2005]

 GBinUS, on 2014-May-13, 07:36, said:

The problem is that you opened those 11-14 hands 1NT.

So to rebid 2NT here suggests more. Of course, it is my contention that after an overcall, partner's response in a higher ranking suit than my opening bid is near GF, and so I have no problem bidding 2NT because that would be the weakest bid I can make. (But then I play much more 2/1 than Acol these days).

I prefer 2NT here because I cannot bring myself to bid 3♥ with that lousy suit, nor can I stand p passing me out in 3♥ with a small singleton. I'm not sure where my tricks are coming from, but I do know that I'm unlikely to be doubled in 2NT but I might get axed for 500 in 3♥.

Who opened this heap of crap anyway?

you cant open 1N with 1=5=4=3 11-14 or the concentrated 2=5=4=2 mentioned by Zelandakh

[jallerton]

 Nabooba, on 2014-May-13, 04:35, said:

There are a number of points here. If there had been no intervention, what would you bid? 2D I guess. So now you make the same bid one level higher. This shows that the 2S bid cant be weak but has to be forcing to game with one exception and that is responder rebidding his suit. With a lesser hand you would have to make a negative double.

Are you suggesting that a 3♦bid should show 4+ cards in LHO's suit and undefined strength? A novel approach.

 Nabooba, on 2014-May-13, 04:35, said:

Another method is to play a system which one poster above described. Responders lower ranking suits are forcing, and higher ranking suits are non forcing. This is not uncommon and works well.

Yes, there's a decent case for playing 'disturbed' 2M bids as non-forcing, but that treatment also has its own weaknesses.

 Nabooba, on 2014-May-13, 04:35, said:

No poster has yet responded to my claim that if you make a wide ranging 2NT rebid the auction is virtually forced to 4NT if opener has 16 or 17.

Why? Opener needs at least a king above minimum to force to game, so 3NT or cue bidding would already imply these sort of values.

[jallerton]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-May-12, 03:01, said:

Always pleased when one of our experts is in agreement with me on something . Have you considered the transfer scheme here as an alternative to non-forcing? Is obviously worse for a minimum 2542 but seems like it might be an overall plus.

I like transfers by Responder by an overcall, but I don't think transfer rebids by Opener work that well over a natural 2♠ bid. It's a bit like the uncontested auction 1♦-1♠-2♥: Responder's 2NT Lebensohl bid is a bit clumsy, but at least you gain the advantage that if Responder bids anything else you know the auction is forced to game.

[Zelandakh]

 jallerton, on 2014-May-14, 17:32, said:

It's a bit like the uncontested auction 1♦-1♠-2♥: Responder's 2NT Lebensohl bid is a bit clumsy, but at least you gain the advantage that if Responder bids anything else you know the auction is forced to game.

I like transfers in this auction quite a lot too...

[Nabooba]

 jallerton, on 2014-May-14, 17:22, said:

Are you suggesting that a 3♦bid should show 4+ cards in LHO's suit and undefined strength? A novel approach.



Yes, there's a decent case for playing 'disturbed' 2M bids as non-forcing, but that treatment also has its own weaknesses.



Why? Opener needs at least a king above minimum to force to game, so 3NT or cue bidding would already imply these sort of values.

It is quite obvious that 3 om was meant. Your comment is snide and puerile.

Bidding 3NT is no thing of beauty either. If you have to bid 3NT on these stronger hands you have no room to explore anything. Anyway what do you you do with 18/19, bid 4NT?

[jogs]

Even if 2♠ is forcing, pass may work best. This was a marginal opener. Now this hand seems like it was not worth opening. Expect fewer than expected tricks for our HCP total.

[Zelandakh]

 Nabooba, on 2014-May-14, 18:01, said:

It is quite obvious that 3 om was meant. Your comment is snide and puerile.

This was the start of xyour previous post:

 Nabooba, on 2014-May-13, 04:35, said:

 steve2005, on 2014-May-12, 19:07, said:

then what do you bid with 1♠5 crappy ♥ 4 good ♦ and 3 good ♣ and 12-14 pts ?

There are a number of points here. If there had been no intervention, what would you bid? 2D I guess. So now you make the same bid one level higher.

This is in the context of holding the same minor as Overcaller, which has been the focus of the discussion for some time now. It sure sounds like you were suggesting bidding their suit with this hand. The rest of the reply only reinforces that. Not obvious at all that you were talking about a completely different situation.

Sometimes internet communication is difficult. It is easy to write something that seems clear to you but is interpreted differently from everyone else. There is no body language available so comments in discussions sometimes come across differently to how they are meant. There are some posters here that will be caustic when disagreed with but jallerton is not amongst them. He is also amongst the elite group of English players and the wise posters here read what he has to say with interest.

In any case, you have not told us what you would do with the hand in Steve's post. This is the issue with 2NT forcing. My idea under transfers is to use a special sequence, say 2NT - 3♣; 3♦, for this but that is hardly a bed of roses. I do not think there is any solution that can get you back to par on these hands so you have to be clear that you are coming out ahead on the others.