[TylerE]

nige1, on 2020-September-24, 18:34, said:

In the UK, Benjamin is popular solution ...

Really? I thought that was considered a bit prehistoric even by most ACOL pairs these days. Am I wrong?

It certainly seems bad to give up not just one but TWO bids to poorly describe low frequency hand types.

[johnu]

helene_t, on 2020-September-24, 18:02, said:

In this auction, 2♣ was explained as GF. If that's really what it is then passing 3♥ is not safe.

While 2♣ says GF, 2♥ is only forcing to 3♥. And certainly a 2NT rebid by opener is not forcing in normal systems.

[helene_t]

johnu, on 2020-September-24, 21:15, said:

While 2♣ says GF, 2♥ is only forcing to 3♥. And certainly a 2NT rebid by opener is not forcing in normal systems.

Yeah, so the GF annotation is apparently wrong. In that case, 3♥ is presumably nonforcing.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2020-September-24, 18:34, said:

[list][*]2♣ = ART F/1. After 2♣ - 2♦ -, responder can pass opener's rebid with a poor hand.

A common variation is for 2♣ - 2♦ to be game forcing and 2♣ - 2♥ non-forcing.

As far as "forcing" goes, it is more "forcing if partner has their call". So the most common case of passing a forcing bid I know is the case of a reverse. It is not at all uncommon, especially in a 5 card major system, to respond to a 1m opening with extreme shortage in the minor and nothing in the way of honour strength at all and then pass any rebid. If that rebid is systemically forcing, c'est la vie. The difference in this case is that Opener is absolutely unlimited in terms of their upper bound of strength. In such cases it is almost never a good idea to pass.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2020-September-24, 18:02, said:

OK but then "technically forcing" just means non-forcing. There are few natural bids by passed hands that are forcing.

In this auction, 2♣ was explained as GF. If that's really what it is then passing 3♥ is not safe. Partner might have something like A-AKxxxx-Ax-AKQJ.

GF is shorthand, it likely isn't GF as 2♣-2♦-2N is passable in most systems played these days if 2♦ can be a bust.

The kind of auction I'm talking about was where a passed hand fourth suits (non GF) and then bids a suit which should be F1 but sometimes gets passed

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2020-September-24, 18:34, said:

I hope The Possum stays.

He already started a new topic
But he seems to have given up on this one, so here is the hand of North:
♠AQ4 ♥AKQ83 ♦2 ♣KQJ4.
Not a hand I would choose to open 2♣.

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2020-September-25, 08:30, said:

♠AQ4 ♥AKQ83 ♦2 ♣KQJ4.
Not a hand I would choose to open 2♣.

Your 2♣ opening probably has a different meaning from the OP though. Would you open it 2♣ in Benji, SEF or Forum D? Or 2♥ playing Strong 2s? Notice here also how the methods played their part - if 2♥ was an immediate negative then the pair can play the hand there. If 2NT was the second negative after 2♦, the pair could have played 3♣. Only with the negatives being 2♦+3♣ does the pair end up in 3♥ on a 5-1 fit. There are certainly some system lessons to be learnt here but precisely which ones you take away are a matter of conjecture.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2020-September-25, 08:30, said:

He already started a new topic
But he seems to have given up on this one, so here is the hand of North:
♠AQ4 ♥AKQ83 ♦2 ♣KQJ4.
Not a hand I would choose to open 2♣.

borderline for me, partner isn't going to expect to make game with lots of hands that are nowhere close to a response with flat nothings no better than a couple of jacks.

I probably wouldn't because we play any rebid other than 2N as FG, I think playing something more standard it's really close.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2020-September-25, 08:58, said:

Your 2♣ opening probably has a different meaning from the OP though. Would you open it 2♣ in Benji, SEF or Forum D? Or 2♥ playing Strong 2s? Notice here also how the methods played their part - if 2♥ was an immediate negative then the pair can play the hand there. If 2NT was the second negative after 2♦, the pair could have played 3♣. Only with the negatives being 2♦+3♣ does the pair end up in 3♥ on a 5-1 fit. There are certainly some system lessons to be learnt here but precisely which ones you take away are a matter of conjecture.

We too play any rebid other than 2NT (or Kokish 2NT) as game forcing, so yes the 2♣ meaning is different.

I don't have a strong 2♥ bid, haven't much experience of playing one and I've seen different ways of playing it too. The local old ladies play that a 2NT response is a non-forcing negative and while passing that might not be a disaster (1 down on this layout, like 3♥), I might as well have opened 2NT in the first place (RA and partner permitting). In the 4-card majors I was taught, the 2NT response was effectively forcing and just denied 5-card ♠ or a well honoured minor: now my 3♣ rebid would be forcing too, so we can't stop below 3♥ bid by responder and risk going higher. Happy to have a different system with problems of its own.

[mycroft]

I hate that hand for 2♣. Two-suiters are bad after 2♣, pseudo-three-suiters are worse. Having hearts the main suit makes it worse, for those who use 2♥ as the immediate ultra-negative. Do you bid 3♥ (forcing?) Do you pass 2♥ and hope for xx? Fake a 2NT "opener" and hope partner bids Stayman or transfers to spades?

Actually with one partner, where we play Kokish Relay, it's specifically designed to handle this problem: 2♣-2♦ (semi-auto); 2♥-2♠("forced"); 3♣ shows this hand, but is GF.

[AL78]

TylerE, on 2020-September-24, 20:30, said:

Really? I thought that was considered a bit prehistoric even by most ACOL pairs these days. Am I wrong?

Yes, Benji Acol, is popular at club level in the UK, although the beginners at my club are taught three weak twos.