[mikl_plkcc]

Following up a previous thread about a 2♣ opening went wrong, I would like to know the answer of the question:

With an unbalanced (but not too extreme that I can count playing tricks instead of points) distribution, what is the upper limit for a 1-level suit opening?

When I learnt to play bridge, 12-19 HCP is the range of a 1-opening, where 20+ is 2♣ (except 20-21 balanced, which opens 2NT). This fits well with the rule that "responder needs 6 to bid", as 19+6 = 25 HCP for a game, and beyond 20 there is a risk of partner passing a 1-bid with game hands.

In the hand from the linked post, it has 20 HCPs, but I upgraded it to 21 because it contains 3 As, 2 Ts and only 1 Q and no J, with consecutive honours concentrated in the long suits), and my evaluation including distribution is 22 TP, but I was told that this hand "isn't even enough for a 2♣ opening", that if it is passed out, "we won't have a game".

I am now getting extremely confused, because the upper limit of a 1-bid depends on how many points you must respond 1/1.

I need to understand the following:

1. In beginner bridge books, I am always told to pass a 1-opening if I don't have 6 points to respond, even if I have a void or singleton in the opened suit. The reason is that, without strength, it is too risky to bid higher to find a fit, and playing a 1-level contract in a 5-1 fit isn't the end of the world.

However, experts now disagree with the above sentence and will stretch to find a bid with a weak hand and a misfit, especially after a 1-minor opening. They routinely bid another suit in order to take out the opened 1-minor, as an attempt to find a better contract, with just 2-4 points, a 4 or 5-card major, and a shortness in the opened minor.

So, what is the correct thing to do, playing a normal 5-card major and strong NT system, if my partner opens 1 of a suit and I am short in it, but I don't have 6 points? Does the answer varies depending if a minor or major is opened?

2. If the responder routinely bids with less than 6 points if there is no fit, it now means that opening a 1-bid with more points (especially a 1-minor) is now safer. For example, if responder has a habit of responding with just 3 points with a misfit after a 1-minor opening, opening a 1-minor with 23 points is now "safe", because with no fit, partner will stretch to bid so we won't miss a 26-point NT game; with a fit, a minor suit game requires 29 points so we won't miss it anyway. However, does the same apply to both minor and major suits? If I open a 1-major with 23 points, will I miss a lot of games when my partner passes?

3. If the responder routinely bids with less than 6 points if there is no fit, won't it complicate opener's rebid? For example, the sequence 1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT is no longer safe for 18-19 HCPs if partner can respond 1♠ with a singleton ♣, ♠QJxxx and no other values. Even bids traditionally recognised as forcing, such as an opener's reverse (17+, F1), or jump shifts (19+, GF), can get the auction too high if the responder can't be assumed to have 6 points, so opener will tend to make minimum or non-forcing rebids with a wider range, making constructive bidding more difficult.

[DavidKok]

Very good observations. I'll give the brief answers first, and then the long answer.

• You stretch to bid. By how much depends on a lot of factors: the opening bid (1♣, 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ are all different), your length in partners' suit, your length and strength in your own suits, your length in unbid suits(!), the seating and vulnerability, and I'm sure there are more factors I've missed. But in general, all of that matters. I would pass a 1♠ opening more readily than a 1♣ opening, for example.
  
• The same principle applies, but to different degrees. This is in line with the answer above, but there are two more factors to consider.
  • If you open 2♣ with a long major suit you will be able to show it at the 2-level, rather than the 3-level for a minor suit. The requirements for opening 2♣ are therefore higher with minor suit hands than major suit hands.
    
  • Game in a minor suit requires more combined strength than in a major suit. So if you open a very strong (say, 23 HCP) 1♣ and partner passes their 4-count you may well not have missed game.
  Personally as a rule of thumb I recommend the following guideline for opening 2♣: when balanced, 22+ HCP. With a long major, 22+ HCP or a nice 21. With diamonds, 23+ HCP. With clubs, 24+ HCP. Most people will open 2♣ more readily than that though.
  
• It most definitely complicates followup bidding, especially if partner might sometimes pass a forcing second round bid with a 5- or 4-count. On the other hand, opening 2♣ with these 20-21 counts is no beauty either. Pick your poison. However, the hands are rare. It's better to have your system of rebids cater to the (10)11-19 range well and embrace the occasional problem on 20-21 than to overhaul your structure for this.

Now for the long answer, you've made a very common error by implicit assumption. You directly tie the ranges of the opening bids (in particular, of 2♣) to the minimum strength required to respond to a 1-level opening, to a HCP requirement for bidding game. This is a good way to introduce the strong 2♣ to novices, but it is not (fully) accurate. Both 2♣ and 1-suit openings have advantages and disadvantages. You should make the opening that is most likely to give you a good score (technically: the highest average score, as decided by the form of scoring). On any individual hand there will be winning and losing cases for either choice, depending on the other three hands. I claim that, on borderline hands, 1-suit is often preferable to 2♣. The 2♣ auctions are just awful, self-preempting and making it difficult to show shape and find strain. Conversely, heavy 1-suit openings often score well. Partner may have a full response (yay), or stretch to bid (yay), or an opponent may interfere (at least we get to bid again), or even if it is passed out we might not make game (21-opposite-4 plays notoriously poorly). It takes a rare simultaneous occurrence of coincidences for the 1-suit opening bid to lose, especially with modern aggressive bidding. And if even that little risk is unacceptable to you, you can cater your system to it to reduce this even further. When deciding to open 1-suit vs 2♣ there are many factors that weigh on the scales more heavily than the classical "can I imagine a 5 HCP hand opposite that might make game", especially if we have an unbalanced hand. This decouples several of the questions you asked, and can help you decide on your openings and responses more than the answers I gave above.

[hrothgar]

So, here's the good news: You understand that this question can not be answered in isolation and that there is a relationship between different parts of a bidding system.

Here's the bad news, you're still acting as if there is some simple answer and, worse yet, that this answer can be described using HCPs.

1. After more than a century of folks playing this game, there is still no real agreement regarding how best to measure hand strength
2. There certainly isn't any agreement about the minimum strength for a 2♣ opening
3. There are plenty of people who like to try to reduce the game to simple rules. Steer very clear of them. (I consider any rule that says that any 20+ HCP hand should be opened 2!C or 2NT particularly bad)

I strongly recommend that you start by sitting down and looking at a whole bunch of bridge hands and try to get a good feel for hand evaluation.

I don't know if you are comfortable programming / scripting. If so, spin up a hand generator, link it to a double dummy solver, and then start generation a whole bunch of hands that are able to make game.

If you like HCPs, plot the number of HCPs in North versus the Number of HCPs in South and then start looking at the outliers. (Stuff that is making game with far too few HCPs)

Then do the converse. Look at hands that fail to make game, looking for the hands that failed to make game with far few HCPs.

You'll quickly discover the DD is flawed. Weird stuff will sneak through. That's OK. These hands are interesting in their own right.

But, the important thing is to figure out what's what.

Then repeat the same for Modern Losing Trick Count or Banzai points or a any one of a number of other metrics.

This will all require thought and judgement, but at the end of the day it will serve you better than some flawed "rule"

[shyams]

In addition to excellent points made in the above two posts (which I would recommend you study well because both are true theoreticians, I'm not), I would like you to consider the following:

In my opinion, bidding is not a Stimulus-Response (or a "Chinese Room") situation. There are no automatic bids based on a set of rules that cover all situations. If you keep this in mind, then the rules on HCPs etc become more of a "guide" than a rule.

For example, you wrote

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-16, 09:01, said:

1. In beginner bridge books, I am always told to pass a 1-opening if I don't have 6 points to respond, even if I have a void or singleton in the opened suit. The reason is that, without strength, it is too risky to bid higher to find a fit, and playing a 1-level contract in a 5-1 fit isn't the end of the world.

However, experts now disagree with the above sentence and will stretch to find a bid with a weak hand and a misfit, especially after a 1-minor opening. They routinely bid another suit in order to take out the opened 1-minor, as an attempt to find a better contract, with just 2-4 points, a 4 or 5-card major, and a shortness in the opened minor.

So, what is the correct thing to do, playing a normal 5-card major and strong NT system, if my partner opens 1 of a suit and I am short in it, but I don't have 6 points? Does the answer varies depending if a minor or major is opened?

1. Say partner opens 1♣, and you hold ♠A8432 ♥973 ♦32 ♣973.
*** Do you pass? Do you bid? Are you confused?.
*** Despite my preference to respond with 6+ HCPs, it would never occur to me to pass 1♣. Sure, occasionally partner will overestimate my HCPs and we will land up in a bad contract. So what?

Now say partner opens 1♠ and you hold ♠73 ♥A8432 ♦973 ♣973.
1. Do you pass? Do you bid or raise?
*** I would be comfortable passing 1♠.
*** The bidding need not end there (LHO may reopen) and, if it does, I'm okay if we occasionally miss a cold game because partner had a strong HCP hand that meshed perfectly with mine.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

with regards to, how light could a response be: I think Sabine Auken said ... "I never pass an opening bid, holding an Ace.".
You try to respond, you still promise 6HCP+, if the hand holds an Ace, well ... Aces are undervalued.
BUT you also dont respond out of fear.
If your partner opens a minor, and you have nothing and a minor shortage, you pass ... , you dont try to improve the contract.
If you have 4+ in the opened minor, a 4 card major and a shortage, you can bid, you have a fit, you are looking for a better fit,
but the shortage and the known fit are worth the promised 6HCP.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: System helps, ..., if you play weak NT, as far as I know you are living in the London area, so this may be the case, if not
ignore the follwing,
you can consider switching to a wide range NT rebid, i.e. the NT rebid would show 15-18/19, this requires some additional
follow ups (Crowhurst, ...).
The advantage is, that a weak response to a minor suit opening does not need to fear a 2NT jump rebid on 17/18.
Now the wide range NT rebid is not N/B stuff, but it is also not too complicated, and it will come up regular, i.e. you will have
ample opportunity to train it, which cannot be said about some other stuff that gets suggested on the forum from time to time.

[manudude03]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-16, 09:01, said:

With an unbalanced (but not too extreme that I can count playing tricks instead of points) distribution, what is the upper limit for a 1-level suit opening?

Other posters have made excellent points already. Last year at a teams event, I picked up AJxx AKx AKQxxx void, a very nice 21-count, both tables opened that hand 1D. The opponents were all full internationals. I would say that hand is right on the edge, though I have also opened 1x on 22HCP hands.

The most important thing to remember is that HCP is no more a guide than any other means of hand evaluation. When you are deciding what to open, you need to decide if you would rather be in 1x despite holding a good hand, or be in a hopeless game opposite a very weak hand. The modern trend is to strain to respond anyway and so there is less fear of missing game by opening at the one level.

[mikl_plkcc]

---

This time I opened a 1-bid and the preempt led me to be in a complete blind guess, whereas if I opened 2♣ it would result in a positive response before the preempt, knowing that I should investigate for a slam.

I had no idea what my double meant and I had completely no idea what the pulling of my double meant, and the system description showed 5 ♠ only so I didn't go on as I didn't even know if I had an 8-card fit or not, and I missed the slam completely. I didn't feel safe rebidding a 6-card suit at the 4-level, afraid that my partner would pass even with a void.

The other tables who rebid 4♥ all ended up in 6♥-1, where the 4♥ showed 7.

[hrothgar]

You are aware that here you're holding a single suited hand with a long major and the previous example was a two suited hand with secondary Diamonds and the two hand types are quite different, right?
And maybe, just maybe, the two hands should be bid differently?

And are you 100% sure that the robot wouldn't do something stupid after your 2♣ opening like, say bidding 3♣?

[smerriman]

That would definitely be a 2♣ opener for me.. not even remotely similar to the other hand, other than the fact it involves the same principle of planning your rebid before opening.

[johnu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-16, 17:26, said:

The other tables who rebid 4♥ all ended up in 6♥-1, where the 4♥ showed 7.

6♥ can be easily, or maybe not so easily for some, made. I haven't decided whether is should be made, but I'm leaning in that direction. Depends on the bidding and opening lead.

[awm]

You can't really trust GIB; I think the bidding on your example hand by the robot is pretty poor. It even thinks you showed 20-21 points and it's signing off in game on a 6-5 11-count. The bidding of the robots isn't really a good way to gauge your methods.

As far as the modern style of opening/responding, people have realised that there's a big difference between hands with a primary major and hands where the longest suit is a minor. If you have a five or six card major suit in an unbalanced hand, you can open 2♣ with something like 20 points. On a similar hand where the longest suit is a minor, it's usually better to open one of the minor unless you are unbearably strong (so 2♣ starts more like 23 or 24). The rationale for this is as follows:

1. If you have a primary major, your rebid after 2♣-2♦ is 2M, and you will most often wind up playing some level of opener's major. This gives you enough space to have a reasonable auction. If your suit is a minor, you are looking for a 4-4 major fit at the three level which is awkward at best. It will be much more difficult to figure out the right strain and level.
2. If you have a long major suit you can often make game opposite very little; for example ♠x ♥AKJxxxx ♦AKx ♣Ax is only nineteen points but if partner has three small hearts and nothing else you are odds on for game. A similar hand with a long diamond suit requires at least one working card from partner to have chances (spade ace or diamond queen or club king). This is because 4M is one trick less than 5m (and 3nt requires controls in all the suits that opener may not always have).
3. Passing a 1m opening is often not a great result because it need not be a very long suit; for example if partner opens 1♣ and you have ♠Axxxx ♥xxxx ♦xxx ♣x you should bid; the issue is that partner will often have a balanced hand where he may have only 3 (or two, depending on system) clubs and you could wind up playing a very silly 1♣ partial when you're better off somewhere else. Even game in a major is possible; give partner ♠KQxx ♥Ax ♦KQx ♣Axxx and you have good chances at 4♠ and could wind up playing in 1♣ if you pass.

Putting this together, my advice would be to rarely pass a one-of-a-minor opening, especially if you have a long major suit. Ace-fifth in a major and you should be bidding for sure. With this in mind, it's okay to open one-minor with unbalanced hands in the 21-23 point range, especially if you have two or three-suited pattern where probing for fits in your second or third suit is likely to get awkward after 2♣-2♦-3m. However, 1M openings should have a lower maximum, with hands of 20+ points usually opening 2♣, and it's okay to pass 1M with a non-fitting hand of less than six points.

[mycroft]

My argument - which is a pithier version of most of the above - is: "Do not stretch to upgrade your hand into an amorphous Strong Opening. Do downgrade (a little bit, at least) out of 2♣ (frankly, that's one of the benefits of a strong 1♣, at least you don't preempt yourself!) if the hand requires multiple calls to show, or if you have to start showing your hand at the 3 level."

The number of times you win by setting the Almost Game Force at the opening bid versus the number of times you lose by Not Showing Your Hand below 3NT...say 1 to 3? Sure, this time your partner gets to call before 4♦, and might in fact positive. But what if E-W were switched, and it goes 2♣-4♦ (and you want to bet that at these colours, it won't be 5♦?) Aren't you going to wish you had at least shown your hearts?

[mikeh]

The OP has asked similar questions in several threads and received a range of answers, which imo contain useful advice.

The main problem with trying to get good answers to what are fundamental questions is that bridge is a very complex game: to fully set out how an expert thinks about hand evaluation and how that thinking is transposed into the design of a bidding method and the choices made within that method would require a very thick book….and such a book would inevitably suggest propositions with which other experts would disagree to one degree or another.

Further complicating matters for the OP, and at least a few other readers/posters is that their ‘bridge’ playing is largely or exclusively with robot bridge on BBO.

Robots do not bid as humans do. There is no overlap between how a human expert plays the game and how a robot does. No human expert would ever play a method similar to the method used by the robots. Oh, the concepts of a 2/1 response by an unpassed hand being game force or using weak two bids etc are widespread in real bridge. But robots literally do not think. Their programming smply isn’t subtle enough to permit hand evaluation based on the myriad of factors a human expert uses. And, of course, one can never ask of a robot ‘what were you thinking’ or ‘why did you do that?’.

Humans can and do ask each other such questions. Sometimes the question is really a criticism but ten it’s genuine curiosity p, especially when a player seeks advice from a better player. That’s an excellent way to learn, but it’s utterly lacking in robot bridge and largely lacking in any online form of the game.

So not only is it very hard to learn how to bid and play against robots, but what one does learn will usually be seriously wrong. Robots, for example, routinely lead singleton honours on opening lead. I’m very several times been in a suit contract and had the robot lead a singleton K into my AQxxx.

Anyone who thinks robots know how to play might come away with the idea that this is a good idea. Bidding is even worse. Ve seen a robot pass AKJxxx in first seat. I have no idea how that happened but the programming is obviously really poor.

Ok, enough of the backstory.

Every good player uses criteria to assess when and what to open. Expert partnerships agree on methods and style. Methods are the ‘rules’ for what bids mean in all foreseeable sequences. Style is more individual. Even within well established expert partnerships often one partner will be a bit more aggressive than the other. They learn to accommodate their differences. So style may vary in a partnership but methods won’t.

The questions of when to open at the 1-level or via 2C and when to respond to a one level bid are primarily method questions, but style definitely enters into it.

In one of my partnerships, partner sometimes opens 2C on hands on which I would make a one bid. Our methods are the same, but our choices may vary….not drastically but enough that as responder I’ll be a little more conservative on slam decisions after he opens 2C than he’ll be if I open..our respective’worst’ hand for our auction, having opened 2C will be slightly different.

Also, in that partnership we open virtually all 11 counts…yesterday I passed a 4333 11 count at imps red v white, because I held 4 jacks and the 4321 count overvalues jacks.

Rather than set out rigid rules, I thought it might be more helpful for me to try to summarize the main factors that influence my choices…in particular whether to open and, as f opening, whether to bid at the one level or bid 2C.

This is actually easier than stating all the factors that play into decision making later in the auction because we’re considering an opening bid…which means we were dealer or that everyone else has passed. We do not yet have to take into account bids by other players, although passes made before our turn do convey some information.

I’m not trying to rank the factors in any sort of order. Not only do I not think that way but, if I did, I’d be juggling the order based on the hand in ways I’m not sure I could state accurately…much of the mental processing is unconscious.

1. Hcp. Hcp are invaluable as a starting point for valuation. I stress: as a starting point. When considering a notrump bid, whether opening 1 or 2N or 2C then notrump, hcp are by far the most important issue, provided that one has notrump shape.

2. Location of the honour cards. High cards take tricks (or force out opponent high cards) but they derive much of their value by serving to promote low cards in long suits into tricks. Thus, as declarer, you want high cards in long suits rather than short ones where, unless partner has length, you won’t be promoting spot cards into tricks. As defender, you usually want high cards into shorter suits if there are trumps involved since opponents have a nasty habit of being short in your long suits and may therefore ruff your high card(s).

3. Suit texture. A10987 is stronger than A5432. Point counters ignore this. Experts don’t. To see why, picture partner with Jxx. The first example gives you a much better than 50% chance of scoring 4 tricks. The second example gives you zero chance of 4 tricks.

4. Vulnerability. This is more about whether to preempt and, if so, how high than it is about opening at the one level or 2C.

5. Form of scoring. Imps or mps or (rarely played these days) rubber or BAM. Again, this is more important for preemptive decisions or choices in subsequent rounds than for the initial opening choice

6. Rebid issues. Sometimes I decide not to open a borderline hand because I anticipate good chance of an ugly auction. Say I hold x Kxx QJxx AJxxx

7. Shape. I don’t assign points to distributional factors. I did a long time ago but I stopped years ago….but I’m sure that my unconscious processing does something similar, just without using numbers. I love long suits. So I upgrade hands with good long suits. I don’t upgrade for shortness until and unless I find that our side has a good trump fit, such that I can control my short suits by ruffing without getting tapped. Btw, one need to be constantly reassessing one’s valuation during the auction. All three other players are telling us things…sometimes positively by bidding, sometimes negatively by passing. While I don’t use numbers, apart from my original counting of hcp, I do think it useful for non experts to add points for long suits, of the suit is reasonably strong.



Going back to my x Kxx QJxx AJxxx, in both of my partnerships I’d open if the minors were reversed, since I could bid clubs after opening 1D. But if I open 1C and partner bids 1S, what do I bid? We can’t solve this by opening 1D on the weak 4 card suit, planning to rebid clubs. That’s a great way to end up in a 4=2 or 4=3 diamond fit when partner has a weak hand…he bids 1S and ‘corrects’ 2C to 2D.

As for 2C, I used to be a very conservative 2C bidder. These days I’m more aggressive.

With balanced hands, use hcp as your primary guide. We use 20-21 for our 2N opening bid, so we need 22 to open 2C. Bear in mind that many expert partnerships upgrade into and out of notrump ranges. Give me something like KQx AQx AQ1098 Ax and I’d open 2C….this hand is better than most balanced 22 counts. Make it KQx AQx AQ543 Ax and it’s 2N for me.

For distrbutional hands I largely agree with DavidKok….definitely in terms of 2C openings based on minor suit hands.

I do differ slightly. My requirements for 2C on a diamond based hand are extremely high….for club based hands, not quite as high. Why?

Imagine 2C 2D 3D (in all these examples assume no opposition bidding). Responder is stuck if he lacks a 5+ major….he either bids 3N, which will often wrong side notrump or have to go by 3N.

Now look at 2C 2D 3C. Responder can (and this is extremely common amongst good players) use 3D as a ‘punt’…..it doesn’t show diamonds, it merely denies a 5+ major or a holding where it’s desirable to play notrump from the weaker hand.

Where I differ most from David is his advice, as I read it, to require 21 or 22 hcp when holding a long major. Now, there’s always a borderline area. In ne of my partnerships, partner might open 2C where I’d open 1S. I’d guess we would both open 2C or 1S on 95% or more of strong opening hands with 5+ spades….this is style rather than method.

AKQ10xx Ax AQ10x x. I’d open 2C. Yes, this could work out poorly but I have game opposite xx xxxx Kxxx xxx and partner isn’t bidding over 1S and the opps might not be kind enough to bid…plus if they did, we still might not reach game.

Ok, now for responding. Again, I largely agree with most of the comments. The current ‘new’ ACBL CC contains a space to describe the minimum hcp expectations for responding to a one level opening. In my partnerships, we say ‘3’. We also describe our style as involving frequent upgrades.

Methods count. We open 1C on 2+ clubs, so passing 1C with short clubs is very dangerous, especially vulnerable. Give me Jxxxx xxx xxxx x and I’d never pass 1C.

As an aside, our method of transfer responses to 1C makes this far safer than for ‘standard’ bidders, because after 1C 1H, showing spades, opener can show a balanced 17-19 via 1N, allowing us to play in 2S via a transfer over 1N….standard players are at the 3 level or worse.

That’s an example of method affecting style. Since our method is designed to facilitate light responses to 1C and since we open 1C frequently, we can adopt a very light responding style.

I recognize the argument that a light responding style makes it easier to open very strong hands at the one level, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that.

Most experts respond more aggressively to 1m than to 1M. This is for several reasons.

One is the desire to avoid being passed out in the opponents’s longest and strongest suit. That’s improbable when opener bids a 5+ major, but not unusual when 1C could be on xx.

Another is that any response to 1S forces to the 2 level for many players…those who use 1N as forcing.

A third is that 1M, especially 1S, has some preemptive value…it’s more difficult for the opps to bid accurately over 1S than over, say, 1C. Passing 1m surrenders the one level to the opps. Responding light may preempt 4th seat and may fool both opps into thinking that you have a better hand than you have….as indeed you usually would.

Thus imo the trend towards light responses does mean that one can open very strong minor one suiters at the one level without much risk (there being limits, of course…don’t often open 1D with 9 tricks in hand). But since the trend doesn’t apply as much to 1M openings, and since 4M requires a trick less than 5m, I’d open many strong major one suiters 2C when, were the long suit a minor id open 1m

Regular readers will know that I could go on..and on….n this but I’ll stop now, hoping this is of some benefit.

I’m not addressing strength for slam bidding, other than to say that, apart from some balanced hands, experts don’t think in terms of ‘points’, whether hcp or distributional. They think in terms of how many tricks they can take and whether they hold adequate controls…which can include shortness in suit slams. So the notion of 32 or 33 or 34 points for a small slam may be relevant in some notrump auctions, it’s really irrelevant in many suit slams

I’m far from alone in saying that I’ve seen slams bid and made on as few as 15 hcp…now my experience on those is that they were bid as a sacrifice but happened to make! But bidding slams on say 23-26 hcp is far from rare in expert bridge. Because expert bidding is focused on trick winning, not point counting.

[thepossum]

Can I ask, as someone who likes to game force with, say 8 and half tricks in a major etc. With a decent human and not a robot who know I am just forcing to game and not slam, whether you need 22 hcps

In the old days I had strong 2s to force with

The hope to get at least to 3M

[akwoo]

thepossum, on 2025-April-21, 16:37, said:

Can I ask, as someone who likes to game force with, say 8 and half tricks in a major etc. With a decent human and not a robot who know I am just forcing to game and not slam, whether you need 22 hcps

This depends on what agreements your partnership has. There is no standard.

My preference is to play that the cheapest 3 level rebid by responder (after a 2D response and opener's suit rebid) is artificial and shows a very weak hand, after which opener's rebid of their suit is nonforcing. This allows you to stop in 3M. This is a common agreement, but I wouldn't expect this with a partner with whom I've had no discussion.