Dear Ed & Peter,

Normal opening 3 bid (actually this was 3♥ with 10 points and the heart suit was strong). With an opening count and no hearts, but a strong sevencard spade suit the response was 3♠. The opener passed (had 1 spade) because "an opening 3 is a one time bid and it is up to partner to decide the contract". Is this a rule of bridge?

Ruth Short

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Ruth,

No, this is not a rule of bridge in this case. You are right in saying that a hand that is described in one bid should never bid voluntarily again.
Therefore West's 4♠ bid below is wrong, regardless of what his hand looks like:

West has done his bidding in the first round and cannot bid again without being asked to do so by his partner. So 4♠ is out of the question. It is very well possible that East was waiting to double 4♥ for penalties. East takes the decisions here.

But in the situation you mention, the 3♠ bid is gameforcing and therefore obliges the 3♥ opener to bid. The philosophy is as follows:
After a pre-emptive opening on the three level, which shows a good seven card suit, there is no reason for the partner of the opener to bid if he does no want to play game. Chances there is a better partscore than the opened suit are very slim and rare, chances of being able to land there are almost non-existent. He should therefore not squander bidding space in trying to find out.

On the other hand it does make sense to use a bid in a new suit as gameforcing: it shows a strong hand and a five card suit (or longer). Opener should support if he has a (small) fit and if not he rebids his own suit, or bids 3NT if possible and logical.

I'm not sure how they play this in Norway. Different, that's for sure! Let's see what Peter has to say on the subject.

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Ruth,

Ed is partly mistaken (he usually is, no need to emphasize that) and partly misses a point.
He is not mistaken in his 'bridge-reply' to your question, he is quite right there:
- Indeed any voluntary second bid by the pre-emptive opener is out of the question: he only bids again if his partner forces him to do so. Partner does so by any bid in a new suit below game.
- So indeed: any such bid by the partner of the pre-emptive opener is forcing (it cannot be a trial to end up in a better partscore: if a partscore is to be played, the partner of the pre-emptive opener passes the opening, that's all there is to it!).

This is what Ed missed: you haven't given the hand on which the partner bid 3♠. The bid can only have been correct if it was either meant as a slam try or as a try for 3NT! This is why: responder obviously did not want to play 3♥ or 4♥. So if he wanted to play 4♠ he should have bid it at once! If he was too weak for that, he should have passed.

Where Ed was mistaken? Of course in his assumption the above is not being played in Norway. Norwegians are very logical people, the above is therefore probably invented over here: of course Norwegians play it!
Quite remarkable by the way Ed has heard about it...

En hils fra Orkanger