Is This Forcing

[han]

Do you play the following auction as forcing?

 

1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(p)

2♠-(p)-3♦-(p)

???

 

 

What kind of hand do you expect responder to have?

[Walddk]

You may have the agreement that 3♦ is forcing, but it doesn't promise the world where I come from. What else but 3♦ can responder bid with say

 

♠ J4

♥ KJ32

♦ Q107643

♣ 9

 

Take a diamond away and give him one club more, and he would still bid 3♦. So the answer to your question is:

 

Longer diamonds than hearts (4) and no extras. It seems sensible to play it as forcing nevertheless, because in my book opener promises another bid. 2♠ shows a strong hand.

 

Roland

[Finch]

I agree with Roland that it doesn't show anything more than the doubler showed the first time round. I also think it's forcing in that I do not believe that opener can pass.

 

The way I play (which is not necessarily how everyone else plays) is that on a fair hand with 4 hearts and longer diamonds responder would bid 2D over the 1S overcall (any decent 10+ HCP); so in fact responder is showing a weak hand here.

[whereagles]

Responder should have just about what Roland showed, possibly with a diamond less. Opener's cue was game-forcing, and responder is just showing his hand. Nothing fancy about this :(

[Walddk]

The way I play (which is not necessarily how everyone else plays) is that on a fair hand with 4 hearts and longer diamonds responder would bid 2D over the 1S overcall (any decent 10+ HCP); so in fact responder is showing a weak hand here.

Agree. If you have a natural bid available and are strong enough, bid the suit as a one-round force. I do not play negative free bids.

 

Roland

[hotShot]

3♦ is not forcing, openers 2♠ was probably game forcing or self forcing.

So the auction might not end after this.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Assuming, you are playing change of suit

on the 2 level as forcing, 3D is nonforcing.

 

Sry, what do you think responder holds?

- A long suit (5+)?

In this case he cant have more than 10HCP, else

he could have bid 2D

- A fragment, i.e. at most 3 cards?

This would give him a 4 card club suit, or 5/6 card heart suit,

or a spade 4 card spade suit, in which case responder either

he would have bid 3C or 3H or sold the spade suuit as a stopper.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: You may argue, that 2S was self forcing, but opener knows

better than anybody else on the table, what hand he did have

for 2S, ... which means he can pass, if thinks 3D is best.

[bid_em_up]

I dont believe the 3♦ bid, in and of itself, is 100% forcing. Opener asked for more information with his 2♠ bid, so you give it to him. After all, you were forced to make another call. How can a call that you were forced to make, be considered forcing (on your part)?

 

It is now up to opener to decide if he wishes to take further action, which he semi-promised that he would do when he made the 2♠ bid. I would expect him to always take a subsequent call, but one never knows.

[Echognome]

If it's the hand I am thinking about, the auction went:

 

P - (P) - 1♣ - (1♠)

Dbl - (P) - 2♠ - (P)

3♦ - (P) - ?

 

Which I find slightly different (others may not). I figure that once you have passed, none of your natural bids are forcing. (Obviously you can force with a cuebid.)

 

As an example, suppose you had ♠Txxx ♥AKxx ♦AJxx ♣Q.

 

After 1♣ - (1♠) - Dbl - (P); 2♠ - (P) - ?

 

You are now stuck for a good bid (do you bid 3♠?). Here you might like 3♦ to be forcing.

 

However, since you are a passed hand, I imagine it is slightly different.

[bid_em_up]

If it's the hand I am thinking about, the auction went:

 

P - (P) - 1♣ - (1♠)

Dbl - (P) - 2♠ - (P)

3♦ - (P) - ?

 

Which I find slightly different (others may not).  I figure that once you have passed, none of your natural bids are forcing.  (Obviously you can force with a cuebid.)

 

As an example, suppose you had ♠Txxx ♥AKxx ♦AJxx ♣Q.

 

After 1♣ - (1♠) - Dbl - (P); 2♠ - (P) - ?

 

You are now stuck for a good bid (do you bid 3♠?).  Here you might like 3♦ to be forcing.

 

However, since you are a passed hand, I imagine it is slightly different.

 

I would consider 3♦ to be an extreme underbid on this hand after opener bid 2♠. Partner either has a fit for one of your suits, or long running clubs and is looking for a spade stop. 3♠ seems about right as it should show a really good hand, but no spade stop.

[Finch]

I would also bid 3S on the 4441. It's a huge hand opposite long clubs and short spades (one of opener's possible hands for the cue).

[mikeh]

Since 2♠ was, in my understanding of the normal approach, game-forcing, and since 3♦ is not game, it is forcing.

 

It certainly does not show anything extra, other than long(ish) ♦s, but nor does it deny a good 9 count or so. Indeed, I agree with Frances that it is bounded at the high end by the minimum strength required to bid 2♦ over 1♠, whatever that be in your style.

 

If you hold the 4=4 reds, with extras, no stopper, and no real ♣ support you punt with 3♠... telling partner you have no clear direction, no support for his suit, no ♠ stopper and extra values.

[blackshoe]

If a bid is forcing to game, then any call by the partnership below game is forcing.

 

If a bid is forcing to game or to a penalty double of opponents, then double is the exception to the above.

 

In the case presented, if the cue bid is only forcing, not forcing to game, then the response is not forcing. If 2 ♠ promises another bid, there should be one - which in effect makes 3 ♦ forcing.

[pclayton]

Well, here's the problem. You choose to make a negative double on: Axx, KJxx, QJxxx, x. Pard comes to life with a cue bid. Your call?

 

Perhaps its a matter of semantics, but IMO the cue by opener promises another call. So, 3D IS forcing, but it doesn't promise any strength either.

 

Comments?

[sfbp]

Seems to me we are back to negative free bids.

 

If you play a system where the double is made on any hand you don't want partner to pass the first time, you would like your next bid of a new suit to be about 80% forcing, roughly as forcing as a reverse but not as forcing as a jump shift.

 

However here he bid the opps' suit, and he forced YOU to bid.

 

Give the (undiscussed) normal situation of the double being a somewhat limited hand (WHY, btw? doubles ought to work the same in almost every situation, why do we confuse our learning players and then wonder why they cannot deal with high level auctions properly) then the 3D should be a weak bid since it is

 

a. forced

b. a new suit where 2♦ would have been at least a one round force in most people's argot (ie the positive FreeBidders).

 

It gets a bit difficult finding a forcing bid opposite a forcing bid, unless the 1♠ was a psyche. Sounds like someone else here was at the table, and if so, they're not telling.

 

In this case if you have a nice hand and want to make a forcing bid, cue bid again. The worst that can happen is pard raises you and he ain't going to do that on a 4 carder :(

 

Stephen

[Finch]

Since 2♠ was, in my understanding of the normal approach, game-forcing, and since 3♦ is not game, it is forcing.

Some people would say that 2S is forcing to game-or-4-of-a-minor (possibly even 3C). The idea is that you bid 2S with long clubs and no spade stop, but if partner can't bid NT you can drop it later in 4 clubs.

 

I don't play that way because although you can have hands with a long minor where you have the values for game but no game makes, I'd rather just go one off in 5m very occasionally and make my slam and choice-of-game bidding easier and clearer. It may be theoretically better to define some of these sequences as droppable, but life is too short to cope with the +190s that accrue as a result.

[jdonn]

Some people would say that 2S is forcing to game-or-4-of-a-minor (possibly even 3C). The idea is that you bid 2S with long clubs and no spade stop, but if partner can't bid NT you can drop it later in 4 clubs.

 

I don't play that way because although you can have hands with a long minor where you have the values for game but no game makes, I'd rather just go one off in 5m very occasionally and make my slam and choice-of-game bidding easier and clearer. It may be theoretically better to define some of these sequences as droppable, but life is too short to cope with the +190s that accrue as a result.

I think the point is that the 'values for game' you refer to are higher in a minor than they are in 3NT. Thus the approach I favor where when you try to get partner to bid 3NT and he can't do it, you can pass four of a minor, essentially treating that as game. I do not recall all these 190s you are referring to, I still bid game or slam when it will have a reasonable chance.

[Finch]

In the far-off days when Jeffrey Allerton/Tom Townsend were one of the top junior partnerships, +190 was referred to as 'Thomas's favourite score' with '+170' in a minor his 'second favorite score' due to a tendency to be unsure when these 4m bids were forcing.

[jdonn]

Sounds like a personal problem for them if you ask me. If you are unsure if the 4m bid is forcing then of course you don't pass it. But you are allowed to know what you are doing also and pass if you are sure it's not forcing.

[fred]

I use a cuebid response to a negative double as forcing to game.

 

I thought this was "standard", but apparently it is not ;)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[joshs]

I use a cuebid response to a negative double as forcing to game.

 

I thought this was "standard", but apparently it is not ;)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

The cue bid as a game force is standard. B)

[Echognome]

I don't dispute that. But for whatever reason, supposing you are a passed hand and you bid however you bid (as here when you bid 3♦). If partner chooses not to bid again, wtp? Partner has forced YOU to game. You are the limited hand. I'm not saying this is the best or the most ideal way to play, but I don't find any great issue with it either.

 

If it's the hand I am thinking of, then I knew we had the values for game or thereabouts, but I didn't really like my hand for game (so maybe I shouldn't have bid 2♠ to begin with). I guess I had buyer's remorse. Anyway, since we were playing BAM, I decided to rest in a playable part-score.

 

I'm certainly not claiming that I was correct in my bidding. I do think it's an interesting question. If partner forces YOU to game, then is it ok for PARTNER to stop below game? I imagine the relevant situations are few and far between. The only other example I can think of is if partner makes a GF relay and then decides (due to a misfit, e.g.) that it might be better to play in part-score. Note that I expect these to be rare enough that they are not part of the agreements and often partner will not have the opportunity to sign off. I also expect these to happen in a straight captain-crew situation, not one where we are both deciding on the level.

[jdonn]

I don't dispute that.  But for whatever reason, supposing you are a passed hand and you bid however you bid (as here when you bid 3♦).  If partner chooses not to bid again, wtp?  Partner has forced YOU to game.  You are the limited hand.  I'm not saying this is the best or the most ideal way to play, but I don't find any great issue with it either.

 

If it's the hand I am thinking of, then I knew we had the values for game or thereabouts, but I didn't really like my hand for game (so maybe I shouldn't have bid 2♠ to begin with).  I guess I had buyer's remorse.  Anyway, since we were playing BAM, I decided to rest in a playable part-score. 

 

I'm certainly not claiming that I was correct in my bidding.  I do think it's an interesting question.  If partner forces YOU to game, then is it ok for PARTNER to stop below game?  I imagine the relevant situations are few and far between.  The only other example I can think of is if partner makes a GF relay and then decides (due to a misfit, e.g.) that it might be better to play in part-score.  Note that I expect these to be rare enough that they are not part of the agreements and often partner will not have the opportunity to sign off. I also expect these to happen in a straight captain-crew situation, not one where we are both deciding on the level.

You might have bid 3♦ with more than a minimum, safely, because you 'know' partner won't pass since he just forced to game. That is the problem.

 

If you can think of some auction where one player forces to game and his partner makes a bid that MUST show a minimum, then you might have my attention with your theory that the game forcer should be able to change his mind.

 

This sort of thing happens more often in relay systems. JoshS and I were recently trading stories. I had opened something like QJ AQ x AQxxxxxx with a strong club, relayed, and found partner 2470. I relayed with 4♣ and he bid 4♦ showing two controls. I passed him there and unsurprisingly we were too high already, but it was only going to get worse if I bid any game. I think that was ok because partner had limited his hand (in terms of controls anyway).

 

He gave me an example that was even more spectacular. It went a strong 1♣, 1♥ response showing spades, 1NT rebid showing a minimum strong club, three suited with short spades. He passed that as responder since he had stretched to bid 1♥ to begin with based on good spades and nothing outside. I don't know the exact hand, but again that seems ok to me. I suppose my conditions would be:

 

1) You are a bare minimum, or even more likely slightly subminimum having stretched already

2) You are the 'captain' of the auction

3) The auction has revealed a bad misfit

and the case that can't exist in the hand that started this thread...

4) Partner has limited himself to the point where you either lack or just barely reach the values for game.

[fred]

It shouldn't matter if partner is a passed hand or not.

 

Presumably partner can make a negative DBL of 1S on as little as 7 HCP (or even less if he has good shape).

 

Opener might have a marginal game force opposite a minimum negative DBL, but he has no way of knowing that responder actually is minimum. For most partnerships a passed hand could still have 10 or a bad 11 HCP. There is enough difference between a minimum and a maximum negative DBL by a passed hand that even if opener's GF is marginal opposite a minimum, a maximum will be enough to ensure that the values for game are present.

 

And I think it is wrong to worry to try to cater to the combination of marginal game force opposite minimum negative DBL. This exact combination is rare and worrying about it (perhaps by forcing the negative DBLer to jump or cuebid if he is not minimum) will ruin your auctions when this combination does not exist.

 

For sure sometimes you will get too high when both opener and responder are minimum. That's life. As someone wisely said in a recent thread, if you don't go down in game sometimes you are not bidding enough.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

Perhaps its a matter of semantics, but IMO the cue by opener promises another call. So, 3D IS forcing, but it doesn't promise any strength either.

 

Comments?

I think you hit the main point here.

 

1NT - 2♦

2♥

 

Here 2♦ is a forcing bid, opener is forced to bid. I think we agree that 2♥ is not forcing here.

 

1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(p)

2♠-(p)-3♦-(p)

???

 

Here 3♦ does not cause a forcing, but it is part of a forcing sequence caused by 2♠. If 2♠ is only forcing one round opener can pass. If opener forced to game than he is forced to bid and he created this forcing with his 2♠ bid.