Is This Forcing

[Kalvan14]

IMHO, advancer should always double 1♠ with 4 cards in hearts, and strive to bid 2♥ with 5 cards and any reasonable hand, say 9-10 HCP [the more so if he's a passed hand]. Priority is given to identifying a possible fit in the other major, and even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF.

The risk of bidding 2♦ with 5D + 4H is that LHO might jump to 3♠. Now you are in a bit of a quandary. How do you explore for the 4-4 hearts fit? This approach has also the advantage of making clear that 1m-(1♠)-2om denies 4 cards in hearts.

 

Going back to the posted auction: 2♠ is forcing to game (or at least to 4m: but I quite dislike sequences which give away a clear GF to keep the possibility of stopping on a dime in 4m). Therefore 3♦ is part of a forcing auction, and the bidding cannot stop there

[mikeh]

even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF.

One of the fascinating and occasionally frustrating aspects of reading BBF is the realization that almost no generality can go unchallenged (I couldn't write that without the 'almost' without being internally inconsistent).

 

A number of players in this part of the world do indeed play that 2/1 is on in competition. I have played that method myself for years, in certain partnerships. Do I think it best? No. But some fundamentalist 2/1 players swear by it :P

[Echognome]

Having thought about this hand some more, I have come to two conclusions.

 

1) I would have been much happier starting with 3♥ and leaving it up to partner.

 

2) I wouldn't have had a good bid if I had changed one card in my hand. Give me:

 

xxx AQx AQxx AQx

 

Now I open a system 1♣ and it goes (1♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

 

What am I to bid now?

 

So supposing I bid 2♠ as I had and partner bids 3♦? Do I now bid 3♠? Is partner going to show me a full stopper or a half stopper if I do? Do I bid 4♦? That is going to make sure I get to 5m when that's not necessarily correct. Do I start with something other than 2♠? I.e., everything is flawed.

[Kalvan14]

even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF.

One of the fascinating and occasionally frustrating aspects of reading BBF is the realization that almost no generality can go unchallenged (I couldn't write that without the 'almost' without being internally inconsistent).

 

A number of players in this part of the world do indeed play that 2/1 is on in competition. I have played that method myself for years, in certain partnerships. Do I think it best? No. But some fundamentalist 2/1 players swear by it :P

I stand corrected. It's true that even the most obvious truths (or what we consider the most obvious truths) may not be such for someone else.

 

Believe it or not, couple of days ago I was berated by partner for not doubling

1♥ by RHO with 15 HCP in a 6-3-3-1. The nitwit passed with 2 aces and a couple Js and i scored 1♠+5 :P [defense was not best, and all finesses worked ;) ]. It was utterly impossible to convince him (not that i tried too hard)

[Finch]

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.

The problem with this is when partner has extra values that he hasn't shown because he knows you are in a game force. Even when he's already shown a minimum, he can sometimes have extra values 'in context'.

 

I've done this twice that I can think of, and have regretted it both times.

The first we played 2NT+5. Not a success on a combined 34-count (partner had lied about his 'minimum' and was planning to mastermind the auction because he had a very strange hand with enormous extra values... he know I couldn't pass out 2NT so it couldn't hurt). This got me a well-deserved telling-off.

 

The other time I had a two suiter which I decided to drive to game opposite an opening 1S bid to get both suits bid; when I found out there was a mis-fitting minimum opposite I broke discipline and passed out 3S. Partner sympathised with my actions, game wasn't great, but he then played the hand brilliantly and made 10 tricks with the aid of some good card reading and a trump squeeze.

[helene_t]

Opener could have:

- a one-suiter too strong for 3♣. Since 3♣ already shows extra's, this hand wants to fore to game.

- an 18-19 balanced without a stopper. Again, he wants to force to game.

- a ♣♥ two-suiter too strong for 3♥. Opposite a passed hand he might as well have bid 4♥ but anyway, he wants to force to game.

- a ♣♦ two-suiter. It's a matter of agreement if a 2♦ rebid by opener would have been forcing - if it would not promise extras, a 2♠ rebid that is not forcing to game might be less awkward than 3♦ when he does have extras.

- maybe a 16-17 balanced hand without a stop (playing a weak NT)

 

So ultimately I think it depends mainly on your agreements about 4♦4♣ and 4♦5♣, and maybe on your notrump range. Playing American (?) style, i.e. ♦♣ hands with less than reverse strength usually open 1♦ , the answer to the original question is clearly "Yes". Otherwise it may have technical merrits to play it non-forcing but to me it makes life to complicated. Certainly assume forcing with a pick-up p.

[cf_John0]

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?

Both minors of 4♦/4+♣,and with negative dbl HCPs.

[jchiu]

If partner did have both minors, then he has at most a singleton spade. Since it is rather obvious to show ♣ support with 0=4=5=4 distribution, a weak hand, and some concentration in diamonds, a 3♦ bid that shows both minors is quite unnecessary. The original responders (Roland and Frances) hit this nail on the head.