Is 3D forcing?

[flytoox]

Pd and I have different opinion on this sequence:

1D (2H) 2S P

2N P 3D(??) P

 

Is 3D forcing or just to play? Suppose you play standard bidding, i.e., 2S is 10+, forcing but doesnot promise rebid. 2H by opponent is weak.

 

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Hongjun

[pbleighton]

Not forcing.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Lawrence says clearly nonforcing, only a preference.

I assume you are not playing weak no trumps opening bids.

[HeartA]

Non-forcing.

[awm]

Not forcing. No one has shown extra values. Usually a preference to partner's first bid suit in a non-game forcing auction is not forcing.

[the hog]

As 2S is not forcing, 3D is simply a preference and is nf.

[mike777]

I do think 2s is forcing in most standard systems...opener cannot pass.

As I mentioned ala Lawrence 2s does not promise a rebid unless partner makes a forcing bid.

[SoTired]

After 1D (2H) 2S (p) 2N (p), IMHO,

- pass, 3D, 3S are non-forcing

- 3N, 4S are game sign-offs

- 3C, 3H, 4D are forcing

[mikeh]

I would play it as forcing, but in standard, the preferred method is non-forcing.

 

I play it as forcing because I am more interested in the right game or slam than I am in stopping in 3♦, but I probably have higher standards for 2♠ than most do...for the same reason. Playing in a pickup partnership, I'd take it as non-forcing.

[kgr]

but I probably have higher standards for 2♠ than most do

AQJxx Qxx Jx xxx

AQxxx Jx Qxx Jxx

AQJxx Jx Qxx xxx

AQJxx xx QJx xxx

 

I bid 2S with 10+ and 5+card S. So the aboce hands are minimum for me. Do you bid a forcing 2S with any of these and if not what is you bid after 1D-(2H).

I have sorted them from bad to 'good'. Do you agree?

[pclayton]

I probably have lower standards for 2♠ than most; AQxxxx, x, Qxx, xxx for example.

 

So 3♦ would certainly be NF for me.

[cherdano]

I would play it as forcing, but in standard, the preferred method is non-forcing.

 

I play it as forcing because I am more interested in the right game or slam than I am in stopping in 3♦, but I probably have higher standards for 2♠ than most do...for the same reason. Playing in a pickup partnership, I'd take it as non-forcing.

Mike, didn't you post earlier that you play 2N as "forcing, but could still be minimum" here? So which sequences allow you to stay below game?

 

Sorry if I misremember.

 

Btw, in BWS 2S forces to 3D, so 2N would be forcing and 3D non-forcing. This sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

Arend

[mikeh]

I would play it as forcing, but in standard, the preferred method is non-forcing.

 

I play it as forcing because I am more interested in the right game or slam than I am in stopping in 3♦, but I probably have higher standards for 2♠ than most do...for the same reason. Playing in a pickup partnership, I'd take it as non-forcing.

Mike, didn't you post earlier that you play 2N as "forcing, but could still be minimum" here? So which sequences allow you to stay below game?

 

Sorry if I misremember.

 

Btw, in BWS 2S forces to 3D, so 2N would be forcing and 3D non-forcing. This sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

Arend

In one partnership we play that 2♠ is game force, and I know all of the objections to that approach... I was editing notes for that partnership when I posted..... (not on that part of the method, but I guess I was locked in mentally)which is odd since I am trying to convince partner to change the method here. In my other current partnership, 3♦ would be non-forcing, as would be 3♠, but all other calls would be forcing... and 2N would not be passable.

 

Ironically, given my post, in the 'non-forcing' partnership we had an analogous sequence this past weekend and I had no trouble passing the 3-level preference.

[catatonic]

imho your ideas are not integrated correctly

to begin with , presuming you play neg x's to a minimum of 2♠ , it is better to play 2♠ as non forcing so that a hand with few points but long spades can compete ; do you not want to be able to bid 2♠ on KQJxxx?

if you have 5 spades and 10+ you double first showing 4♠ , then when you 'rebid' the suit it is forcing for 1 round ; I noticed in the world champs that one or two pairs played this as game forcing

 

after this , the answer to your question becomes apparent

btw , in the world champs I didn't observe a single sequence in which the 2♠ in the sequence you give as forcing

[mikeh]

imho your ideas are not integrated correctly

to begin with , presuming you play neg x's to a minimum of 2♠ , it is better to play 2♠ as non forcing so that a hand with few points but long spades can compete ; do you not want to be able to bid 2♠ on KQJxxx?

if you have 5 spades and 10+ you double first showing 4♠ , then when you 'rebid' the suit it is forcing for 1 round ; I noticed in the world champs that one or two pairs played this as game forcing

 

after this , the answer to your question becomes apparent

btw , in the world champs I didn't observe a single sequence in which the 2♠ in the sequence you give as forcing

I am not defending using 2♠ as GF, but I will certainly defend using 2♠ as a one-round force. As for your experience watching world championship competition, you must have watched only a small number of players.

 

I have not only watched world championships, I have played in 5 of them, including a Bermuda Bowl (and, yes, we did badly B) )... and while I cannot pretend to remember this auction ever arising, I can tell you that very few pairs play negative free bids: which is the method you are describing.

 

And I suspect that even fewer play them over an opposing preempt at imps: there is simply far too much chance of the opps bouncing the auction.

 

NFB are far more suited to mps than to imps, which may be one reason that they appear to be a rare method amongst world class players.

 

Here is not the thread in which to discuss the merits and flaws of NFB: if you play NFB in a strong field, especially at imps, you will learn the flaws the hard way: however, your experience may be that the merits outweigh the flaws. If so: enjoy... the beauty of the game includes the fact that there are usually several plausible approaches to any situation.