cherdano Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)3♦ Is 3♦ forcing? Please vote for you preferred agreement, assuming the partnership is not playing good/bad 2N in this situation. (Feel free to mention what you would assume with an expert pickup partner.) Thanks, Arend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 nonforcing. Simply ask yourself, would 3Dbe nonforcing if 2S was bid instead of 1S? With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 Forcing. 3C after 1D would be nonforcing. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 I like option 3 :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted April 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 nonforcing. Simply ask yourself, would 3Dbe nonforcing if 2S was bid instead of 1S? Are you comparing the given auction with 1♣ (2♠) X (P) 3♦? Here 3♦ is not a free bid, which changes this situation completely (for me at least). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 Forcing, it's a free bid in a new suit (the double did not promise diamonds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 Forcing, it's a free bid in a new suit (the double did not promise diamonds). I think it's forcing because it's a reverse in a new suit. I don't think most people would interpret 1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-3♣ as forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'd vote forcing. Its basically a high reverse. Good bad solves obviously this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I play good/bad 2NT but if I was playing with a partner who does not play that convention I wouldnt be sure!! So option 3 for me. Why am I not sure? Because there is a responsive double available over the 2S raise - 3D obviously denies 3H btw. If you had some diamonds, would you all make a responsive double with a strong hand here or 3D with the strong hand??? That is the question... And of course, whether you play better/convenient minor or short club may also influence what the bids mean... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 nonforcing. Simply ask yourself, would 3Dbe nonforcing if 2S was bid instead of 1S? Are you comparing the given auction with 1♣ (2♠) X (P) 3♦? Here 3♦ is not a free bid, which changes this situation completely (for me at least). Yes I do, and yes it is a free bid, but than the double was made on the one level, i.e. thedouble promises a bit less. But I have read in another thread, that the answer to your question may depend on themeaning of the neg. X, for me it promises all other suits, if you play that it promises onlyhearts, ... fine. With kind regardsMarlowe PS: In real life it does not matter, because 5Dis a long way, and if we have 3NT than partnerwill bid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Forcing, it's a free bid in a new suit (the double did not promise diamonds). I think it's forcing because it's a reverse in a new suit. I don't think most people would interpret 1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-3♣ as forcing. Yes that is what I meant but worded much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Forcing, and likely to be 5-6 in the minors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I play 1C-(1S)-x-(2S)-3D as forcing but I play 1C-(1S)-x-(pass)-2D as non-forcing, Both look like reverses. First one with bad hand you could pass, second on with good hand you could cue-bid 2S at a low level to establish a force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Even playing good bad it is hard to imagine a hand that would like to bid 3♦ non forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmunte1 Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 I think 3!d shows extras, something around 14+-17, 5-4 or 6-4 but it's not forcing. I would have started with a double, then 3♦ with a stronger hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 BTW, how do people play 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-X? I would think this double shows two places to play, probably ♣+♦ since with 4♥ I could bid hearts. So actually bidding 3♦ should be forcing. This is different from 1♣-(1♠)-X-Pass... opener cannot double to show two places to play, and has 2♠ or 3♦ available to create a force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Agree with Adam. 1♣-(1♠)-X-(P)2♦ is a matter of aggreement, but this 3♦ is clearly forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTired Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 1C 1S X p 2D/2H is not forcing. It is not a reverse. Opener is raising responder's suit.1C 1S X 2S 3D/3H is a freebid raising responder's suit. Treat it the same as 1C 1S 2D/2H 2S 3D/3H. It is not a reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 1C 1S X p 2D/2H is not forcing. It is not a reverse. Opener is raising responder's suit.1C 1S X 2S 3D/3H is a freebid raising responder's suit. Treat it the same as 1C 1S 2D/2H 2S 3D/3H. It is not a reverse. This is true for hearts, but not for diamonds. Responder can have any hand with 4 hearts, or any hand with more than four hands and not enough strength for a 2♥ freebid. Some like to be able to bid 2♦ non-forcing to avoid rebidding a mediocre 5-card clubs, or supporting hearts on a 3-card, or rebidding 1NT without a spade guard. Presumably responder is supposed to pass 2♦ with something likeJxxAQxxxJxxxx and to giving a weakness-showing preference for clubs withJxxAQxxxJxxxx and starting with 1NT (or pass) rather than dbl with QxxxxAJxxxQxx hopefully not have xxxxAJxxxKxxx Personally I don't understand this approach. It seems to have very little merit, especially if you always open 1♦ with 4-4 minors and most of the times also with 4-5 minors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 BTW, how do people play 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-X? Support double with extra playing strength (essentially takeout) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe de Balliol Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Seems obvious to me to be forcing...but no doubt I've missed something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.