Forcing or Not?

[Guest Jlall]

(2H) 3D (p) 3S (p) 4C (p) 4D.

[jtfanclub]

(2H) 3D (p) 3S (p) 4C (p) 4D.

I would think not forcing...just trying to improve the part score.

 

I wonder if my answer would change if it had been:

 

(2D) 2H (p) 2S (p) 3C (p) 3H

[skjaeran]

I'd say forcing. I wouldn't make a forcing 3♠ bid and be able to stop in 4♦. I treat 3♠ as GF here.

 

It'd be more interesting playing Rubens advances, where I'd bid 3♥ transfer to 3♠ and be able to make a bid on a weaker hand than I'd need for bidding a natural forcing 3♠.

[han]

Forcing. I think this is both more practical (it will more often be needed) and easier to agree (playing 3S as 100% GF). The second reason is more important to me than the first, of which I am not absolutely certain.

[pclayton]

I would like it to be whatever I'm holding at the time. Do I have:

 

AQJxxx, xxx, Kx, xx? Then NF of course.

 

AKJxxx, x, KQx, Axx? 100% Forcing.

 

Since I like pard to be able to overcall on distributional hands like: x, xx, AQJxx, KQxxx, I think I'd like the idea to test the waters with 3♠ and retreat to 4♦ if necessary, so I prefer NF.

 

Besides, with the 2nd I can "agree" clubs via 4♥ and 4N and correct clubs to diamonds.

 

What kind of hand do others have in mind that caters to a forcing 4♦ call?

 

I'm willing to listen.

[Echognome]

Forcing for me based on the rule that we do not try to improve the part-score in a competitive auction. If you are stuck with a string of spades, then by introducing them you are going to have to play at the game level here, so you can deal with that. If that doesn't sit well, then you have to pass and bid 3♠ next time if you get the chance.

 

If you have spades and diamonds, then you might as well sit for the diamonds. If you have enough for game, then you bid as you do here. I'm not going to worry about the delicate invitational hand. You just have to make a decision on those.

[the hog]

Forcing. Playing this as nf is like trying to stop on a sixpence.

[ArtK78]

Not forcing. Both players are under pressure after the preemptive opening. Advancer introduced his spades, hoping for a game in spades or notrump. Overcaller could not bid 3NT or 4♠. If Advancer wants to force over 4♣, he can bid 4♥ or a game. He did neither. 4♦ says I was hoping for a notrump or spade game, but if you can't bid over 4♦, then we are high enough.

 

Improving the part score is not the issue. The 3♠ bid was forcing. But not game forcing.

[mike777]

(2H) 3D (p) 3S (p) 4C (p) 4D.

I would guess nonforcing.

I guess that means you need to start with a cue to game force or simply rkc over 3D.

[jtfanclub]

Improving the part score is not the issue. The 3♠ bid was forcing. But not game forcing.

Yes, sorry, quite right.

[jdonn]

I think definitely nonforcing. I don't consider this a case of trying to stop on a dime since we may very well already be too high, and 4♦-1 is a lot harder for them to double than 5♦-2. Wouldn't forcing mean that if partner is 6322 he just can't bid without like an opening hand?

[SoTired]

Forcing. How can it be anything but? Do the math.

 

3D was a good overcall and 3S was forcing. So how can 4D not be forcing? What is a good hand with 5♠ supposed to do? Give up on the spade suit and just bid 4D? Advancer makes a game force new suit and when overcaller refuses the spades, advancer goes back to supporting diam. How else is advancer supposed to make a slam try in diam?

[Guest Jlall]

I played this with an excellent player and I bid 4D and he passed. Given the discrepancy on this forum too, I should not have risked 4D forcing obviously, but definitely agree with the people's arguments that it should be forcing. Stopping in 4D is a tough way to make a living, and you lose a lot in slam bidding.

 

Actual hands:

 

--- xxx AKTxx AQJxx

 

AQT9x Axx Jx KTx.

[P_Marlowe]

(2H) 3D (p) 3S (p) 4C (p) 4D.

Forcing.

 

Rearranged for my convinience.

 

(2H) - 3D - (p) - 3S

(p) - 4C - (p) - 4D

...

 

Since 3S is non forcing, although highly constructive,

4D cant be forcing, ...

except in the case 4C was already game forcing, and since

I think 4C is game forcing, 4D is forcing as well.

But the guy who created the game force can pass, he knows,

what he has ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[SoTired]

3S has to be forcing. A weak hand will always pass and targeting a good but not GF hand is impossible.

[P_Marlowe]

3S has to be forcing. A weak hand will always pass and targeting a good but not GF hand is impossible.

I dsagree.

 

But in essence the real question the partnership

has to answer is, is 3S forcing / nonforcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

There are arguments that 4D should be non-forcing, but I think life is much easier if it is forcing.

 

Interestingly, I think that (2H) 3D - 3S - 4D should just about be passable.

 

The difference is that advancer (the 3S) bid knows how strong he is and partner has first limited his hand by overcalling 3D. On the original auction, the 3S bidder is unlimited.

 

But here are a couple of other auctions for you:

 

2S P P 3D

P 3H P 4C

P 4D

 

2H P P 3D

P 3S P 4C

P 4D

 

The second on these must be non-forcing, as the 3S bidder has already not overcalled 2S.

 

The first of these is harder, as a better hand is needed to overcall 3H on the first round, and I'm not absolutely sure about it.

[Fluffy]

I play very sound 3♦ overcalls, I can barelly imagine a hand that bids 3♠ wich doesn't wanna play game. non forcing is too small target to be played.

 

 

Do you think 4♣ is forcing? B)

[skjaeran]

I play very sound 3♦ overcalls, I can barelly imagine a hand that bids 3♠ wich doesn't wanna play game. non forcing is too small target to be played.

 

 

Do you think 4♣ is forcing? :)

Yeah. I can see why 4♦ in the OP could be non-forcing, even if I'm of the opinion that is't forcing. But I couldn't imagine playing 4♣ as non-forcing.