Forcing?

[iggygork]

Playing IMPs (A/X Swiss), all white, you deal and you and your partner have the following sequence (opps silent):

 

1♦ - 1♥

2♣ - 3♦ * invitational, NF.

3♠* - 4♣** *Do you have a spade stopper for 3NT? ** No. Tough.

4♦ - ?

 

Is 4♦ forcing at IMPs? At MPs? You are playing a basic 2/1 with 15-17 NT framework. 1♦ followed by 2♣ showed 5-4 or better in ♦ and ♣, we would open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors.

 

I thought it was forcing (as the opener showed extras by bidding 3NT and who wants to stop in 4♦ at IMPs anyway?), pard did not. We shopped the auction around and there was a schism of opinion among the local experts, so I am curious as to what the larger expert community thinks.

 

Thank you in advance.

[pclayton]

I think its a matter of agreement. I also think its impractical that 3♠ denies a stopper. Couldn't it show an anti-positional holding such as Axx or Kxx?

 

If 3♠ is exclusively a stopper ask, then 4♦ represents a sign off.

 

If 3♠ is either a cue bid looking for bigger and better things or a stopper ask, then 4♦ should be forcing, and confirms the former.

 

I think I'd opt for the 2nd agreement.

[ArtK78]

Not forcing.

 

Responder already invited. By your agreement, 3♠ asked a question, and 4♣ answered it and provided some more information. If opener wanted to bid game, he had all of the information that he needed. So, 4♦ should be to play.

[BillHiggin]

The extreme position at IMP scoring is no invites. Too extreme for me. However, I do feel that attempts to grade invitational bids have no place at that scoring - I have no sequences that ask "was that a max invite or a min invite?"

Over the 3♦ invitational bid, I would play that opener may pass if not accepting the invite or do something else and anything else establishes a game force. Yes, I get too high some of the time.

[Fluffy]

Its not so clear, IMO it is not forcing, because it is passed so often, but specially because there are 2 beautiful cuebids avabile instead of that bid.

 

3♠ is what we call around here half a stopper.

[Guest Jlall]

Clearly not forcing to me. Partner invited, you asked for a stopper, partner declined but showed that he was alive, and you signed off since 11 trick games are harder than 10. Partner can still go with the goods. There isn't even much of a gain in having 4D as forcing as hands that want to try for slam can just bid something else.

[andy_h]

4D NF as 3S asked a question. Don't hang partner if you have a rock as it was "clearly obvious" to you that 4D is forcing if no agreements has been set.

[Winstonm]

NF and seems clearly so. Many other ways to get to game - no other way to stop.

[joshs]

I can't imagine why this would be forcing. One player has boxed in his range (shown an INV hand), the other made a game try (he could have higher asperations), and then stopped at the next cheapist level. Just beaucse you have some extras (enough to make 3N or 4D) doesn't mean you can take 2 extra tricks and make 5D.

 

Also a slam try interpretation here makes no sense. Responder has shown hearts and diamonds. INV values, either lacking a stopper for 3N, or the INV was based purely on shape and is not close to having enough high cards to make 3N. Responder has also bid 4C rather then 4D, so that seems to show a promising hand for suit play. Why would you ever want to transfer captaincy to that hand? You know so much more about his hand then he does about yours....