Another forcing or not

[kenberg]

1C 1S

2C 2D

2H 3C

?

 

Probably everyone agrees that responder has five spades and some values (he does).

 

Interpretation 1: Had opener bid 2S instead of 2H, responder would have bid 4S. Lacking a spade game, 5C may be a bridge too far and opener is allowed (but presumably not required) to pass 3C.

 

 

Interpretation 2: The purpose of 2D and then 3C was to create a game force, so opener must bid on.

 

Interpretation 3: To be supplied by the reader who is dissatisfied with 1 and 2.

 

Boundary data: An informal game. The players know each other casually, have played together a time or three before and played against each other from time to time. There has been zero discussion of methods. (Yes, I know methods should be discussed. I should also exercise more.)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

forcing, i.e. interpretation 2.

 

If he wanted to invite, he could have just

bid 3C, if opener accepts the invite, he still

can show a 3 card spade suit via 3S over 3C.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bid_em_up]

Interpretation 1: Had opener bid 2S instead of 2H, responder would have bid 4S. Lacking a spade game, 5C may be a bridge too far and opener is allowed (but presumably not required) to pass 3C.

 

 

Interpretation 2: The purpose of 2D and then 3C was to create a game force, so opener must bid on.

 

Interpretation 3: To be supplied by the reader who is dissatisfied with 1 and 2.

 

Boundary data: An informal game. The players know each other casually, have played together a time or three before and played against each other from time to time. There has been zero discussion of methods. (Yes, I know methods should be discussed. I should also exercise more.)

Interpretation one:

 

If responder wanted to suggest a club game at that point, he would have bid 4C (not 3).

 

3C at this point is non-forcing. Opener has limited his hand and supposedly is 4-6 in clubs and hearts. If responder cant bid NT or 4C himself, then there is no game.

 

 

Interpretation two:

 

Can work if you have agreed to this. Since you havent, the default (imo) should be interpretation one. Personally, I don't like it, but then I dont like to exercise either. :)

[bhall]

At the table, I would treat 3♣ as forcing. Responder has no certain forcing option below 3N, but probably expects another bid from me. With absolutely nothing constructive to say, e.g., 1=4=3=5 with no ♦ stop, I would try 3♦. If partner now rebids 4♣, I would pass (and be prepared to apologize).

[ArtK78]

I play that 2♦ is an artificial game forcing call (Extended PLOB).

 

Lacking that agreement, the standard interpretation of 3♣ is nonforcing. Responder is just bidding out his pattern. With game forcing values on this auction, responder would bid game. How much information does he need? It is clear that opener is 4-6 or 4-7 in hearts and clubs. Responder could bid 2NT, 3NT, game in either major, or, with strong club support and more than game aspirations, 4♣.

 

The only reasons why one would play 3♣ as forcing would be to offer a choice of games - 3NT or 5♣ - or to explore for slam below the level of 3NT. That is certainly possible. But that would create other problems - responder could not make a nonforcing 3♣ call on his 5143 hand.

 

That is also one of the reasons for playing Extended PLOB.

[jdonn]

Interpretation 2 is the correct one, this bid is game forcing. Interpretation 1 should just raise 2♣ to 3♣, it's way too small of a target to focus on where opener is minimum enough to pass the 3♣ bid but you still want to be in game.

 

The answer is easy if you think of it a different way. What else can responder do on a game force with club support? Bypass 3NT every time? Bid 3NT when he might be 4324 with a red suit wide open? The whole thing is easy, raise 2♣ to 3♣ to invite, bid 2♦ then 3♣ to game force.

[whereagles]

I play interpretation 2.

[skjaeran]

This sequence is forcing to me.

[kenberg]

I was opener and passed 3C. The opponents didn't cash the D ace at T1 so I made 7. The opinion at the table (a friendly table with opinions welcome) was that this was forcing and upon reflection, and hearing the near unanimous expression here, I agree.

 

Playing pick-up, I have a general style that usually serves me well: Keep bidding until I have described my hand and then stop bidding. Good in general but clearly partner should be able to override and tell me that, despite my limited hand, we are not done.

 

Thanks. I pretty much expected this to be the opinion.

[Finch]

I would play this as forcing.

 

In my,natural-style approach to bidding, 2D was ostensibly natural and forcing for one round- responder could have passed opener's minimum 2S, 2NT or 3C bids. By agreement I play that a raise of the new suit is forcing, because responder may have had to invent the suit to establish a force, and you don't want opener to have to jump to show a fit for the second suit and a maximum 2C bid. However, when responder now bids again, that has to be forcing: if he had an invitational hand with clubs, he would have invited in clubs last round.

 

By the way, ArtK78 is the only respondant who has explicitly said what he thinks 2H means i.e. natural. As it happens, I don't agree - I still play 2H as fourth suit forcing here (c.f. 1H - 1S- 3C - 3D as recently discussed). So actually I think opener's 2H bid has set up a force anyway. But that doesn't change the force of the above argument i.e. 1C - 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S - 3C is also forcing.

[Fluffy]

Probably everyone agrees that responder has five spades and some values (he does).

No

 

Interpretation 1: Had opener bid 2S instead of 2H, responder would have bid 4S. Lacking a spade game, 5C may be a bridge too far and opener is allowed (but presumably not required)  to pass 3C.

 

No

 

 

Interpretation 2: The purpose of 2D and then 3C was to create a game force, so opener must bid on.

 

Yes

[pclayton]

Its forcing, but in my partnerships, 2♦ starts an invitational sequence.

[Guest Jlall]

definitely forcing

[kenrexford]

Forcing one round.

[helene_t]

I would vote for interpretation 1) except that maybe opener's 2♥ showed extras and therefore created a GF.

[Gerben42]

Interpretation 1 for me. 3♣ directly would be weaker, not having bid 2♦.

[Kittyfox]

1C  1S

2C  2D

2H  3C

?

 

Probably everyone agrees that responder has five spades and some values (he does).

 

Interpretation 1: Had opener bid 2S instead of 2H, responder would have bid 4S. Lacking a spade game, 5C may be a bridge too far and opener is allowed (but presumably not required)  to pass 3C.

 

 

Interpretation 2: The purpose of 2D and then 3C was to create a game force, so opener must bid on.

 

Interpretation 3: To be supplied by the reader who is dissatisfied with 1 and 2.

 

Boundary data: An informal game.  The players know each other casually, have played together a time or three before and played against each other from time to time. There has been zero discussion of methods. (Yes, I know methods should be discussed. I should also exercise more.)

 

Over the 1♣ opening, the 1♠ response would show at least a 4-card suit.

I would read opener's 2♣ rebid as showing minimal values, with length in clubs (i would believe 6+, although a strong 5-card suit might also be possible).

Responder's 2♦ would then show a second biddable suit (good 4+ length), and i'd guess that opener's rebid of 2♥ was showing a second real suit with a hand too weak for a direct reverse - which certainly seems forcing after responder seemed to be denying four hearts with his first two bids.

The 3♣ rebid by responder looks like a preference back to opener's first suit, maybe indicating 3-card support - but if he was trying to sign off in a partial, he could have done that on the previous turn, rather than showing his diamonds, so it looks to me like this sequence should be game-forcing.

 

That said, what part of this would indicate that responder holds five spades? I yield that i'm still a beginner and just learning the game, but i fail to see the basis for your assumption about responder's 5-card spade suit. Is it that with 4243 or 4342 shape, responder would have bid 'up the line' with 1♦ and let partner show a 4-card major if he had one, rebidding spades over hearts as 4th-suit forcing (or rebidding NT to deny game forcing values)?

 

 

All of that aside, i do feel that without game-forcing values, there would have been no point in showing the diamond suit after spades, as responder has already showed his major, and opener denied a fit in it. The 3♣ looks like it's saying: i could have supported you last round when you showed the extra length, but i had extra values that i wanted to show - now that we've both bid out our hands, and i finally showed my support for your club suit, choose a game: 3NT with your suits firmly stopped, or 5♣ if your distribution is extreme (i can picture opener's bidding sequence on a 1516 with values too weak to directly reverse - especially considering the late heart rebid after responder denied four hearts).

 

Of course, my interpretation is all based on natural bidding, so if there are any obscure conventions involved, that may make my view completely inaccurate.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>