Sanity Check

[Guest Jlall]

Just out of interest, do all the people who think 3S is forcing play that a new suit by responder immediately over the double is non-forcing?

Can't speak for everyone but yes this is how I play it.

[Gerben42]

Just out of interest, do all the people who think 3S is forcing play that a new suit by responder immediately over the double is non-forcing?

 

I play that redouble shows at least some interest in defending, with a distributional good hand I would just make a forcing bid at the 2-level and describe my hand to partner.

 

I would still redouble on a good balanced hand with 3-card support, like 3442. This is the kind of hand I'm showing. Otherwise, I play 1M (x) 2y as nonforcing. That's not standard?

 

With regular partners I play transfers after 1M (x). Cannot think of a NF hand that bids 3♠ in this position, sorry. I mean, 2♠ is already invitational and an invitational 3-card raise bids 2NT at this point.

[helene_t]

Just out of interest, do all the people who think 3S is forcing play that a new suit by responder immediately over the double is non-forcing?

I think standard in Netherlands (and Marty Bergen, I think it was, writes the same) is 1/1 F1 and 2/1 NF. 1/1 NF sounds very old-fashioned to me. But Mike Lawrence considers 2/1 both as F1 and NF to be playable. Hardy says it's NF.

[zasanya]

So with a slammish or GF hand with ♠ support it is correct to redouble?

Would it not allow opponents to prempt Say 4NT or something?

Nobody answered my question so i am asking it again.

BTW i play redouble as 10+ intending to penalize whatever ops bid so shortness in openers suit. Always thought that is standard

[helene_t]

So with a slammish or GF hand with ♠ support it is correct to redouble?

Would it not allow opponents to prempt Say 4NT or something?

Yes. With a slamish hand, it is premature to set trumps if you have only 3 of them. So you have to start with a redouble. Maybe p bids a second suit which you'd rather support than the opening suit.

 

If opps preempt, too bad. A 2/1 is NF so you have no other forcing bid than the redouble, unless you have 4-card support or you can bid a suit at the 1-level. For that reason, the mad scientists play transfers.

[slothy]

Doesn't sound forcing to me.

That's what comes of living in a limit bidding culture.

Sounds like a limit raise with trhee trumps and poor clubs.

 

You can always bid 3C to force if you want.

That's what happens when you live in the South Of England Frances :)

 

Seems kinda forcing to me

[lexlogan]

So with a slammish or GF hand with ♠ support it is correct to redouble?

Would it not allow opponents to prempt Say 4NT or something?

I don't worry too much about preemption with only 3 trumps. I'm willing to defend if they bid to a high level. With 4 trumps I'd be worried if I hadn't shown my support; conversely, bidding 2NT with only 3 trumps can also leave partner guessing over a preempt. I much prefer redoubling with 2 or 3 trumps, and reserving 2NT for four or more trumps.

[han]

Forcing.