pclayton Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Ordinary 2/1 - opps silent 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2N - 3♦? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 I voted for NF too quickly, and I actually think this is forcing. Probably a hand that would accept a 2N invite but is 4-6 in the minors and is offering 5C/5D as alternative contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Agree with Roger. It doesn't make too much sense to bid 3♦ NF when responder might not have diamonds. Especially if playing a style in which minimum 45 minors hands usually open 1♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Yes forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 I usually play a general rule that 3minor is NF after 2NT and 3Major is forcing. There are exceptions of course. Here I think if 3♦ is not forcing then you have no way to offer a choice of games. It seems to me to be much useful to do that than offer a choice of part-scores. So I think this one is forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 2♣ was not forcing, limited hand2NT was not forcing, invite to game3♦, despite the last two not-forcing bids, is now forcing This might be a sad day, if responder is terribly short in hearts, and weak. But in that case, you just have to pass 2NT. It is impratical to play 3♦ as non-forcing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 OBV forcing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 This might be a sad day, if responder is terribly short in hearts, and weak. But in that case, you just have to pass 2NT. It is impratical to play 3♦ as non-forcing here. I would have interpreted it as 2-1-4-6 and 16 hcp with all points in the minors, or something so close to that as to be indistinguishable. Therefore, it should not be forcing. Let me give an example: xx x AKxx AKJxxx. That's a super max...most people would not merely rebid 2♣ with that. But there's a decided possiblity that we don't have game here...we may have three quick losers in the majors and, I dunno, 7 losers off the top in 3NT? Something like that. Sure, that's giving partner four queens and two pointy jacks, but hey, those hands happen. The thing is, the bid shows _such_ a specific hand that I think making it 'forcing' is nonsense. Sure, it shows a hand where we have a combined 24+ hcp, so we 'ought' to have game somewhere. But to me, there's something wrong with laying your hand out, letting your partner inspect your cards, and then 'forcing' him to do something. It's not that I think that my vision of the hand is different from other people's, it's just my philosophy on bridge in general. Glad I read this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 JT, is 4 queens and 2 pointy jacks really an invite to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 JT, is 4 queens and 2 pointy jacks really an invite to you? Sure, why not? Not only could we have 27 hcp together, but I expect 2NT to score a lot better than 2♣ if partner declines. I'm not embarrassed by quacks when I'm inviting for NT. If the question was is 3♦ a weak bid, I agree that it cannot be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Occasional partner passed this in the Sunday Swiss (not playing with me). He held ♠KTxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx ♣x. Pard had ♠--♥Axx ♦KJxx ♣AQxxxx. The other table bid 6 which rolled home. Lose a ton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 too bad diamonds weren't 4-1 or the Q wasnt offside :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Six is a lot of diamonds. Its not clear which table were in the worst contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 OBV forcing! Surprised there could be any post other than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Forcing. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 He held ♠KTxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx ♣x. He bid 1 ♠ after 1♣? Wow, he found the best wa to burn any red suit contract.Oh not really, he found a solution by passing 3 Diamonds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 He held ♠KTxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx ♣x. He bid 1 ♠ after 1♣? Wow, he found the best wa to burn any red suit contract.Oh not really, he found a solution by passing 3 Diamonds... This is how it was reported to me. I'm pretty sure he bid 1♥ but it has no effect on the problem posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 I admit I didn't think this is so clear. The 2♣ bidder is limited and is making a natural bid. While it does obviously show extras and values for game, why shouldn't responder be allowed to guess to pass with no heart stopper and values that don't look right for 5m? S.th. like QJxx Jxx Kxxx KJ?To me that would be similar to passing a strong jump shift after having responded on a 0-count, so maybe I am just arguing about semantics. Of course, the actual hand has no business passing 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Forcing to me. Can't see any nearly sane reason for this to be NF. 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.