Forcing? Not Forcing?

[ArtK78]

(2♣)* - 2♥ - (P) - 2♠

 

* weak (yes, this pair plays a weak 2♣ opening bid).

 

If it matters, this was matchpoints. But feel free to discuss whether your opinion would be different at IMPs or any other form of scoring.

[han]

I like forcing advances after overcalls of preempts.

[Apollo81]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=23354&hl=

[gwnn]

Your opps are shiny happy people and many of us envy them. 2♠=forcing makes much much more sense than NF constructive.

[Guest Jlall]

Of course it's forcing.

[Al_U_Card]

How about highly suggestive (of there being another spot to play if no fit is found) ?

[Edmunte1]

I definitely prefer it as forcing after a preempt. Why? Because i really HATE bidding 3♣ and then 3♠ and looking for our best contract somewhere into the bushes. I better play one trick higher in our partscore than having to find our fit on forth level.

[Cascade]

Standard would have to be forcing.

 

However I think there is a good case for constructive not forcing in these sorts of auctions - whenever partner makes a soundish overcall at the two-level. This is exactly the style that we play after we overcall a weak 1NT.

[Al_U_Card]

Darn those pesky pre-empts! Ideally, when everyone has their bids, an extra layer of comfort is available. It is for when you are stressed and required to act that it gets iffy. Constructive and forward going seems right as they only took away the one level, after all.

[jchiu]

Of course it's forcing.

Forcing, wtfp?

[the hog]

Of course it's forcing.

Forcing, wtfp?

To say "wtfp" is an idiotic comment! Whether it is forcing or not depends on the agreements you have with your partner over weak 2 openings. Standard treatment is forcing, but many play non forcing bids over overcalls; others still play transfer advances.

[P_Marlowe]

Nonforcing, but constructive.

 

More general: Play it similar to the case

oponents have opened at the 1 level, i.e.

if this may mean forcing, than it should be

forcing in the given auction as well, if it

may mean nonforcing, similar here.

 

May not be best, but keeps the memory

load low.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[rogerclee]

I think that agreeing 2♠ as NF is close to unplayable. There are too many hands that simply want to suggest spades as a possible contract that are always going to game.

[Al_U_Card]

So, 2C-2H-p-3C-?-?--?-3S would be what, a slam try? ;)

 

and 2C-2H-p-3S would be pre-emptive? :lol:

 

We need wiggle room, peeps.

[han]

Of course it's forcing.

Forcing, wtfp?

To say "wtfp" is an idiotic comment! Whether it is forcing or not depends on the agreements you have with your partner over weak 2 openings. Standard treatment is forcing, but many play non forcing bids over overcalls; others still play transfer advances.

Agree with you, except that I don't see what transfer advances have to do with this. 2S would still be spades, would be spades, would be spades, right?

[whereagles]

Well, you can define it as clubs, but then you're out of bids for spades :)

 

Anyway, prefer 2/2 as forcing, and belive that is the standard too.

[the hog]

Of course it's forcing.

Forcing, wtfp?

To say "wtfp" is an idiotic comment! Whether it is forcing or not depends on the agreements you have with your partner over weak 2 openings. Standard treatment is forcing, but many play non forcing bids over overcalls; others still play transfer advances.

Agree with you, except that I don't see what transfer advances have to do with this. 2S would still be spades, would be spades, would be spades, right?

Certainly. I'm just pointing out that there are numerous types of agreements that could be in place depending on the partnership. eg I know of a number of pairs that play it as nf