Question From Friend

[kenrexford]

♠x ♥x ♦KQJxxx ♣AKxxx

 

1♦-1♥-X-P-?

 

Idea #1: Bid 2♣. This never ends at 2♣. You can always express the power of this hand later, and you save space.

Idea #2: Bid 3♣. This is a player, and you need to advertise this now. The nature of player-vs-overall-strength can be resolved later.

Idea #3: Bid 4♣. This is not a splinter -- you'd go through 2♥ first with that hand, or some other call. This shows a high distribution player.

Idea #4: Bid 5♣. This unambiguously shows this hand.

 

Which idea, if any, makes sense? If a call makes sense to you, but for different reasons, explain your reasons.

[helene_t]

Afraid 4♣ could be a splinter and 5♣ shuts the gate. I would bid 3♣.

[matmat]

what would 3h be?

[helene_t]

Good question, I suppose it could be played as either a solid diamond suit or as some sort of spades raise, presumably a splinter. Assuming that the double shows spades.

[han]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

[Fluffy]

3♣ limit.

[Guest Jlall]

3C

[whereagles]

3♣, followed by 5♣ if pard insists on spades.

[Guest Jlall]

3♣, followed by 5♣ if pard insists on spades.

How can partner insist on spades with only 4 of them?

[whereagles]

Well, it's just that in practice pards tend to rebid my singleton. That's all :P

[P_Marlowe]

#1 no way, this shows a min. opener,

it is an illusion to believe that one will be able to catch up later,

it is possible sometimes, but usually it leads to TD call due to

hesitation

 

#2 fine with me, this shows add. strength, but does not commit

your side to game, 11 tricks is a long way to go

 

#3 fine with me as well, I prefer #2, but can live with this one,

forcing to game is certainly not the worst idea

 

#4 no, if you want to play at least game, give yourself the chance

to find out if a (small / grand) slam is on or not, 5C makes it hard

to check for key cards below game level

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

[P_Marlowe]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

ok, than I should modify my answer to include

a remark that for me 3C is nonforcing.

 

Assuming 3C is forcing, than you dont need 4C.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

Do you think that this is standard? I'd like to know how others think about it. I'm used to playing it as NF but I know some very good players play it as forcing. What would you assume without discussion?

[helene_t]

I think NF is standard but I might be wrong.

[inquiry]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

Do you think that this is standard? I'd like to know how others think about it. I'm used to playing it as NF but I know some very good players play it as forcing. What would you assume without discussion?

I would never assume 3♣ is forcing unless partner beat me over the head with it several times and insist on playing it as such. We have 2♥ cue bid available as a force, we have 4♣ to show big old two suiter (no I don't play 4♣ as a splinter for spades, nor do I play 3♠ or 4♠ as splinter for ♣s). For what it is worth, I don't think 4♣ should be forcing either. It just shows a more distributional hand than 3♣, which shows more hcp hand (a strong 54 type hand).

 

IF I was worried that partner would take 4♣ as either a splinter or as forcing, I would bid 3♣. If I thought partner would take 4♣ as huge two suiter but not forcing, I surely would bid 4♣, as that is what I have. Partner needs little more than an ace and a club fit headed by the Queen to have a play for 5♣.

 

Of course, if you play 3♣ as forcing (seems strange to me), you can bid 3♣ and then rebid a non-forcing 4♣. But this sequence is fraught with danger, if it goes, for instance,

 

1♦-1♥-x-p

3♣-X-pass-4♠

?

 

What do you do? You have described a hand with more values and less shape than you hold, you don't know if partner is ready to saw off 4♠ and if he does, if he is counting on you to have less shape and more defense or if he has the "STUFF" on his own. If you had bid 4♣ instead of 3, you would be happy to let parnter decide what to do next.

[Apollo81]

I'd bid 2♣ and then raise a preference to 3♦. Closer to immediate JS (which I assume is forcing) then 2♣/pass a preference.

[kenrexford]

FTR, my answer "yes" is not based on my understanding. It is based on the parameters within which the question was asked.

[gnasher]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

Do you think that this is standard? I'd like to know how others think about it. I'm used to playing it as NF but I know some very good players play it as forcing. What would you assume without discussion?

Where I come from it's standard to play 3♣ as forcing.

 

I don't really understand why anyone thinks this should be non-forcing. In the sequence

  1♦ 1♥ 1♠ pass

  3♣

everyone plays 3♣ as forcing. Why should

  1♦ 1♥ dbl pass

  3♣

be treated any differently? In each sequence responder has shown spades and an unlimited hand, and said nothing about any other suit. The only difference is in the number of spades he has shown.

 

It's possible that playing this as non-forcing is left over from the days when double promised both unbid suits. In that style, it's sensible to play a jump in either unbid suit as a limit bid.

[cherdano]

I probably would take 3♣ as non-forcing undiscussed, but I agree with gnasher's reasoning, forcing seems better.

[han]

OK, let's play it as forcing Arend, but I don't understand why gnasher's argument argues for a forcing 3C.

 

Well, I understand that there is no clear reason to play 3C forcing in one auction and NF in the other, but I don't understand why it is better to play 3C as forcing. I can see the upside (easier when you have the GF two-suiter as you don't need to cue) and the downside (not able to show extras when you have a 17-count), and it isn't clear to me which is more important.

 

Without the 1H bid you don't have much choice. Here you could cue 2H with all GF hands in either auction. That would make the cue more ambiguous but there is lots of room and given that RHO hasn't raised it is not very likely that they are going to take it away from us.

[gnasher]

... I don't understand why gnasher's argument argues for a forcing 3C.

You're right - it should have been an argument only for consistency between the two sequences.

 

Including another hand type in the cue bid might work badly if the overcaller decides to bid 3♥ over it, but I agree that this might be outweighed by the constructive benefits of an invitational 3♣.

[keylime]

I bid 2♣ without any form of good/bad 2NT in the arsenal. It doesn't hang partner's bad dummy.

[inquiry]

Well, I understand that there is no clear reason to play 3C forcing in one auction and NF in the other,

I think there is a good reason to play if forcing after

1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (pass)

(3♣)

 

while on the auction this auction, it is not forcing

1♦ (1♥) DBL (pass)

(3♣)

 

The reason has to do with unlimited nature of 1♥ and the limited nature of Dbl. OVer double, you may be under pressure even to rebid 2♣. You need a way to show an real club suit and some real values without forcing the auction. After all, if you bid only 2♣ parnter is very unlikley to have enough to make another call other than a preference back to 2♦. They call the double "negative" for a reason.

 

However on the first auction, the 1♥ bid is forcing, and reasonably unlimited. You expect partner not to pass 2♣ often, and you will have real ♣ when you bid them, as you have a raise of spades (even with three), 1NT, and 2♦ as reasonable alternatives.

 

On the first auction, a 2♥ cue-bid will have implications related to ♠ no doubt, while on teh second one the cue-bid just shows a general force.

 

I think if you play a jump to a new suit after a negative double as forcing (or a reverse after a negative double for that matter), you are going to have a lot more trouble than just bidding normally. At least, imho.

[han]

They call the double "negative" for a reason.

Yeah, a historic reason, Helene explained it to me last week. If I remember correctly, takeout doubles used to be called negative doubles and the "negative" was a reminder that this did not show length in the suit doubled.

 

I may have messed up the story but anyway, it is not very relevant. The only thing that the double limits is the number of spades, the strength of the doubler is not limited. So I think that Gnasher is right in calling these two auctions similar.