So Many Easy Polls!

[rogerclee]

Uncontested

 

1♣ - 1♥

2♥ - 3♣

 

3♣ is?

[kenrexford]

A nice treatment for the unspoken question is for 2NT, or 2♠ if you will, to be a general GT, with partner's 3♣ showing 3-card support and, for me, a too-weak-to-reverse problem pattern. Here, 1345. That could be passed.

[jdonn]

std is FORCING, but many either don't know it, or prefer nf anyway. I definitely prefer forcing.

[pclayton]

F1.

[neilkaz]

F1.

I play like to F1 and invitational+ in ♥ although could have intentions in ♣ as well, but for sure can't be passed to play 3♣

[han]

I prefer NF and luckily that's what I play. Well actually, I play that:

 

1C - 1D (= hearts)

2H (shows 4) - 3C

 

is forcing but

 

1D - 1H

2H - 3D

 

is not forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing, trial bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

In standard methods (on either side of the Atlantic) it is forcing. We think this sufficiently standard that we alert our 3C bids, because we play it as non-forcing (2S would have been a forcing relay).

[gnasher]

I think the standard meaning is non-forcing in the UK. In North America I'd assume it was forcing, because everything is.

 

If 2H promises four-card support, 3C is obviously forcing, so that probably makes it forcing in much of continental Europe.

[Gerben42]

Nonforcing unless you never raise on 3 cards.

 

If you have a minimum and have raised on 3-card support, that is the hand to pass 3♣.

[skjaeran]

In several partnerships I play transfers, and 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♥ show 4-card support. And 1♣ could be short (2+). So 3♣ is obviously forcing, whether it shows a suit or not.

 

In one partnership (no transfers) 3♣ is a short suit game try, thus forcing.

 

With a pick-up I'd expect it to be natural NF.

[helene_t]

I prefer NF and luckily that's what I play. Well actually, I play that:

 

1C - 1D (= hearts)

2H (shows 4) - 3C

 

is forcing but

 

1D - 1H

2H - 3D

 

is not forcing.

Exactly, that's what we play also. Yet another reason for playing T-Walsh.

 

It's nice to have a way to stop in 3♣ when opener could have raised on 3, but there seems to be no way to do that in "standard".

 

Just a reality check: 2NT would be forcing in standard as well, right?

[ArtK78]

Funny. In a thread some time ago, I suggested that 3♣ would be non-forcing and was jeered at by one and all. Apparently, it is not so uncommon to play it as nonforcing.

 

I play 1m-1M-2M-2NT as an asking bid - How many cards in support of M and minimum or maximum? 3♣ is minimum with 3 card support, 3♦ is maximum with 3 card support, 3♥ is minimum with 4 card support and 3♠ is maximum with 4 card support. In this context, 3♣ can be passed if there is a possible club fit, and 3♦ over 3♣ would be nonforcing if opener's first bid was 1♦.

[han]

Funny. In a thread some time ago, I suggested that 3♣ would be non-forcing and was jeered at by one and all.

I'd like to see this thread. Could you give a link?

[Guest Jlall]

Def forcing in standard bridge to me. As is 2N. As is everything. In my preferred methods first step would ask and the 3 card minimum raises would bid one of the first 2 steps so that you can stop in 3C still, and 3C would be a natural game/slam try with 5 hearts.

 

If 3C is not forcing and you play no other methods all of your other game tries will lose their integrity since one of your normal game tries is missing. That will make your game try auctions less accurate. That's not the worst thing ever, and maybe worth it to be able to play 3C opposite a 3 card raise, but to me the bigger problem is when you have slam tries. You might well need to get back to openers minor, and you want to be able to develop those auctions as naturally as possible. I wouldn't be willing to lose accuracy in my slam bidding to be able to play in 3C.

[whereagles]

If your 2M can be 3 cards and an unbalanced hand, then there's a case for 3♣ to be a NF correction. Without agreement, it's definitely forcing.

[mikestar]

If you raise with 3 cards with any frequency, it is very good to be able to play in opener's minor if responder's 4-card major is weak. I agree with Justing that working this into your 1 step relay is better than making 3 of opener's minor NF. But using the one step relay for the forcing bid of 3 of opener's minor should also be playable.