Forcing or not?

[fred]

2C 2D

3C 3S

4H

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kfay]

I've had this discussion before but can't remember the hand in question.

 

The conclusion that was reached, however, was:

 

Yes. Forcing

[Echognome]

I hate to be pedantic, but a little framework would help.

 

Was 2♦ artificial waiting? or did you have a 2♥ double negative available?

 

If 2♦ was artificial waiting, would 3♦ over 3♣ have been our double negative?

 

 

I think assuming that scenario, then I would play a positive here forcing through 4NT. Certainly a good area to discuss with your partner.

[sceptic]

I voted yes

[Guest Jlall]

No I would not have thought so since 4H may be our best spot and it's a game bid.

[ArcLight]

I am assuming 2D is witing.

Opener bid 3C. That implies a really good club suit, rather than a balanced hand serching for some level of NT, though this isnt certain.

 

What is 3S? Is that showing a stopper for NT?

Is it a cue bid in support of Clubs?

Responder did not bid teh 2nd negative, so he has some values.

 

To have 4H not forcing shows what kind of hand?

6 Clubs and 5 hearts, both headed by AKQ?

 

Does one typically bid monster 2 suiters via 2 Clubs?

Rather than 1 Club - (bids) - 4 Hearts?

 

I think its forcing.

[ASkolnick]

If you are looking for a hand, I would guess it is most likely a 1-4-2-6 hand without a diamond stopper, possible 1-5-1-6 as well.

 

How about?

A

AKxx

xx

AKQJxx

 

or

 

A

AQJx

xx

AKQJxx

 

I would not open these 3 loser hands 1C. How else am I supposed to bid? And I can't see why it can't be passed? If partner has no diamond control, what else would you like them to do?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I voted yes, but I am reconsidering.

 

The first question is, is 4H natural, showing a real

suit or a cue bid.

 

In our partnership, we have agreed, that we need

3 natural bids, before a bid becomes a cue, i.e. 4H

is natural, showing a real suit.

The next question is, how many cards, could it be

a 4 carder, most likely yes, as it is, partner did not

deny a 4 carder with 3S, he may be 5-5, or 5-4 in

the mayors.

 

So the answer is, non forcing, showing 6-4 or better.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[fred]

Question to those of you who think 4H is non-forcing:

 

How do you force?

 

Question if your answer is "I would bid 5H":

 

If you also play Exclusive Blackwood would you be confident that your partner would understand your 5H bid as natural?

 

I don't think there are any great answers to any of these questions (including the original poll question) in "standard" bidding. I was able to make up a very non-standard convention that largely solves these problems, but I doubt the obscurity/frequency makes up for the added utility that this convention offers.

 

The main reason I made this post is because the situation arose for me the other day and I thought it was interesting for a couple of reasons. First, I do not recall ever experiencing or thinking about this auction before (which in itself is kind of strange). Second, I thought it was interesting because there is a conflict of basic principles - some suggesting 4H should forcing and some suggesting that it should not be.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Forcing, IMO.

 

A few thoughts, though.

 

1. I assume that 2♦ is GF, but that is not dispositive. However, I'll assume that not bidding 3♦ after 3♣ means that we are in a GF no matter what.

 

2. 2♣...3♣ is a huge bid to begin with. Minor-oriented 2♣ openings tend to show 3-loser hands anyway.

 

3. A reverse into hearts forces the five-level for a return to clubs; the principles behind a lower-level reverse apply reasonably well here, as well.

 

4. A hand that needs two calls to complete pattern, with an expectation of a real risk of requiring the four-level to complete that pattern, should not be opened 2♣ unless willing to force the five-level. OR, Opener should have been prepared to bid 3NT, or rebid his minor, after a 3♠ call.

[mike777]

As a nonexpert I would have thought the theory, game before slam would apply in this situation, perhaps not. If so then I would think 4H is natural and nonforcing but a good hand. B)

 

As to how to force over 3s I would assume 2d=game force and 4c or 4d rebid would be forcing by opener. 4nt over 3s would be bw.

 

Agree that the 3c rebid by opener shows at most a 3 loser hand.

[mikeh]

I have actually discussed this sequence with a couple of partners (both very good players) and our consensus was that this was forcing. It has never actually come up (the discussion was along the lines of 'if the hand had been a little different, I'd want to have bid 4 major.... would that be forcing?).

 

The problem is that neither hand has limited itself, and my thinking is that the proposition that this is a game bid, and therefore passable, only applies once the at person making the debatable call has limited his values. I am not sure whether the rule would/should also apply where the responder has shown a very limited hand (say, by a double negative call) even when opener is unlimited....

 

But I am comfortable that this auction should NOT be allowed to end before at least one player has announced a limit on his holdings.

[pclayton]

Its forcing, but I don't agree with Matt that we are in a force through 4N after a positive response (if thats what he really meant). I think after 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♠ we are in a GF when we have agreed a suit, or bid game. Passing 4♥ does not count.

 

Here's something else to consider: If opener has clubs and a secondary hearts, he holds a very big hand. Something better than a 22-23 count I would say. Otherwise this hand opens 1♣ and jump shifts / reverses.

 

Also, it somewhat depends on your style. With 5♠ - 4♥, responder may bid 3♦ over 3♣ to see if opener has 4 of either. This treatment uses 3N (over 3♣) to show diamonds btw and is forcing. So, logically, there's little reason for opener to start introducing a 4 card heart suit at this juncture in Fred's sequence, so I think Opener has an awkward hand to bid, or will have 5♥ - 6♣.

 

Frankly, I think you could even assign 4♥ as a cue bid for spades. Wouldn't you like this to be available with something like KQx AK xx AKQxxx? In many similar sequences, 4 of a new suit agrees the last bid suit as trump, and I'm hard pressed to think why this isn't the case here.

 

If you also play Exclusive Blackwood would you be confident that your partner would understand your 5H bid as natural?

 

As error-prone as EKCB is, I think this would be clearly exclusion. As I think 4♥ is forcing, so I'm don't have to cope with this issue anyway.

[helene_t]

Also, it somewhat depends on your style. With 5♠ - 4♥, responder may bid 3♦ over 3♣ to see if opener has 4 of either. This treatment uses 3N (over 3♣) to show diamonds btw and is forcing.

That was my thought as well although I wasn't aware of the 3N->♦ trick.

[hotShot]

I use a simple rule:

A new suit bid from an unlimited hand is forcing.

Opener did not make a limiting bid yet.

[lexlogan]

Forcing. One doesn't open 2C in order to be dropped in a new suit, even if it a game bid. Opener is completely unlimited.

[the hog]

I would definitely say nf. how else would you bid:

 

A

AKJx

xx

AKQJxx

 

xxxxxx

xxxx

xx

x

[Vlastik]

Give my vote for NO and hands like:

 

A

KQ1098

x

AKQxxx

 

I would pass 4♥ in MPs with KQxxxx,xxx,xxx,x without trepidation and in IMPs with some trepidation

 

Vlastimil

 

P.S.

I assumed 2D as waiting and 3S as positive.

[Fluffy]

What about open 1♣ with those weak 2 suiters?

 

If your agreement is that 4♥ is natural (I would take it as cue for spades), then it has to be so darn strong that really has 11 tricks in hand, and hence it is forcing.

 

Of course to me, 3♣ denied 5♥s. And I would rather bid 4♣ with a 64 forgetting about the small chance that we belong in hearts in favour of strong hads with spade fit.

[pclayton]

I would definitely say nf. how else would you bid:

 

A

AKJx

xx

AKQJxx

 

xxxxxx

xxxx

xx

x

Well, you'd show the weak hand as a negative over 3♣, assuming one is available.

 

You'd still find 4♥ via 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♦* - 3♥ - 4♥.

 

I'm pretty sure Fred plays an immediate 2♥ as a negative, by the way.

[mr1303]

I would be much happier saying 4H is forcing playing an immediate 2H as negative or something similar, than if 2D could be on (pretty much) any hand.

[fred]

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this :P

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This shows that the posts in favour of forcing make more sense than those against it, since the early trend was strongly NF :P

 

(I only post this because I think it is forcing)

 

BTW, Fred.... since you started it, which way:

 

1) did you treat it at the time

 

2) do you think that it should be played, absent your non-standard agreement?

 

BTW, it struck me that inverting the reds here would be perhaps doable: I think we all agree that 4♦, natural, would be forcing... we are not aiming for +130. So 4♦ to show hearts and 4♥ to show diamonds. The problem being how to remember this for the twenty + years before the auction comes up again. Because a forget here would likely be disastrous!

 

BTW, again, if 4♦ shows hearts, presumably we need some agreement as to how responder shows a mere preference for hearts, non-forcing, and a strong liking for hearts.. but we can probably work that out at the table if need be.

[Gerben42]

Tough problem. I would vote forcing, and not necessarily natural.

[pclayton]

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this :P

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Sadist!