Echognome Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakqt972hq7da83c6]133|100|Scoring: MP(P) - 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♠(P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦(P) - 2♠ - (P) - ?[/hv] You pick up this very powerful hand and to your surprise partner opens the bidding. How do you plan to bid from here? Side question: How forcing is 2♦? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 i think 2♦ is a 1RFI cue 3d and await developments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 I think 2♦ is game-forcing, because it makes a nice simple rule. I bid 3♠, with a meaningful look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I would bid 3♠. For me 2♦ is a one round force only. (I could pass 2♥, 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ after bidding 2♦.) But the combination 2♦+3♠ is clearly GF (After all, 3♠ without 2♦ already shows a good invitational hand as 2♠ (without 2♦) would have shown more than a minimum). Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 For me 2♦ is a one round force only. (I could pass 2♥, 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ after bidding 2♦.) But the combination 2♦+3♠ is clearly GF (After all, 3♠ without 2♦ already shows a good invitational hand as 2♠ (without 2♦) would have shown more than a minimum). Is 3♠ clearly non-forcing? Since you bid 2♦ you have the new information that partner has something in spades. With invitational values and ♠AQJ10x or ♠QJxxxx, you wouldn't have bid 3♠ over 2♣, but you might well want to now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcD Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I guess one way to find out whether 3♠ is forcing is bidding it. Will not take the chance, so will protect partner with 3♦. Not 100% clear to me 3♠ now should be forcing and possibly even less so to partner . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakqt972hq7da83c6]133|100|Scoring: MP(P) - 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♠(P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦(P) - 2♠ - (P) - ?[/hv] You pick up this very powerful hand and to your surprise partner opens the bidding. How do you plan to bid from here? Side question: How forcing is 2♦? not sure but I hope 3d is forcing now :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I think 2♦ is game-forcing, because it makes a nice simple rule. I bid 3♠, with a meaningful look. me too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 For me 2♦ is a one round force only. (I could pass 2♥, 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ after bidding 2♦.) But the combination 2♦+3♠ is clearly GF (After all, 3♠ without 2♦ already shows a good invitational hand as 2♠ (without 2♦) would have shown more than a minimum). Is 3♠ clearly non-forcing? Since you bid 2♦ you have the new information that partner has something in spades. With invitational values and ♠AQJ10x or ♠QJxxxx, you wouldn't have bid 3♠ over 2♣, but you might well want to now.I assume you mean: "Is 3♠ -after 2♦- clearly game forcing?" If you play 2♦ as a 1 round force, it shows at least invitational values. That means that you can bid 2♦ with an invitational hand with 5 spades. You can subsequently pass 2♠, since 2♠ shows a minimum in context. With a nice 14 point hand and 3 spades, partner wouldn't rebid 2♠, since it wouldn't be forcing. That means that if you take another bid, after opener's 2♠ (which showed a minimum), you are stronger than invitational and, therefore, game forcing. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDluxe Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 2♦ should be game force. So, I'm bidding 3♠. 3♦, mentioned above, sounds fancy... But to my novice ears, a little too fancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 2S show a minimum with 2 trumps so 3S has to be forcing but my bid is 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 I would bid 3♠ here. 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.