MFA Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 (1♣) - 1♦ - (pass) - 1♠,(2♣) - pass - (pass) - 2♥! 1♠ was forcing for one round, a cuebid at that point would have been a good ♦-raise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 Interesting. What's dbl here, given there's only 1 unbid suit? Penalty-oriented/values? If so, then 2♥ is nat, forcing. If X is takeout, then you can make a case for 2♥ NF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 seems clearly NF, but........ why would you need it forcing if overcaller is kinda broke and there's a cue available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted September 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 Interesting. What's dbl here, given there's only 1 unbid suit? Penalty-oriented/values? If so, then 2♥ is nat, forcing. If X is takeout, then you can make a case for 2♥ NF. X is take-out in the balancing seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 NF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 I would expect this to be parallel with: 1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (2♣)pass - (pass) - 2♥ As I play that as non-forcing, I would also play the sequence in question as non-forcing. Forcing hands start with a double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewj Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 No way is this forcing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 OleBerg's auction may be debatable (I would vote for NF though) but the OP auction is obviously NF. It can't be right that we need constructive values in balancing seat to take out opps' 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 With both a t/o double and cuebid available, this should be non-forcing. 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.