Forcing or not

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Assuming you play something like SAYC, and given the seq.

 

1H - 1S

2C - 3C

3H - ???

 

how do you answer the following question:

 

Can responder pass?

 

Would your answer change, if responder is a passed hand?

 

Would your answer change depening on the form of competition

(IMP vs. MP)?

 

Get your answers affected, if opener would have to bid 2C with

only 3 cards, in case he would hold a strong NT opening, i.e. if

he had 15-17HCP with a 5332 shape?

 

I am posting this in the B/I section, but the issue may be to esoteric.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

when opener didn't pass 3♣, a GF has been set up, regardless of age, gender or complexion.

[mtvesuvius]

Well put, Csaba. :P

 

(I only have one (ex-)partner who would pass)

[RichMor]

My 2 cent's worth:

 

1. Maybe responder can Pass but probably shouldn't.

 

2. Doesn't matter if responder is passed hand.

 

3. Form of scoring doesn't matter.

[neilkaz]

The raise to 3♣ is supposed to show more than a bare minimum, isn't it ?

 

So..3♥ really has to be forcing.

[babalu1997]

3h is a cuebid for a game try

[neilkaz]

3h is a cuebid for a game try

Why isn't it 6-4 or 6-5 ?

[kenberg]

Responder cannot pass. Apparently opener thinks maybe this hand belongs in 4H, maybe 5C, maybe 3N. With something like Qx, responder happily raises hearts. With less, he has to consult his hand and make the best guess possible. I wouldn't recommend he try NT w/o a diamond stop.

 

But passing is out of the question. Opener can often have a hand where after 1H-1S-2C-3C he is willing to commit to game but is unsure which game. This bid is needed to sort it out.

[P_Marlowe]

3h is a cuebid for a game try

Hi,

 

It is certainly not a cue:

 

Opener has limited itself, responder has limited it self,

slam is out of the picture, you may come up with some

examples, but ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

2. Doesn't matter if responder is passed hand.

<snip>

If responder is a passed hand, it is more likely, that he

stretched to bid 3C, but this does not need to unfluence

your answer.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Well put, Csaba. :P

 

(I only have one (ex-)partner who would pass)

Than we should never consider to form a partnership,

because on the table I passed ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[andy_h]

3H should show a 6-4. No, responder may not pass 3H. After opener bids over 3C we are in a GF auction as he is showing extras and now is asking the choice of games for responder to pick whether it's hearts, no trumps or clubs. This is regardless of the vulnerability or the form of scoring or if responder is a passed hand or not.

 

Even if I had to open 1H with 5H332 15-17 (gasps) and decided to rebid 2C (gasps) and now responder raises me to 3C, I don't understand why I would bid 3H at this stage when we can't have a 5-3 heart fit and why not 3NT over 3C or 3D as a "4th suit forcing-asking for a stopper".

[fred]

3H should show a 6-4. No, responder may not pass 3H. After opener bids over 3C we are in a GF auction as he is showing extras and now is asking the choice of games for responder to pick whether it's hearts, no trumps or clubs. This is regardless of the vulnerability or the form of scoring or if responder is a passed hand or not.

 

Even if I had to open 1H with 5H332 15-17 (gasps) and decided to rebid 2C (gasps) and now responder raises me to 3C, I don't understand why I would bid 3H at this stage when we can't have a 5-3 heart fit and why not 3NT over 3C or 3D as a "4th suit forcing-asking for a stopper".

3H is certainly forcing, but I disagree with those who said it is forcing to game.

 

In particular, if responder retreats to 4C, opener can Pass.

 

This makes sense because it would be far from unusual that 4C is all you can make. Your system should not force you to get a minus score when this is the case. If responder doesn't want opener to Pass him in 4C, he shouldn't bid 4C - he can always bid 5C himself.

 

The same is true if responder tries 3S and opener retreats to 4C - responder can Pass. Again the same principle applies. Opener can (and should) bid 5C if he does not want his partner to Pass 4C.

 

Note that 4C in both of the auctions I mention is not a "pure signoff" - it is just a "non-forcing bid" that says "I have told my story and my hand is not good enough to bid 5C myself - feel free to Pass if you don't think we can make 5C".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mtvesuvius]

Well put, Csaba. :)

 

(I only have one (ex-)partner who would pass)

Than we should never consider to form a partnership,

because on the table I passed ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

He is actually an Ex-Partner for another reason (The continous yelling at the table finally got out of hand)... This auction just reminded me of an auction I had with him, and I probably should not have included that line, but... :)

[kgr]

IMO 3H is possibly a search for 3NT. If no D stopper is found then forcing to 3NT. 4C can be passed if no stopper.

[RichMor]

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is 2♠ forcing ?

[fred]

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Absolutely.

 

Responder could have tried to sign off in 2S over 2C.

 

Why would he try to sign off in 2S now after having learned that opener almost certainly has 1 spade at the most?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[RichMor]

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Absolutely.

 

Responder could have tried to sign off in 2S over 2C.

 

Why would he try to sign off in 2S now after having learned that opener almost certainly has 1 spade at the most?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred,

 

Won't argue with you. In the January 2002 Master Solvers Club that was part of problem F. The votes were:

 

yes, it's forcing = 16

no, not forcing = 14

 

Could be a general principle here, something like

'if opener (or responder) bypasses a non-forcing rebid in a suit, bidding the same suit on a later round is forcing'.

 

Make sense ?

 

RichM

[fred]

Fred,

 

Won't argue with you. In the January 2002 Master Solvers Club that was part of problem F. The votes were:

 

yes, it's forcing  = 16

no, not forcing   = 14

 

Could be a general principle here, something like

'if opener (or responder) bypasses a non-forcing rebid in a suit, bidding the same suit on a later round is forcing'.

 

Make sense ?

 

RichM

It takes a lot to surprise me when it comes to how experts answer such questions, but I was REALLY suprised to read how the MSC voted on this problem. In fact, I thought that either I had misread the original problem or you had mistyped it, but I checked my own copy of the January 2002 Bridge World and see that you are right!

 

It makes me feel a little better that the moderators (Berkowitz and Cohen) were surprised as well. Some quotes from them:

 

"Our disappointment knows no boundaries. Fourteen panelsts deemed two spades as nonforcing. Astounding! How is it possible that a hand that didn't previously bid two spades can now be looking to play there when partner announces shortness in the suit?"

 

"How embarassing to mention unanimity, then to see a vote split almost down the middle."

 

"We agree with Ron that is should be unanimous..."

 

"So logical, in fact, that we must question the thinking of the panel."

 

I can't really explain why so many MSC panelists apparently felt otherwise. It looked to me that most on the non-forcing side were part of the "old guard", but I would have thought that the answer to this particular question would not be one that would change over time.

 

Anyways, thanks for the surprise :(

 

As to your proposed general principle, my first reaction is that on the surface I suspect it is sound but:

 

- I have not tried very hard to come up with an exception

- I am not sure of the value of trying to come up with principles to cover situations like this (rather than either making partnership agreements or, if necessary, relying on logic to figure out such things at the table)

- For me it is so OBVIOUS that 2S is forcing that it would not occur to me that an expert partner would think otherwise (shows what I know). So for me there would be little point in either trying to formulate a general principle or in making an explicit agreement about this particular sequence.

 

Given the IMO remarkable MSC vote, perhaps it is the case that "relying on logic" is not a good way to go :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[peachy]

No, responder cannot Pass, 3H is forcing one round.

No, it does not matter what form of scoring.

No, it does not matter if responder was a passed hand. I would just barely understand Pass if a passed-hand responder is an "operator" and had stretched to bid 3C for some reason and then chickened out and passed. However, he should stand ready to apologize if a bad score resulted from his undisciplined action.

[P_Marlowe]

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Hi,

 

My first reaction was nonforcing, wtp?

 

But than this should not come as a surprise, given that I passed in the

auction, which started the thread. (*)

 

Responder has linited its hand fairly tight, sry he has 6-9HCP, and he has

not more.

With the 2D bid, he will also have denied a 6 card spade suit.

Now he showes a 5 card suit, denies a heart stopper (for me the meaning

of 2H would be FSF) and showes min.

If opener thinks 2S in a 5-2 fit is their best spot, why should opener

not be allowed to pass.

Opener knowes his hand, and he knowes .with which hand he did

make the 2H bid.

 

The answer to the question forcing / non forcing may lie in the answer,

what do you think 2H means.

In my opinion it cant be natural, because than opener would hold reverse

strength, the only possible hand type I am ignoring is a hand with 4441.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

(*) I now think, I was wrong as I passed, because 3H implies the willingness

to play 4C.

[1eyedjack]

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Responder hasn't suddenly discovered in his hand a load more values than he had when he bid a non-forcing and dare I say it discouraging 2D preference on the previous round. Fred says that responder could have signed off in 2S over 2C. That may be a reasonable MP technique, but at IMP why risk playing in a total misfit in Spades when he has some diamond support? I know we are not given the conditions of contest in this one.

[fred]

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent.

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is 2♠ forcing ?

Responder hasn't suddenly discovered in his hand a load more values than he had when he bid a non-forcing and dare I say it discouraging 2D preference on the previous round. Fred says that responder could have signed off in 2S over 2C. That may be a reasonable MP technique, but at IMP why risk playing in a total misfit in Spades when he has some diamond support? I know we are not given the conditions of contest in this one.

2D is not exactly "discouraging" - it is a relatively wide-ranging bid (6-9 or slighly wider). Opener's hand is considerably more wide-ranging (11-18?) so there could still be a game in the cards.

 

When opener bids again, one of the messages he is saying is "even though I know you have only 6-9 I still think we might have game". So responder, if he likes his hand in the context of the bidding, is supposed to make some kind of forward-going bid. Since it doesn't make sense (to me at least) that 2S should be a playable contract, 2S is one of the forward-going bids that responder can make.

 

2H should not be thought of as "fourth suit forcing". It is a semi-natural bid that suggests some heart length, spade shortness, and significant extra values. True you might bid 2H as a "least of evils" with a strong 2254 hand with no heart stopper, but that is not very likely.

 

IMO you will do just fine if you go through life with the assumption that, when partner bids 2H, he has either a singleton or void in spades (which is why it doesn't make sense that 2S should be a playable contract given that responder could have attempted to sign off in 2S before he knew that his partner was short in spades).

 

2H does not "ask for a heart stopper" and it would be silly for responder to bid 2NT over 2H whenever he held a stopper in hearts. For example, perhaps responder has a terrible hand with which he does not want to be raised to 3NT or perhaps he has something like Jxxx in spades opposite partner's known shortness.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

so what does 2♠ mean?

 

I would like to propose 2♠ as a contract with say

 

JT9xxx Kxx Jxx x

 

I might have thought 2♦ would play better than 2♠ but 2♠ would play better than 3♦ because it's a level lower, in spite of the fact that I know that partner has 0-1(2) and not 0-2(3) spades.

[fred]

so what does 2♠ mean?

To me 2S means "I like my hand too much to bid 3D and I don't want to bid 2NT (or 3C)".

 

Ideally responder would hold a relatively pure spade holding opposite partner's known shortness (either very little in the way of strength of maybe just the Ace) but given space considerations it is perhaps not practical to be too stringent about the specific requirements for 2S. In other words, going with a simple definition like the one I suggest above and leaving it at that is probably smart.

 

JT9xxx Kxx Jxx x

 

I might have thought 2♦ would play better than 2♠ but 2♠ would play better than 3♦ because it's a level lower, in spite of the fact that I know that partner has 0-1(2) and not 0-2(3) spades.

 

I am not sure I agree with your assessment of the chances of making 3D versus 2S (or the decision to bid 2D the round before), but even if I grant all of that we are talking about an extremely obscure hand type here (and one for which there is a good alternative). Surely it is more useful to play 2S as I suggest above.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com