Forcing or not

[benlessard]

1H-------1S

2H-------3D

3H-------3S

[JLOL]

Yes 3D is GF and it's very obvious.

[whereagles]

3♦ was already GF B)

[OleBerg]

3♦ was already GF B)

And it cannot be cancelled, no matter how sad you look. :)

[mtvesuvius]

The only way you are not in a GF after 3♦ is if one of the members of the partnership dies before the auction is over.

Even then... The substitute may not pass :)

[jdonn]

Yes and YES.

[Free]

3♦ is GF, 3♠ is not a game contract, so yes it's obviously forcing.

[Apollo81]

A new suit by responder at the 3-level is forcing to game.

[benlessard]

[hv=d=n&n=sahkqt8xxxdxckxxx&s=skjxxxxhjdakxxcaq]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

 

Over 3H Ive decided to bid 3S to check if partner had a stiff S honor. Facing a stiff S honor i would try for 6Nt (giving myself chances that H or S break. But facing a 4H rebid i would hope that 6H will play better than 6Nt. Do you agree with my plan ?

 

6H would have brought a bad MP result.

 

This time 'old school' partner is fairly convinced that 3m is GF but still he need to check in some books, any title to suggest ?

[Stephen Tu]

Well if you are really old school, then 1h-1s-2h-3s is GF. So the way to invite has to go through 3m, no?

 

I know not many left that play this way (2nd rnd responder jumps FG), but Bobby Goldman & Richard Pavlicek still preferred it at least up until a dozen years ago when both were still playing at very top level (and still with us, in BG's case), and I've never really seen any great argument as to why this older way is bad.

[jdonn]

Well if you are really old school, then 1h-1s-2h-3s is GF. So the way to invite has to go through 3m, no?

 

I know not many left that play this way (2nd rnd responder jumps FG), but Bobby Goldman & Richard Pavlicek still preferred it at least up until a dozen years ago when both were still playing at very top level (and still with us, in BG's case), and I've never really seen any great argument as to why this older way is bad.

Because opener can be endplayed over the 3m bid. With hearts not worth bidding again and no support for responder, you are in game. Playing the direct second round jump as invitational it's easy to pass on almost any minimum hand where you feel stuck.

[Stephen Tu]

Don't understand. Why are you endplayed playing the old way? As opener if you are stuck, you just rebid your H, which shouldn't show anything more than you've already shown, and pass partner's inv 3S.

[jdonn]

Are you playing the 3m bid shows 6 spades? If not then how can it be good for opener's 3♥ bid to not even show good hearts (responder has no clue when to pass or not, or alternatively if he has 5 spades he MUST pass), but if so then you are really wasting the bid. I just don't see how it can make sense for 2NT 3♣ and 3♦ to all be potentially invitational with two of them handcuffing opener when he has a minimum with no suit worth supporting or rebidding, while there is just one game forcing bid below 3NT (which is not even below opener's suit so he can't offer it again below 3NT). In fact even if playing the second round 3♠ as game forcing, I'm pretty sure I would also want the second round 3m bids to also be game forcing, it being that wasteful and inaccurate to use them as invitational.

 

I think you are simply exaggerating to say you don't understand why opener could be endplayed. I agree that obviously he won't be endplayed if you define one of his bids as showing nothing at all. But that won't really help you find the best contract, nor should you act as though it's a completely obvious solution.

[Stephen Tu]

Still don't get it. You are saying that an uninformative 3h rebid is bad because responder can't pass it? But if you were constrained to bid 3s inv, you didn't get to stop in 3h either ...

 

And what does one bid with a 5-1-2-5 inv hand over 2h, anyway? always 2nt? I supposed that's OK, but then I don't see what's necessarily wrong with 3m being inv w/ 6sp or GF w/ other hands, clarify later. Opener is going to have some awkward rebid hands even if 3m is 100%GF, I don't see how endplaying is an argument as you'll have tough hands either way.

 

I'm just not sure what class of hands you think are going to be bid much more accurately playing "new school".

[jdonn]

Still don't get it.  You are saying that an uninformative 3h rebid is bad because responder can't pass it?  But if you were constrained to bid 3s inv, you didn't get to stop in 3h either ...

No, I was saying that was the case IF you were bidding 3m on invitational hands including 5+ spades since at the time I couldn't tell if that was your claim or not. Now that I see you are playing 3m as any natural gf or invitational with 6(+?) spades I can say the downside is that when you have a game forcing hand you lose the informative nature of a 3♥ bid made because opener has good hearts and wants to rather than is potentially forced to.

 

Opener is going to have some awkward rebid hands even if 3m is 100%GF, I don't see how endplaying is an argument as you'll have tough hands either way.

If 3m is game forcing, opener has several options that aren't desirable opposite a potentially invitational 3m call.

- He can bid 3NT on a minimum with the other minor stopped.

- He can raise the minor on a minimum (or on a maximum with short spades), whereas opposite a 3m bid that could be invitational with 6+ spades he has to worry about invitational 6133, 71(23), etc. before raising on those particular hand types.

 

I know you are way too smart to be arguing that as long as opener is endplayed for a bid on at least some possible hands in both cases it's a wash, since it's plain to see this is a far greater problem if 3m could be invitational (well, unless you take a potentially descriptive bid and redefine it as a vague catchall). So I hope I'm simply misunderstanding you, although I fear I'm not...

 

I'm just not sure what class of hands you think are going to be bid much more accurately playing "new school".

You might ask yourself why what you are calling "new school" (a more accurate term might be "standard") became "new school" to begin with. Standard bidding treatments which garner huge majority approval are rarely worse than the prior alternative, for obvious reasons.

[Stephen Tu]

If 3m is game forcing, opener has several options that aren't desirable opposite a potentially invitational 3m call.

- He can bid 3NT on a minimum with the other minor stopped.

- He can raise the minor on a minimum (or on a maximum with short spades), whereas opposite a 3m bid that could be invitational with 6+ spades he has to worry about invitational 6133, 71(23), etc. before raising on those particular hand types.

 

When 3m can be an art. GF fragment wanting to show 6+ spades later, it's also not necessarily desirable to choose these options.

 

Standard bidding treatments which garner huge majority approval are rarely worse than the prior alternative, for obvious reasons.

 

Especially when treatments are close in efficacy, I don't think popularity is at all a reliable gauge of superiority. People learn & play what people around them play, superior doesn't win automatically when it's not clear what's superior.

 

Are 5 cd majors clearly superior to 4 cd majors? Are you going to argue this with Hamman?

[gnasher]

This time 'old school' partner is fairly convinced that 3m is GF but still he need to check in some books, any title to suggest ?

I don't think it's always been game-forcing - one used to see auctions like 1H-1S; 2H-3C; 3H-pass.

 

It's game-forcing in BWS (http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...bwsall.html#IVI)

 

After a one-level new-suit response and opener’s simple new-suit rebid:

...

    (b) a fourth-suit bid that is either a reverse or a three-level bid is forcing to game;

[jdonn]

If 3m is game forcing, opener has several options that aren't desirable opposite a potentially invitational 3m call.

- He can bid 3NT on a minimum with the other minor stopped.

- He can raise the minor on a minimum (or on a maximum with short spades), whereas opposite a 3m bid that could be invitational with 6+ spades he has to worry about invitational 6133, 71(23), etc. before raising on those particular hand types.

When 3m can be an art. GF fragment wanting to show 6+ spades later, it's also not necessarily desirable to choose these options.

"Desirable" was being kind. You absolutely can't afford to make those bids if 3m includes invitational hands. It's not the same situation, and I don't know why you are even trying to compare it. It's plainly obvious that when such a bid is game forcing you have more options over it than when the bid is potentially invitational, since you can make game bids on more hands. It seems to me you are trying very hard to refute something that is irrefutable.

 

Standard bidding treatments which garner huge majority approval are rarely worse than the prior alternative, for obvious reasons.

Especially when treatments are close in efficacy, I don't think popularity is at all a reliable gauge of superiority. People learn & play what people around them play, superior doesn't win automatically when it's not clear what's superior.

It is clear in this case, whether you believe it or not. And by the logic you are offering it would never have changed in the first place.

 

Are 5 cd majors clearly superior to 4 cd majors? Are you going to argue this with Hamman?

What if 97% of experts thought 5 card majors were superior and 3% including Hamman thought they weren't, you wouldn't think that makes it extremely likely that 5 card majors are superior?

[Stephen Tu]

It's plainly obvious that when such a bid is game forcing you have more options over it than when the bid is potentially invitational, since you can make game bids on more hands.

 

You have these extra options, but how often are you going to use them and are you getting to better contracts because of it?

 

It seems to me you are trying very hard to refute something that is irrefutable.

 

I haven't yet figured out what I am supposed to refute or accept as a proof. What I'd like to see is an example hand, where the GF'ness of the 3rd suit bid, allows opener to make this super-informative 3rd bid that allows a superior contract to be reached that clearly can't be reached any other way. And also without that sequence causing problems with different responding hands that might also start with that bid.

 

What if 97% of experts thought 5 card majors were superior and 3% including Hamman thought they weren't, you wouldn't think that makes it extremely likely that 5 card majors are superior?

 

I'd have to see what logical arguments they had for it before I could decide. It could be that 5 cd majors are simply easier to learn for most, rather than clearly "better". There's powerful incentive in bridge to go along with the herd, making it easier to form new/casual partnerships, and playing same agreements with multiple partners. This will overwhelm differences in methods which maybe don't really matter, neither clearly superior, just one out of fashion.

[jdonn]

What I'd like to see is an example hand, where the GF'ness of the 3rd suit bid, allows opener to make this super-informative 3rd bid that allows a superior contract to be reached that clearly can't be reached any other way.  And also without that sequence causing problems with different responding hands that might also start with that bid.

Sorry, I'm not your personal helper monkey. If you want to argue that a descriptive bid won't help you reach better contracts than a nondescriptive bid, then enjoy yourself.