How do you play this sequence?

[cnszsun]

1H-1S

2C-2N

3C

 

3C was just sign-off, or it showed a hand better than minimum, so that responder could bid game sometimes.

[gnasher]

A signoff.

[jdonn]

My preference is definitely forcing, but of course I don't risk that undiscussed. In fact I assume signoff undiscussed.

[whereagles]

I prefer NF.

 

There are good arguments towards forcing but, since in that case you usually end up in 3NT, better to just bid that with the forcing hand :)

[Phil]

A signoff. There are other calls that we can make along the way to 3N that are forcing.

 

This sequence is akin to:

 

1♠ - 1N

2♥ - 2N

3♥

[rogerclee]

It was my understanding that both the original and Phil's sequences are forcing in standard North American bridge.

 

Anyway I prefer the original auction to be NF and to play that Phil's auction is forcing, with 3♣ artificial and usually weak.

[jdonn]

A signoff. There are other calls that we can make along the way to 3N that are forcing.

Just to intentionally try to start a debate, rather than make this like a vote:

 

- If you are a weak 5-5 there is no assurance of a fit.

- You lose the meaning of those other forcing calls (I assume it's mostly 3♦ you are referring to on this sequence. Now you can't as easily use that to find out partner's spades are weak and you don't belong in 3NT when you are 1534 etc.)

- You lose space over the forcing call (If 3♣ is forcing partner can bid 3♦ over it. If 3♦ is the only forcing call on such hands partner can't bid 3♦ over it.)

- More points are at stake when you have a game forcing hand.

- I bet a forcing hand is more common, since the range is wider and since the opponents have been silent.

[kenrexford]

Descriptive.

[Phil]

A signoff. There are other calls that we can make along the way to 3N that are forcing.

Just to intentionally try to start a debate, rather than make this like a vote:

 

 

OK, its on like Donkey Kong :) :

 

- If you are a weak 5-5 there is no assurance of a fit.

 

I agree there is no "assurance" of a fit, however, there usually will be a 3 card fit, and sometimes a 4 card fit. Furthermore,

 

- Why is 'no assurance of a fit' a reason why 3m should be forcing?

 

- When the 2N bidder does have 3 of Opener's 2nd suit, 3m will be a much better spot than 2N. I take it with a weak 5-5 you have to pass 2N?

 

- I will go so far to say that frequently a 5-2 fit will play better than 2N, since we will have 20-22 combined and there is no trick source.

 

 

You lose the meaning of those other forcing calls (I assume it's mostly 3♦ you are referring to on this sequence. Now you can't as easily use that to find out partner's spades are weak and you don't belong in 3NT when you are 1534 etc.)

 

Yes, I would take 3♦ or 3♠ as forcing, but I'm not sure what 'meaning' is getting lost here, except that I do acknowledge that I may have to bid the same with a 1=5=2=5 as a 1=5=3=4, but either way we have identified a potential problem for 3N since we have inferred shortness in the 4th suit. So I can easily find out if there is a spade problem. I might have an interim problem finding a good 5-3 fit in our minor, but if we identify spades as a problem, responder can show club support over 3♦ just as easily as he can over 3♣.

 

You lose space over the forcing call (If 3♣ is forcing partner can bid 3♦ over it. If 3♦ is the only forcing call on such hands partner can't bid 3♦ over it.)

 

To what end? If Opener can't pattern with a diamond fragment, why would diamonds be a playable spot anyway?. What does 3♦ even mean over a 'forcing' 3♣? What does 3♠ mean over a forcing 3♣?

 

- More points are at stake when you have a game forcing hand.

 

Thanks for the IMP math lesson lol. This platitude doesn't strengthen your argument for a forcing 3♣ AFAIC.

 

- I bet a forcing hand is more common, since the range is wider and since the opponents have been silent.

 

I'll bet having a safe landing spot when Opener has a minimum distributional hand garners more IMPs than trying to split hairs with having multiple forcing rebids.

[mikeh]

I believe that the OP sequence (opener bids and rebids 3♣) has long been played, in standard, as nf.

 

The arguments to the contrary, based on the opps's silence are ill-founded. Consider: we opened with a major, and partner has about 10 or 11 hcp with no fit... how likely is it that the opps have enough strength and shape to be involved? Of course, they might, but it is at least understandable, if not probable, that they don't. Certainly, I do not see their silence as warranting any form of inference as to how best to play this sequence.

 

Let's look at it another way: If opener has some of the 11 or 12 counts (or even 10 for some) that we see many here as opening, with a 5-5 hand, we are in real trouble over 2N... we have a misfit in the major, we may or may not have a 5-3 (or 5-4) club fit, but we have scarcely more than the balance of the hcp. Meckwell have made a living from bidding 3N on these auctions, but most of us aren't meckwellian enough to do so. In short, when we need to get out... we really need to get out.

 

But what about a good hand? Well, which game are we aiming at? 5♣ is an 11 trick contract opposite an indifferent fit with hcp 'wastage' in the unbid suits.. while 3N may well make because we can run 9 tricks before they get 5.

 

And if we have a truly shapely hand, where we can't stand 3N, we could bid 4♣ over 2N. Not a perfect solution, but we have 2 ways to handle the gameforce and no way to handle the minimum, other than the 3♣ rebid.

 

BTW, many pairs use a form of BART over 2♣.. the variety I like allows responder two ways to invite via 2N... an immediate 2N shows 4+ clubs and going through 2♦, which puppets to 2♥, then 2N denies as many as 4 clubs.. thus on this sequence presumably something like 3=2=5=3.

 

As for the other sequences.. say 1♠ then 2♥ then 3♥, the solution is to play transfers over 2N... the transfers are on unless opener's second suit is clubs... so with a weak 5-5, bid 3♦, to show 5 hearts, and pass responder's preference of 3M... with a strong 5-5, again bid 3♦ and now bid again over partner's response.

[jdonn]

That's more like it!

- If you are a weak 5-5 there is no assurance of a fit.

I agree there is no "assurance" of a fit, however, there usually will be a 3 card fit, and sometimes a 4 card fit. Furthermore,

- Why is 'no assurance of a fit' a reason why 3m should be forcing?

It's a downside to bidding 3m nf.

- When the 2N bidder does have 3 of Opener's 2nd suit, 3m will be a much better spot than 2N. I take it with a weak 5-5 you have to pass 2N?

Yes, or overbid 3m anyway, depending on the hand. Obviously playing 3m forcing, it will be the hands that want to bid 3m nf that lose.

- I will go so far to say that frequently a 5-2 fit will play better than 2N, since we will have 20-22 combined and there is no trick source.

Who says there is no trick source? We have 2 (or 3 or 4) five card suits between us to get things started.

 

You lose the meaning of those other forcing calls (I assume it's mostly 3♦ you are referring to on this sequence. Now you can't as easily use that to find out partner's spades are weak and you don't belong in 3NT when you are 1534 etc.)

Yes, I would take 3♦ or 3♠ as forcing, but I'm not sure what 'meaning' is getting lost here, except that I do acknowledge that I may have to bid the same with a 1=5=2=5 as a 1=5=3=4, but either way we have identified a potential problem for 3N since we have inferred shortness in the 4th suit. So I can easily find out if there is a spade problem. I might have an interim problem finding a good 5-3 fit in our minor, but if we identify spades as a problem, responder can show club support over 3♦ just as easily as he can over 3♣.

You are missing lots of cases. 3m nf forces you to bid a 1525 and 0535 like a 1534, and a 2515 like a 3514 or 3505. It also prevents you from rebidding the minor on a 6-5 which is clearly preferable to rebidding the major since partner can easily return to the major anyway on a doubleton. You have to acknowledge all this as a clear downside.

 

You lose space over the forcing call (If 3♣ is forcing partner can bid 3♦ over it. If 3♦ is the only forcing call on such hands partner can't bid 3♦ over it.)

To what end? If Opener can't pattern with a diamond fragment, why would diamonds be a playable spot anyway?. What does 3♦ even mean over a 'forcing' 3♣? What does 3♠ mean over a forcing 3♣?

They would both mean strength in the suit and imply a need for help in the other suit. 3♦ might be Jxxx xx KQJx KJx, and 3♠ might be KQTxx x Qxxx Axx. It's not about diamonds being a playable spot, it's about investigating 3NT vs 4♥ vs 5♣ vs maybe 4♠. I really don't know why you question what those bids mean, it seems quite obvious they are natural in the context of what has been shown so far.

 

- More points are at stake when you have a game forcing hand.

Thanks for the IMP math lesson lol. This platitude doesn't strengthen your argument for a forcing 3♣ AFAIC.

If you say so? AFAIC your second sentence contradicts the sarcasm of your first sentence. :)

 

- I bet a forcing hand is more common, since the range is wider and since the opponents have been silent.

I'll bet having a safe landing spot when Opener has a minimum distributional hand garners more IMPs than trying to split hairs with having multiple forcing rebids.

I'd be inclined to believe it when you put it that way! Now who is engaging in meaningless platitudes?

[EricK]

I imagine that forcing is a better use.

 

For 3♣ to score better than 2NT you need to make two extra tricks in the suit contract. It is hard to see how you can ever be confident of that when all you know about partner's shape is that he has 4/5 ♠ and <3 ♥.

[hanp]

I prefer NF but Phil's sequence is forcing.

[peachy]

Without prior discussion with partner, I assume 3C is showing 5-5 and not extras - preferring to play partscore in suit, not 2NT. Responder can do as he wishes with that information = pass, game, 3NT, or preference to opener's major. Most of the time it is Pass or correct to the major.

[mike777]

1H-1S

2C-2N

3C

 

3C was just sign-off, or it showed a hand better than minimum, so that responder could bid game sometimes.

Good question, I wonder if one should just pass 2nt with 5-5 in which case that would make 3c forcing.

[Phil]

Josh: I'm not going to belabor this much longer primarily because this subject doesn't really hold my interest very much. There are other areas of bidding theory that I find a lot more stimulating.

 

I will say this however: Over your forcing 3♣, responder supposedly bids the pointed suit he has issues with (right)? Instead, my opener is simply patterning out, and responder can be the judge, since opener will frequently be describing 12 cards.

 

I do realize that I can't immediately show a 5-5 (and you can), but I still get to focus on the main issues and get to play 3♣ when its right. To me this is a small price to pay.

[miguelm]

Descriptive, but not forcing IMO.

[neilkaz]

Without prior discussion with partner, I assume 3C is showing 5-5 and not extras - preferring to play partscore in suit, not 2NT. Responder can do as he wishes with that information = pass, game, 3NT, or preference to opener's major. Most of the time it is Pass or correct to the major.

I agree with Peachy here. This is my understanding of how to handle the 10 or 11 HCP 5-5 type rounded suit hands vs those responses.

[andy_h]

I don't know what 'standard' is, and this is definitely one auction you should discuss with your partner. I have given up on NF (regardless if the 2nd suit was hearts or a minor), since I want to find the right strain (can easily be 5m). 2NT vs. 3m doesn't seem like an issue comparable to finding the right strain for me. That's my take.