Opener's reverse opposite a passed responder

[nick_s]

Hi,

 

This sequence came up last night, while playing SA with a new partner:

 

MPs Red vs White

(P)-P-(P)-1♣

(1♠)-P-(2♣)-2♥

(P)-??

 

Is this reverse forcing? (I thought not, but wasn't sure)

 

You hold: ♠Qx ♥Txxx ♦J98xx ♣xx

 

Your bid?

[vuroth]

I can't see how it can be forcing. Opponents have some cards, and partner didn't open 2♣.

 

That said, I wouldn't pass with xx xxx xxx xxxx. Partner has longer clubs than hearts, and enough points to compete at the 2 level. I would pass or bid 3♣, depending on where the fit lay, trusting that partner wants to compete this far.

 

With the given hand, I would pass.

 

V

[jdonn]

I pass if it's forcing anyway. Sorry if we have game partner, but we could also be too high already even if you have your bid. The odds seem to me strongly in favor of passing.

 

But that's all moot since it's clearly NF.

[Phil]

Its NF.

 

One of the sequences I remember playing with an ex-partner 10 years ago at the Anaheim NABC was this:

 

pass - pass - 1♦ - 1♠

pass - 2♦ - 2♥ - 4♠

?

I held ♠ATxx. I whacked.

 

LHO redoubled. Pard pulled to 5♦ which was -1100, slightly more than the -1080 we had offered up.

 

Pard had some 4-6 eight count or something ridiculous like that.

[barmar]

If partner really wanted to force to at least 3♥, he could cue bid 2♠ first.

[jdonn]

If partner really wanted to force to at least 3♥, he could cue bid 2♠ first.

Or rebid 3♥ instead of 2♥.

[nick_s]

Ok thanks - this is pretty much what I thought.

 

So a minimum hand for opener would be something like:

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦x ♣KQJxxx

 

...prepared to play in 3♣ but willing to stop in 2♥ if there's a fit.

[hanp]

No. It shows a reverse strength hand, it's just not forcing.