After 1D-1M-2D

[kenberg]

The hand in question had a happy ending:

1♦ 1♠

2♦ 3♣

3♦ PASS

 

Plus 130, the opponents taking the top two hearts and a later spade from a losing finesse. (Opponents would take the first five hearts in no trump).

 

Discussion showed that partner and I had different views of what to expect from 3♣.

 

A brief exerpt from BWS:

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...bwsall.html#IVH

 

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

 

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

 

 

Partner saw 3♣ as a variant on new minor forcing, not necessarily promising clubs. My shape was 2=3=6=2 with the diamonds headed be AKQT so I didn't much care what 3♣ meant. But holding a heart stop I might well have bid 3NT. And if asked, I would have said that it showed clubs, allowing though for the fact that players sometimes, for a variety of reasons, make up a forcing club bid when they have diamond support.

 

I have encountered this usage of 3♣ as nmf before, even to the extent that

1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ is played as non-forcing, but I am not fond of it.

 

Perhaps the correct way to think about 1♦1♠ 2♦ 3♣ is that 3♣ may not be real clubs but, reasonably, it can be raised to 4♣ only with a four card holding. That way we bypass 3NT only in those cases where we probably should. Naturally I would bid 3♠ over 3♣ whenever I had three, but often I would already have done so (supported spades).

 

Anyway, what are your thoughts on what I should expect of the 3♣ bid? In particular, can I bid 3NT holding a heart stop without worrying about clubs? I would have done so had I held a top heart instead of the top club that I actually held. Or, if I hold four clubs, do I raise 3♣ to 4? In short, do you treat the 3♣ bid as a natural call showing, surprise, clubs? And while you are at it, do you regard 3♣ as game forcing? It seems to me that the 3♣ bidder, who knows more about my hand than I do about his, should have the option to drop out short of game but I should not.

[ONEferBRID]

I prefer "cheapest new suit forcing" ( 2♥! here ) rather than "NMF" ( 3♣! ).

 

Thus, for your case:

1♦ - 1♠

2♦ - 2♥! = may be artificial.

 

This leaves room for Opener to rebid at the 2-level: 2S ( 3 cards ♠) or 2NT ( with a ♥-stop ) or show a 2nd 4 card suit at the 3-level ( 3♣/♥ ).

 

This then would allow for a non-forcing auction:

1♦ - 1♠

2♦ - 3♣ = weak 4/6

pass or 3D for pass

[glen]

I'm going to reply as if this question is in the "Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion" forum.

 

1) Forget about NMF and artificial bids here - this is not the forum for discussing these on this auction.

 

2) Play new suits by responder are forcing if below game.

 

On the auction 1♦-1♥;-2♦-?, both 2♠ and 3♣ are forcing.

 

On the auction 1♦-1♠;-2♦-?, both 2♥ and 3♣ are forcing.

 

With game invite values, instead of the bidding 3♣ or, 2♠ on the first auction where opener has denied 4♠s (skipped over 1♠ to bid 2♦), prefer to make a natural invite bid such as 3 of your major, 2NT or 3♦ if your hand fits this.

 

Sometimes you will have to make forcing new suit bids with only some values in them, and not length, when you have no better bid to make. These forcing bids do not establish a game force in a beginner or intermediate partnerships, but advanced and expert partnerships, using methods such as Bridge World Standard, might put in place firm agreements.

[kenberg]

I appreciate both replies and I happily take correction about the proper use of B/I if indeed the view expressed above is the consensus. The auction is a basic one and the issues common so I was concerned that plaing it on the more general forum would get the reverse comment that it belongs on B/I.

 

Anyway, my instincts are to prefer natural agreements unless there is reason to the contrary. Still, one can imagine a responder, after 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ having a problem. With, say, five spades, three diamonds, and good values he may wish to make up a 3♣ bid trusting he can control the auction to arrive at 5♦ of 4♠ depending on opener's third call. Using 2♥ as possibly not real hearts crossed my mind, but of course opener can have four hearts and since responder's 2♥ doesn't deny hearts, he will want to raise.

 

If his is an inappropriate forum for this discussion I would be very pleased to have the moderator move it.

[mike777]

The hand in question had a happy ending:

1♦ 1♠

2♦ 3♣

3♦ PASS

 

Plus 130, the opponents taking the top two hearts and a later spade from a losing finesse. (Opponents would take the first five hearts in no trump).

 

Discussion showed that partner and I had different views of what to expect from 3♣.

 

A brief exerpt from BWS:

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...bwsall.html#IVH

 

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

 

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

 

 

Partner saw 3♣ as a variant on new minor forcing, not necessarily promising clubs. My shape was 2=3=6=2 with the diamonds headed be AKQT so I didn't much care what 3♣ meant. But holding a heart stop I might well have bid 3NT. And if asked, I would have said that it showed clubs, allowing though for the fact that players sometimes, for a variety of reasons, make up a forcing club bid when they have diamond support.

 

I have encountered this usage of 3♣ as nmf before, even to the extent that

1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ is played as non-forcing, but I am not fond of it.

 

Perhaps the correct way to think about 1♦1♠ 2♦ 3♣ is that 3♣ may not be real clubs but, reasonably, it can be raised to 4♣ only with a four card holding. That way we bypass 3NT only in those cases where we probably should. Naturally I would bid 3♠ over 3♣ whenever I had three, but often I would already have done so (supported spades).

 

Anyway, what are your thoughts on what I should expect of the 3♣ bid? In particular, can I bid 3NT holding a heart stop without worrying about clubs? I would have done so had I held a top heart instead of the top club that I actually held. Or, if I hold four clubs, do I raise 3♣ to 4? In short, do you treat the 3♣ bid as a natural call showing, surprise, clubs? And while you are at it, do you regard 3♣ as game forcing? It seems to me that the 3♣ bidder, who knows more about my hand than I do about his, should have the option to drop out short of game but I should not.

 

ya 3c got to be 100% game force.

 

 

ya :

1d=1s

2d=2h can be an issue which is why more advanced players often play "reverse flannery"

 

 

without that I still aint never passin.....2h.

[helene_t]

Responder could also have a strong hand with spades only. Not sure all such hands should start with an SJS. (Or maybe you don't play SJS).

 

I think 3♣ should be a game force (otherwise it gets awkward: besides, with an invitational hand responder can just bid 3♦), and that it should deny four hearts (otherwise it gets overloaded), so 2♥ would be forcing (I think Fred likes to play 2♥ as a game force but that goes too far for me). Without discussion I would certainly take 3♣ as a GF, and I think it's unplayable otherwise.

 

In England, people like to play FSF in call kind of situations, so here I would take 3♥ by opener now as a sort of fsf, showing a dubious heart stopper and a doubleton spades, ideally three clubs (opener will rarely have four clubs). This will sometimes take us to 3NT without clubs stopped.

[mich-b]

I would suggest playing 3♣ as 100% GF , normally natural , but sometimes just used as a way to create a forcing situation, though normally with something in ♣ (at least a stopper).

[kenberg]

I would suggest playing 3♣ as 100% GF , normally natural , but sometimes just used as a way to create a forcing situation, though normally with something in ♣ (at least a stopper).

This is pretty much how I think of it with one exception. After his 3♣ and my 3♦, I don't quarrel with partner exercising his option to pass. He created the game force, I think he can uncreate it when I simply rebid my suit. In this case the hands were someting like

 

[hv=n=saqjxxhtxdjxcaxxx&s=sxxhjxxdakqtxxckx]133|200|[/hv]

 

I've been in worse contracts than 5♦. For that matter, I have been in worse contracts than 3NT. But it is also true that I would have bid the same way if my club king had been the club queen. I have an opening hand, I have good diamonds, that's it and I'm fine with partner bailing after my 3♦ bid. But if he raises to 4♦ I agree that I can't pass.

[ONEferBRID]

♠ AQJxx

♥ Tx

♦ Jx

♣ Axxx

 

♠ xx

♥ Jxx

♦ AKQTxx

♣ Kx

 

South North

1D - 1S

2D - 2H! ( cheapest new suit forcing )

3D - pass

 

3D = denies ALL of the following:

1) 3 cds Sp ( 2S )

2) 4 cds Hts ( 3H )

3) 4 cds Cl ( 3C )

4) Ht-stop ( 2NT= stop in other major as in "NMF" )