2 old threads combined

[jdonn]

1♦ - P - 1♠ - 2♣

P - P - 3♥

 

1♦ - P - 1♠ - 3♣

P - P - 3♥

 

I asked two good players this and they gave exactly opposite answers. I personally agreed with them each once and disagreed with each once. So, here we are, which (if any) 3♥ bids are forcing?

 

(I'm not sure to what extent it matters, but assume a 2/1 context, with mandatory support doubles on the 2♣ auction)

[bluecalm]

I feel strongly about first one. It should be forcing. It's easy ( I believe) to live without a way to show weak 2suiter while it would suck to double with every strong 5-5 hand (because partner may leave which we don't want and because it's difficult to describe it later in some cases).

 

As to the second one it seems that it can be played as both forcing and non forcing. I would choose non-forcing if it's my choice but I guess most people would say it's forcing. I wouldn't pass in casual partnership.

[Hanoi5]

I voted both. I mean, partner opened and I jumped in a new suit (in that case 2♥ would have been non-forcing, I guess) and partner opened and I'm bidding freely at the 3-level. However this situation is very dependant on what doubling and later bidding hearts would mean (they could both be non-forcing if I double on all strong hands...).

[Phil]

For me, I think the first is forcing. I don't see why we need to double and bid hearts when partner takes it out.

 

The second is NF - if pard hates her hand, why shouldn't we be allowed to play 3♥ across from a minimum and a fit?

 

I'd like to add in 1♦ - pass - 1♥ - 2♣; pass - pass - 2♠. I think this is akin to a jump to 3♥ and should be forcing too.

 

For some reason, at the risk of a threadjack, these auctions feel a lot like responder's follow-ups after support doubles, so I'd be interested in other's views regarding that.

[karlson]

I think the second is clearly NF and the first could go either way, but I would have assumed forcing normally.

[rogerclee]

I could see the argument either way on both of these auctions.

[Bbradley62]

In the first auction, what would 3♣ instead of 3♥ show? Does that satisfy some of the need for forcing bids?

[MarkDean]

Sweet, I am clearly out to lunch: I am the only who voted just the second one. I think the first one is an invite: partner doubles with most good hands, can bid 3♣ if he really has a good hand and is afraid of a pass. On the second one, the double is more likely to be passed, and there is less room in general - I tend not to try to stop on a dime in such situation.

[Jlall]

Sweet, I am clearly out to lunch: I am the only who voted just the second one. I think the first one is an invite: partner doubles with most good hands, can bid 3♣ if he really has a good hand and is afraid of a pass. On the second one, the double is more likely to be passed, and there is less room in general - I tend not to try to stop on a dime in such situation.

I'm with you I just never vote on the polls

[wclass___]

My bridge logic says that both should be NF.

 

1# It just feels wrong that you have to bid 2♥, with nice 5-5 that are likely to be passed. And while i think there other reasonable ways how to show game forcing 5♥-5♠, this type would always be forced to bid 2♥ or stretch to GF. I would say this is more like wide-ranged invitational bid. It is more common and it also takes monster to safely GF in such auctions where you don't really know how much defenses (offenses) partner has.

 

2# NF feels right.

[bluecalm]

The way we play it should be forcing. My pd reminded me that 2♥/2♠ after 1♦ would be both 5-4+ so here I only have forcing 5-5 hand because I had other bid with an invite. I guess it's not that easy for everybody :angry:

[MFA]

F - NF

That's my current agreement and I wouldn't want to change it.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

a simple hard fast rule - new suit on the 3 level are forcing, unless explicitly

agreed otherwise.

 

I dont think it is a good idea to put all strong hands in the cue and in the t/o X.

 

Two add. comments - in the first seq., you can play 2NT as kind of good-bad, that

would allow you play to have it both ways.

And most likely it wont make any difference, as long as you play that NF showes

still reasonable values, in which case p will only pass in rare case.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[CSGibson]

I'd say 2nd one is definitely forcing for me - responder, who is unlimited, has introduced a new suit at the 3 level with no guarenteed fit, he has the HCP power to play 3N. invitational values tends to X 3C instead, which caters to that being our last plus score, or best plus score.

 

the 1st one my initial instinct was to call it forcing, but after thinking it through, I'm not sure.

[Fluffy]

I agree with karlson

[ONEferBRID]

Hi,

 

A simple hard fast rule - new suit on the 3 level are forcing, unless explicitly

agreed otherwise.

 

Marlowe

I've heard that before in this context:

" In a competitive auction, a new suit at the 3-level by an unpassed partner is forcing ".

[Cascade]

We have a general rule that new suits at the lowest level in competition are simply competing. It has served us well.

[jdonn]

F - NF

That's my current agreement and I wouldn't want to change it.

What exactly is your current agreement? (Since I assume it's a general agreement and not specific to this exact auction)

[gwnn]

I'm happy with playing both of them forcing (and all sequences where responder bids a new suit on the 3 level) after all I am also happy with 1m-1S; 2m-2H forcing, doesn't feel like we have much more space here, the added possibility of the cuebid notwithstanding. This is oversimplifying matters but a simple life is a happy life.

[MFA]

F - NF

That's my current agreement and I wouldn't want to change it.

What exactly is your current agreement? (Since I assume it's a general agreement and not specific to this exact auction)

My current agreements are:

 

- Responders simple balance in a new suit is NF at the 2- or 3- level, at the 2-level also if reverse

- Responders jumps in a new suit or X+bid are gameforcing.

[mike777]

As a nonexpert I would just assume all new suits bid at the three level freely are forcing.

 

I give up trying to stop on a dime in 3h.

 

----------------

 

My guess is at imps this will result in overbidding to some games and at MP playing 3c x...at times.

[Echognome]

I know it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but playing reverse flannery, as I do in at least one partnership, would make these both forcing for me. With the invite only hand you could double or just decide to stretch and force.

[Phil]

I know it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but playing reverse flannery, as I do in at least one partnership, would make these both forcing for me. With the invite only hand you could double or just decide to stretch and force.

Sathya and I discussed this yesterday in a Rev Flannery setting and decided that

 

1m - pass - 1♠ - 2om

pass - pass - ?

 

2♥ is forcing, but 3♥ isn't.

[bid_em_up]

Sweet, I am clearly out to lunch: I am the only who voted just the second one. I think the first one is an invite: partner doubles with most good hands, can bid 3♣ if he really has a good hand and is afraid of a pass. On the second one, the double is more likely to be passed, and there is less room in general - I tend not to try to stop on a dime in such situation.

No, you're not.

[jdonn]

So there is no consensus but leaning toward forcing in both cases. I actually feel neither should be forcing (despite arguing that one of them should be forcing in another thread). I suppose they are good situations for agreements is all you can really say, and otherwise not to pass or bid them on weak hands with a random partner undiscussed.