this might be a stoopidquestion

[gwnn]

2♦-(2♥)-2♠

 

forcing or non-forcing?

 

edit for pooltuna's help:

 

2♦ is a weak two in diamonds

[pooltuna]

So we get a clue as to what 2♦ means?

[gwnn]

no. it's a big fat guess.

[pooltuna]

no. it's a big fat guess.

oh! Then 2♠ is a GSF

[helene_t]

Non-forcing probably most useful but would take it is forcing with an unknown p.

[kenrexford]

Non-forcing probably most useful but would take it is forcing with an unknown p.

In theory that might be right, but who passes with 21+ HCP and 5+ diamonds???

[gwnn]

surely you mean 21+ and 4+ spades Ken? :)

[kenberg]

In partnerships where I have discussed it, I usually play:

2D-(pass)-2S is forcing

2D-(2H)-2S is non-forcing, constructive

2D-(X)-2S is non-forcing, constructive

2D-(2H)-X is natural.

 

I am not prepared to defend this arrangement except to say that it seems to work adequately most of the time. I can't say that the last auction happens much, so maybe some other meaning would be more useful. Some sort of spade length and either diamond tolerance or a huge hand maybe.

[pooltuna]

In partnerships where I have discussed it, I usually play:

2D-(pass)-2S is forcing

2D-(2H)-2S is non-forcing, constructive

2D-(X)-2S is non-forcing, constructive

2D-(2H)-X is natural.

 

I am not prepared to defend this arrangement except to say that it seems to work adequately most of the time. I can't say that the last auction happens much, so maybe some other meaning would be more useful. Some sort of spade length and either diamond tolerance or a huge hand maybe.

How do you feel about your call when you find out partner was playing multi?

[gwnn]

ok. 2♦ is not multi. if it was multi I'd have told you!

 

2♦ is a weak two in diamonds.

[Phil]

Forcing, only because it may be support (or tolerance) and lead director. Or not.

[aguahombre]

If an opponent was the 2S bidder, I would assume it was NF, natural and that 2NT, instead, would have created an articial force.

 

Can honestly say I have never had this situation with any partner. Someday, I intend to try 2D as a wk two. Always open to new ideas ;)

[aguahombre]

Forcing, only because it may be support (or tolerance) and lead director. Or not.

Is it likely that the 2D opener will be on lead?

[Phil]

Forcing, only because it may be support (or tolerance) and lead director. Or not.

Is it likely that the 2D opener will be on lead?

When I've tried it (twice in the last two years), 4th chair bid 3N, which seems like a likely parlay. Even then, partner's knowledge of our spade strength can prove useful on defense when we are on lead.

 

This may be sub-optimal, I don't know, but we haven't been burned by playing this method.

[kenrexford]

surely you mean 21+ and 4+ spades Ken? :P

I did think that would be standard by now, but then the answer to the question would be obvious. LOL