forcing?

[jillybean]

(3♠) X  (P)  4♣

(P)   4♦?

[aguahombre]

A good question to ask partner. My answer is "no", but I have been out of mainstream before.

[gwnn]

Not forcing. As a general rule it's never possible to force partner with a natural bid if he can still have 0 HCP.

 

Only exception that springs to mind is

 

2♣-2♦/2♥ some form of waiting bid that could have 0 HCP

2♠

 

which is played as forcing by almost everyone.

 

Not even something like

 

1♣-x-1♥-p

p-3♠

 

is forcing, even though it is obviously quite strong :)

[mohitz]

Non forcing but shows extras. Typically short clubs, 5+ diamonds and some hearts.

[aguahombre]

Non forcing but shows extras.

this seems contradictory. Having forced partner to do something intelligent at at least the 3NT level, I don't understand a non-forcing bid showing extras. But, just an observation.

[gwnn]

well, a double at the 3S level can be in practice (strictly as a function of HCP and cutting off the top of the range because those hands never come) 12-26.

 

12-16 is a minimum and will pass

17-20 is extras and can bid on but can't force to game so bids in a non-forcing way

21-26 can be treated as a GF and will bid something else.

 

These numbers are approximate, I am just using them as illustration that it is indeed possible for an extras call to be non-forcing, even at this level.

[ggwhiz]

Non-forcing but if you agree to play it in advance, it's "equal level conversion", at a high level in this case.

 

Basically, even after 1♠ - dble - pass - 2♣ then 2♦ by the doubler doesn't show extra values, just ♦ with a side order of ♥.

 

ie. (best case?) ♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AQJxxx ♣x can double a 1♠ opener without the risk of losing the ♥ suit by overcalling 2♦.

 

Especially effective at Matchpoints I think but pretty rare.

[Phil]

Non forcing but shows extras.

this seems contradictory. Having forced partner to do something intelligent at at least the 3NT level, I don't understand a non-forcing bid showing extras. But, just an observation.

I don't see any contradiction in Mohitz' statement.

[aguahombre]

These numbers are approximate, I am just using them as illustration that it is indeed possible for an extras call to be non-forcing, even at this level.

There is a difference between "shows extras" and "might have extras" with the ELC 4D call --either way, non-forcing ---extra king, or more, or not.

 

X AQTX AKJXXX XX

[jdonn]

Non forcing but shows extras.

this seems contradictory. Having forced partner to do something intelligent at at least the 3NT level, I don't understand a non-forcing bid showing extras. But, just an observation.

I have no idea why that would make no sense. Care to elaborate?

[jillybean]

So is partner expected to correct to ♦'s holding 3244 after;

(3♠) X (P) 4♣

(P)  4♥ ?

 

and

 

(3♥) X (P) (4♣)

(P)  4♥   must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?

 

 

I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC

at the 2 and 3 level?

[aguahombre]

? entirely different auction

Different person bid 4C, etc.

[jillybean]

? entirely different auction

Different person bid 4C, etc.

oops corrected, I post too fast without thinking

[Codo]

To me 4 ♦ would be forcing.

 

Yes there are reasons why the approach that 4 ♦ should not be forcing is superior. But I would not rate them convincing enough to make an exception from the rule that double and an own suit is forcing.

 

This is BI not AE.

[bluecalm]

But I would not rate them convincing enough to make an exception from the rule that double and an own suit is forcing.

 

This rule is quite awful. I don't know how you come with that but I suspect there must be some loss in translation...

Doubling and bidding new suit is almost always natural, showing extras and not forcing.

For example:

 

1♠ dbl - pas - 2♣

pass 2♥

 

Is obviously not forcing and natural. Something like:

x

AKJxxx

AKx

Qxx

 

The OP's sequence is classically not forcing and showing very strong hand with diamonds. I can see a point for playing this as forcing or as some kind of ♥ + ♦ hand. No opinion what is better at 4 level but without some prior special agreement it's not forcing.

[jdonn]

To me 4 ♦ would be forcing.

 

Yes there are reasons why the approach that 4 ♦ should not be forcing is superior. But I would not rate them  convincing enough to make an exception from the rule that double and an own suit is forcing.

 

This is BI not AE.

Where do you get that non-standard rule from?

 

Standard: Doubling then bidding your own suit shows extras but is not forcing.

 

Aside from being standard it has always served me well. I can pass when I'm weak and think we are high enough, I can raise or bid something else when I have a little strength and chances to make. What exactly is not to like?

[hanp]

I have honestly never heard of Codo's rule, and it would never have occured to me that this auction is forcing.

[gordontd]

I have honestly never heard of Codo's rule, and it would never have occured to me that this auction is forcing.

Me neither - unless partner had made a response that showed values.

[Codo]

Maybe I was on drugs when I wrote what I did.

Sorry.

[jillybean]

So is partner expected to correct to ♦'s holding 3244 after;

(3♠) X (P) 4♣

(P)  4♥ ?

 

and

 

(3♥) X (P) (4♣)

(P)  4♥   must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?

 

 

I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC

at the 2 and 3 level?

Can someone answer these questions, please.

[gwnn]

4♥ in the first auction shows 5+ hearts and a strong hand (non forcing).

 

4♥ in the second auction does not show or deny anything in particular, it is just a strong strong hand, game forcing.

 

3♥-x-p-4♣

p-4♠

 

shows 5+ spades and a strong hand (non forcing).

[jillybean]

Heck, I had that muddled up, thanks.

[bucky]

So is partner expected to correct to ♦'s holding 3244 after;

(3♠) X  (P) 4♣

(P)  4♥  ?

 

and

 

(3♥) X  (P) (4♣)

(P)  4♥    must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?

 

 

I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC

at the 2 and 3 level?

3244 is not shapely enough to correct to diamonds. For example doubler could have 1633 in the first sequence (with rather weak hearts).

[jillybean]

So is partner expected to correct to ♦'s holding 3244 after;

(3♠) X  (P) 4♣

(P)  4♥  ?

 

and

 

(3♥) X  (P) (4♣)

(P)  4♥    must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?

 

 

I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC

at the 2 and 3 level?

3244 is not shapely enough to correct to diamonds. For example doubler could have 1633 in the first sequence (with rather weak hearts).

Why wouldn't you bid a direct 4♥ with weak 1633 ?

[bucky]

Why wouldn't you bid a direct 4♥ with weak 1633 ?

Because hearts may not be the right strain. Say I hold x, Axxxxx, AKJ, AQJ, why do I have to insist on hearts? If partner has stiff heart and 6-card minors, I want to be in 5m. More often though, the doubler will have 1543 or similar shape. The point is that, double-then-bid shows more flexibility in strain than direct suit bid.