Still forcing or not ?

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&w=skqt8543ht52dc762&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=3dd]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPS, pdship style extremely agressive preempts in first seat. What is 3♠ here after double in your pdship ?

[MarkDean]

It is still forcing for me. I would pass this hand.

[Fluffy]

also forcing for me, so I would pass

[OleBerg]

NF.

 

I'd bid 4♠ however. An agressive style makes it less unlikely that partner will cover a looser in the soft suits (And -500 is no problem). Furthermore, the opponents are prone to bid on, on many hands, in which case I've done my share to make it difficult for them.

 

Facing a "pure" preempting style, 4♠ would be much more dangerous. Not only would partner be unlikely to hold a covercard, he would also be more likely to have defensive diamond-tricks.

[mfa1010]

Still forcing. I would pass smoothly here. 4♠ is barking mad. B)

[EddieDane]

Still forcing. I would pass smoothly here. 4♠ is barking mad. B)

 

You're as wimpish a bidder as OleBerg is a figther.

[JLOGIC]

haha 4S after partner has preempted in our void, RHO has shown length in our not-great 7 card suit, and we have 3 small 3 small in the side suits... brilliant.

[OleBerg]

... brilliant.

 

Thx.

[JLOGIC]

NF.

 

I'd bid 4♠ however. An agressive style makes it less unlikely that partner will cover a looser in the soft suits (And -500 is no problem).

 

Ok so partner is "less unlikely" to cover a side loser with strength on our right. That's fine. Heck lets give him a 50 % chance to cover one of them (when he likely needs an ace or KQ for this to be true). We still have 5 side suit losers and probably 2 trump losers (if we're lucky). the other 50 % of the time we have 6 losers and no entry to dummy, so maybe we'll lose 3 trumps, but lets call it 2. Looks like down 800 on a good day, and down 1100 is very likely.

 

Or will partner also have Jx of spades to go with his club ace? Very unlikely but then we have the big win of... down 500 against their white game. Yay.

[awm]

Seems like there might be some benefit to playing transfers here. You gain the ability to make both NF and forcing advances, to put takeout doubler on lead against various contracts, and to make a cooperative diamond raise via 4♣ (i.e. asking partner to bid five with a "classical" preempt and getting out at four with a junky preempt). All this in exchange for the rarely useful natural redouble (which I guess lets you cooperatively penalize if partner has cards outside his suit).

[mfa1010]

You're as wimpish a bidder as OleBerg is a figther.

True.

[nigel_k]

I want to answer according to either my system or your system, not my agreements after the X combined with your preempting style. Anyway 3♠ is plenty. I think 3♠ should not be forcing unless you have specifically agreed otherwise. A hand that has enough to be interested in game but has poor enough spades that there is doubt about the strain will usually be a redouble anyway.

[OleBerg]

Ok so partner is "less unlikely" to cover a side loser with strength on our right. That's fine. Heck lets give him a 50 % chance to cover one of them (when he likely needs an ace or KQ for this to be true). We still have 5 side suit losers and probably 2 trump losers (if we're lucky). the other 50 % of the time we have 6 losers and no entry to dummy, so maybe we'll lose 3 trumps, but lets call it 2. Looks like down 800 on a good day, and down 1100 is very likely.

 

Or will partner also have Jx of spades to go with his club ace? Very unlikely but then we have the big win of... down 500 against their white game. Yay.

 

Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I'm not bidding 4♠ hoping to play there. My bet is that LHO will bid, but if I end up doubled, I will sometimes get away unscathed. And slam for the opponents is also a possibilety.

 

Also, where I play, screens are in use. This sometimes makes it a little harder for people to get these situations (double vs bidding on) rigth.

[Siegmund]

Seems like there might be some benefit to playing transfers here

 

Interesting idea. Especially since opposite a preempt it's relatively safe to use XX->transfer to cheapest step, and you avoid the usual problem of only having room for them over club openings but not diamonds.

 

On the other hand, if you want to allow transfers on completely awful hands, you lose the standard invitational meaning where preempter raises you to game when he has a fitting trump honour for you... 2-under transfers, anyone? :)

 

On the actual posted hand, I pass, and 3S is still forcing with my regular partner (but I'd assume it was NF with most my others - based mostly on how many of them play new suits NF after weak twos.)

[Cascade]

NF we have a general agreement that we can always compete.

[gnasher]

3♠ is a fit bid in my partnerships. That comes up far more often than any of the other meanings.

 

You could wait twenty years for a forcing or invitational one-suiter in this sequence.

 

Playing an aggressive preemptive style, there's a case for playing 3♠ as the type of hand in the original post - just lots of spades and a better suit than the preempter's, essentially rescuing partner before the double gets left in. But it's rare to have this type of hand, because the takeout doubler usually has both length and strength in spades. Usually when you have a hand that fears playing in 3♦x, you also have nowhere to go - a 4405 10-count is typical.

[cherdano]

3♠ is a fit bid in my partnerships. That comes up far more often than any of the other meanings.

Do you play it as forcing or non-forcing?

If forcing, then in practice you probably always bid 3S when everyone else bids it, as I can't remember having forcing one-suiter without a fit in this auction. But you get the benefit of promising a fit, and of being able to bid with weaker hands. I think you have convinced me.

[gnasher]

Do you play it as forcing or non-forcing?

If forcing, then in practice you probably always bid 3S when everyone else bids it, as I can't remember having forcing one-suiter without a fit in this auction. But you get the benefit of promising a fit, and of being able to bid with weaker hands. I think you have convinced me.

As forcing, but mainly inviting partner to compete in his own suit, so it might have a four- or five-card spade suit.

[whereagles]

I thought of being funny and bid 3♥, intending to follow up with 3♠, but then I thought again and it's very likely LHO will have some hearts to bid if I pass, so that's what I'm gonna do.

[dake50]

My partner's 3D didn't mean

"One suited diamonds. No interest in especially a Major."

He meant let's start here. What do we have? Spades? Hearts? Clubs?

3S natural as invite is silly. Advance Q-bid or fit-bid yes.

4S is wildly hoping opponents won't handle that.

Mine are sane with honors in front of them.

I play xfers here, but would not think to 3H->3S except as lead direct.

Is this hand that desperate -- only to S:KQ sets them????

[gszeszycki]

there is a call we have xx that creates a force. Therefore 3s here is a desparation run out. Opposite a p who makes sounds preemtps I would pass since there is no guarantee my spades will work any better than diamonds.

[Free]

I guess 3♠ is still forcing. Lets all play transfers like we do after 1X-(Dbl) :D

[Phil]

3♠ is forcing. I can buy this call being a lead director - AQJx xx xxx xxxx; but to play it as specifically 'fitted' really cuts down on the frequency.

 

Transfers do not make much sense to me. We are not in a constructive posture when RHO doubles, so do we really need a lot of different ways to bid spades? Do we need to show two suiters here? Do we need to offer the preemptor a choice between 4♠ and 3N? I do not like the idea of allowing my LHO to double the transfer call.

 

If you want to make one tweak, play redouble as some sort of McCabe, where opener bids the next 'strain' (here 3♥). It might be useful for a runout when you don;t trust partner's preempts, or you suspect your suit will play better. Redouble as natural makes little sense to me. All it does it slow down the opponents.

[tolvyrj]

Two things, is 3S forcing after opponents have dbl prd 3D pre-empt in my sys. Answer is no... forcing to what? 4D? I cant see the point in that sry, if u can enlighten me in this pls do so :) .

And would i bid 3S over 3D...depends what u mean aggressive style in first hand and what 3S means after dbl, if it means shut up i dont have diamonds yes i would, dont wanna hear 4D though.

[MrAce]

Two things, is 3S forcing after opponents have dbl prd 3D pre-empt in my sys. Answer is no... forcing to what? 4D? I cant see the point in that sry, if u can enlighten me in this pls do so :) .

And would i bid 3S over 3D...depends what u mean aggressive style in first hand and what 3S means after dbl, if it means shut up i dont have diamonds yes i would, dont wanna hear 4D though.

 

Forcing doesnt necesarilly mean "strong hand" here. But you may have 5 cards ♠ and 3-4 cards ♦ for example with a hand that can bid 5♦ as a save. However it can be a cheaper save vs 4♥ to be able to bid 4♠ if we have fit. Not only saving hands but also hands where u have 13-14 hcp and can easily make 4♠ (again with ♦ support and some shape) if pd has a fit.