Is this forcing?

[Hanoi5]

Bidding goes:

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1c1hd2h3dp]133|100[/hv]

 

Is 3♦ forcing?

 

What do you bid as East with:

 

♠Q8xx

♥K8

♦J9xx

♣K85

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

For me - the answer is No, 3D is NF.

 

But the answer may be different for others - ask yourself, if 2D in the seq.

 

1C - (1H) - X - (Pass)

2D - ...

 

would be a reverse or not.

 

Also relevant is, if you play 2NT instead of 3D as some kind of good-bad.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[menggq]

East:Dbl=Neg showed ♠ suit 6hcp+

West:3D=a free bid new suit and showed extra values so it's forcing obviously.

East:what the next bid would u make?

I suggest to bid 3H cue bid,if West can bid 3N we hv two stopers in ♥ suits that's safe to play 3N;if West bids 3S or 4C/D, we may play minor contract as well.

[aguahombre]

Must be new territory agreeing with Marlowe, but he nails it.

 

Got to be forcing. Got to be reverse values. Neg doubler did not promise diamonds, yet we are bidding them at the 3-level...forcing responder to the 4-level if he/she does not have diamonds.

 

Even 2 Diamonds if available is a true reverse in our world.

Good/bad 2NT here would be with six clubs, not for diamonds.

[Bbradley62]

For me - the answer is No, 3D is NF.

 

But the answer may be different for others...

Must be new territory agreeing with Marlowe, but he nails it.

 

Got to be forcing...

What exactly are you agreeing on?

[Free]

Seems to me that 3♦ should show extra's, so forcing. I can hardly find a minimum hand that wants to play exactly 3♦ over a negative Dbl.

 

I'd bid 3NT: I have a stopper and we should have the values for game. No need to let opener play 3NT (by bidding 3♥) because we have Kx. With Kxx you could bid 3♥ hoping to rightside 3NT when opener has Qx for example.

[Lurpoa]

Bidding goes:

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1c1hd2h3dp]133|100[/hv]

 

Is 3♦ forcing?

 

What do you bid as East with:

 

♠Q8xx

♥K8

♦J9xx

♣K85

 

 

 

 

Absolutely forcing.

 

3NT, showing a stopper.

 

Partner knows I have now no more 4spades and 2 or 3 hearts, ... So he can make a wise decision.....

[helene_t]

Yeah I think it should be forcing. Responder doesn't promise diamonds so even if it was NF he would have to bid 3NT or 4♣ with a minimum sometimes. We don't want to force him to do that without gf values.

 

With a minimum reverse, dbl. With a sub-reverse, just pass unless dbl or 2NT shows that.

[mgoetze]

Seems that people are disagreeing what the double shows - only spades, or spades and diamonds? A related question: would 1♠ instead of double have promised 5?

[fromageGB]

Seems that people are disagreeing what the double shows - only spades, or spades and diamonds? A related question: would 1♠ instead of double have promised 5?

I think this is a question that will lead to an intersting debate. Classically 1♠ promises 5+, and X promises 4 unless followed by something dramatic, but I gather some people prefer 1♠ to promise 4 exactly and no more.

 

In the context of the original question , while the classical X does not guarantee diamonds, it implies a tolerance for them. In the light of that, opener's 3♦ is purely competitive and not forcing. I pass. Not happy with 3NT.

[cherdano]

Seems that people are disagreeing what the double shows - only spades, or spades and diamonds? A related question: would 1♠ instead of double have promised 5?

But they shouldn't - it shows spades, maybe 4, maybe 4-5, but it never shows diamonds.

[gwnn]

I think this is a question that will lead to an intersting debate.

It would be the first time in forum history that this question lead to an interesting debate, despite numerous attempts.

[Free]

It would be the first time in forum history that this question lead to an interesting debate, despite numerous attempts.

ROFL indeed, everyone just tells their own preferred style and why they like it, and that's pretty much the end of the debate.

[ArtK78]

I thought it was generally agreed that the auction 1♣ - 1M - x - (P) - 2♦ was a reverse.

 

This situation is really no different.

 

Therefore, it is absolutely forcing.

[whereagles]

I thought it was generally agreed that the auction 1♣ - 1M - x - (P) - 2♦ was a reverse.

 

Well, to me 2♦ is just a normal response to a take out dbl.

 

In any case, over opener's 3♦ I'd be too scared to pass anyway, so 3NT it is.

[Phil]

I thought it was generally agreed that the auction 1♣ - 1M - x - (P) - 2♦ was a reverse.

 

This situation is really no different.

 

Therefore, it is absolutely forcing.

 

Uh, no. We've been over this too many times to count. Some think its forcing, some don't.

 

3♦ in the actual auction is forcing.

[fromageGB]

♠ 3

♥ 752

♦ AKT6

♣ AQJ97

If it was my style to open this hand 1♣ and heard

1♣ (1♥) X (2♥)

I would really like to bid 3♦ to play. If it was forcing, I would have to pass and take a poor result.

 

For me, not forcing. Could I not double if I had a forcing hand?

[cherdano]

It would be the first time in forum history that this question lead to an interesting debate, despite numerous attempts.

Was there really ever a serious attempt at a debate on this?

I know we have had the same discussion many times about the negative double after 1C (1S). But 1H it is different, when the opponents bid hearts and you have spades that is the most important message to convey, you can't wait until you have the right shape to be prepared for a misguided rebid by partner.

Additionally, partner has the additional option of bidding 1♠ with three spades. And of course he can still rebid 1NT without a stopper with heart length. There is really no reason to suddenly fall into new-suits-non-forcing style on this auction.

 

So over 1C (1S) X, everybody right in their mind will play 2♦ as a reverse. But over (1H), even misguided souls should be able to see the light and play X as spades, and spades only.

[gwnn]

It would be the first time in forum history that this question lead to an interesting debate, despite numerous attempts.

Was there really ever a serious attempt at a debate on this?

There were many attempts but I wouldn't call them serious.

[gnasher]

Uh, no. We've been over this too many times to count. Some think its forcing, some don't.

 

3♦ in the actual auction is forcing.

 

If I played

1

♣

1

♥

dbl pass

2

♦

as non-forcing and just a normal response to a take out double, I would also play

1

♣

1

♥

dbl 2

♥

3

♦

as non-forcing and just a normal competitive action facing a take out double.

[ArtK78]

♠ 3

♥ 752

♦ AKT6

♣ AQJ97

If it was my style to open this hand 1♣ and heard

1♣ (1♥) X (2♥)

I would really like to bid 3♦ to play. If it was forcing, I would have to pass and take a poor result.

 

For me, not forcing. Could I not double if I had a forcing hand?

Why not 2NT for the minors? It makes more sense than 2NT natural in this auction. 3♦ would still be forcing.

 

If you really had a hand where 2NT natural was the best available call, you might as well bid 3NT.

[aguahombre]

If I played

1

♣

1

♥

dbl pass

2

♦

as non-forcing and just a normal response to a take out double, I would also play

1

♣

1

♥

dbl 2

♥

3

♦

as non-forcing and just a normal competitive action facing a take out double.

Carefully worded and logical. The problem is that opener is not responding to a take-out double. He/she is bidding as if responder had initially bid 1S, or otherwise shown some number of spades. Though the double is not "penalty", it is not "takeout" for the unbid suits either. Rebidding a suit higher than the one opened, when the suit is not suggested by responder needs strength (reverse strength).

[gwnn]

Carefully worded and logical. The problem is that opener is not responding to a take-out double. He/she is bidding as if responder had initially bid 1S, or otherwise shown some number of spades. Though the double is not "penalty", it is not "takeout" for the unbid suits either. Rebidding a suit higher than the one opened, when the suit is not suggested by responder needs strength (reverse strength).

do you think gnasher doesn't know that?

[aguahombre]

I don't know whether he does or not. But using the term "takeout double" in the post might create confusion for other readers.

 

What did your question contribute to the topic, Gwnn?

[gnasher]

I don't know whether he does or not. But using the term "takeout double" in the post might create confusion for other readers.

 

What did your question contribute to the topic, Gwnn?

I was referring to a post by Whereagles, who had already said that 2♦ would be "a normal response to a take out dbl". Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

 

Anyway, I just meant that if, as Phil said, "Some think [2♦ is] forcing, some don't", then logically some people should think 3♦ is non-forcing too.

 

Personally, I don't play the double as "takeout", I play it as "four spades" (except when I play it as something else).