Is this forcing?

[gwnn]

What did your question contribute to the topic, Gwnn?

I was merely wondering whether you thought gnasher really didn't know what a negative double was.

 

If you're not sure, that's fine, but if you're reasonably sure that he knows, then you should have thought about providing him gratuitous B/I explanations and tried to understand his post.

 

Hence in my little opinion your post was not very thoughtful and I think it makes sense to point this out.

 

just to clarify: I completely agree that 2♦ and 3♦ (in the two sequences we were discussing) should both be forcing and show reversing values.

[cherdano]

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?

aquaman, you are wasting your time on BBF unless you can judge which posters are good and reasonable and which posters aren't.

The reputation system has its flaws but if you are really that clueless it wouldn't hurt to check the Reputation and User Rating of some of the frequent posters, it's apparently a better measure than your own impression.

[Free]

♠ 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?

Partner rates to be short in ♥, with some values or perfect shape he'll Dbl or bid 2NT and we'll reach a decent spot. So passing doesn't mean the auction is over.

[nige1]

For cynics, a debate may be an opportunity for sarcastic one-line put-downs :(

But some participants state what they prefer and why :)

I'm coming round to the view that after 1♣ 1♥, you should bid 1♠ with 4+♠. Hence double should say you are fixed. (I'm told there are even more cunning bidding schemes in this context).

Whatever double means, even if you treat 3♦ as forcing, you should take into account that partner may have decided to stretch with a shapely hand for example

♠ xx ♥ - ♦ KQJxx ♣ AQxxxxx

[aguahombre]

aquaman, you are wasting your time on BBF unless you can judge which posters are good and reasonable and which posters aren't.

The reputation system has its flaws but if you are really that clueless it wouldn't hurt to check the Reputation and User Rating of some of the frequent posters, it's apparently a better measure than your own impression.

Well at least Gnasher himself responded to what I wrote objectively, and with the understanding that I was not demeaning anything...rather clarifying something. You, and gwnn apparently have some other agenda.

[gwnn]

We are in a complicated conspiracy so you shouldn't even read our posts because we're obviously biased.

[Bbradley62]

The reputation system has its flaws but if you are really that clueless it wouldn't hurt to check the Reputation and User Rating of some of the frequent posters...

Isn't this very much like deciding how good a player is by seeing how many masterpoints he has?

[Hanoi5]

Isn't this very much like deciding how good a player is by seeing how many masterpoints he has?

 

Worse maybe. By how nice/friendly s/he looks to others. I got a reputation vote for a funny video. Some people get lots of reputation votes for their ironic comments.

 

I'd say follow posters who are someone in real life. Someone who signs with his/her real name and you can actually see them in a bulletin or something are worth following and hearing advice from. Someone who won a spot in the Bermuda Bowl is worth listening to, too.

[MrAce]

This topic alone is a proof of how BBF reputation system works. As usual the guy (in this topic Andy) who deserves an up vote for his contribution to the topic did not get an upvote but some others who got into it with each other, in a negative way did !

[han]

Good point. I'll upvote you as a protest vote.

[JLOGIC]

Wow, I totally disagree with gnasher for once.

 

I do not think it logically follows that if you play 2D as NF over 1C 1H X p , that 3D in this auction is NF. In the first auction you are forced to bid, and one might reasonably or not decide that 2D non forcing is reasonable because if partner has a club fit you can still play 3C which isn't a huge disaster, or 2D in a 7 card fit which isn't a huge disaster, and otherwise you start describing your hand better, and because if you have a strong hand with diamonds you can jump to 3D or cuebid 2H and still get to show diamonds and a strong hand. This also maintains the integrity of your 2C rebid which can still promise 6.

 

Over 2H, if you have a minimum hand with 4D and 5C, you can just pass and hope partner reopens X (or if you're 3145 you can X 2H). Bidding 3D now with a minimum not only forces you to 4C if you have no diamond fit but a club fit (which is much worse than playing 3C on the same type of hand), or 3D in a 7 card fit (much worse than 2D), but it also does not solve any problem of misdescribing your hand (you can still describe your hand fine after passing most of the time, sure they might bid 3H, but you are not forced to bid right now) and also isn't necessary to maintain the integrity of your 3C bid (3C still shows 6, since again you're not forced to bid).

 

Not only that, but it stops you from being able to ever describe a strong hand with diamonds and clubs below 3N, jumping to 4D obviously takes you past 3N, and cuebidding 3H does not show diamonds.

 

I thought it was obvious that no matter what you think 2D should be over a pass, bidding 3D here must be a reverse. I mean where does it stop, if they had jumped to 3H is 4D "logically" non forcing because 2D would have been over a pass? I don't buy this logic.

[fromageGB]

... (his comments)

OK, this is a pretty convincing argument for me, and if I am allowed to change my mind, I am now a convert. If this sequence comes up in a scratch partnership (partnership methods are different) I will treat the forced bid of 2♦ (over 4th seat pass) as not forcing, and a free bid of 3♦ (over 4th seat 2♥) as forcing. I hope my scratch partner will do the same.

 

This forum is useful, and I appreciate the efforts some people put into their explanations. Thanks.

[fromageGB]

I'm coming round to the view that after 1♣ 1♥, you should bid 1♠ with 4+♠. Hence double should say you are fixed. (I'm told there are even more cunning bidding schemes in this context).

I think I agree with this. After all, in partnerships' transfer walsh methods, we play 1♣ (1♥) X as 4 or 5 spades, anything less than game values, and it works OK with use of support double.

 

So if a natural 1♠ may be 4 or 5, would a double say "I have biddable values (7+?), but less than 4 spades, hearts not good enough for 1NT, and insufficient clubs to support you immediately?"

[JLOGIC]

OK, this is a pretty convincing argument for me, and if I am allowed to change my mind, I am now a convert. If this sequence comes up in a scratch partnership (partnership methods are different) I will treat the forced bid of 2♦ (over 4th seat pass) as not forcing, and a free bid of 3♦ (over 4th seat 2♥) as forcing. I hope my scratch partner will do the same.

 

This forum is useful, and I appreciate the efforts some people put into their explanations. Thanks.

 

I actually think 2D should be a reverse over the X (as others have alluded to, that topic has come up a lot, so you can see my long rambling thoughts on it in other threads), however I can see why it is debatable and why some people might prefer to play it as non forcing, and I do not think that it logically follows that those people must also take 3D as NF by the same logic. It seems perfectly rational to me to take 2D over a pass as NF and 3D over a 2H bid as forcing, it does not have to be one or the other.

[gwnn]

At the risk of writing another unwanted post in support of gnasher, I don't think he wrote that the two treatments logically follow from each other. He merely wrote that he would play 3♦ as NF if he played 2♦ as NF.

[cherdano]

Isn't this very much like deciding how good a player is by seeing how many masterpoints he has?

 

 

Worse maybe. By how nice/friendly s/he looks to others. I got a reputation vote for a funny video. Some people get lots of reputation votes for their ironic comments.

 

I'd say follow posters who are someone in real life. Someone who signs with his/her real name and you can actually see them in a bulletin or something are worth following and hearing advice from. Someone who won a spot in the Bermuda Bowl is worth listening to, too.

That's all very true, and if you reread my post you will see I never claimed reputation is a good measure of how qualified a poster is. But if someone has 30000 ACLB Masterpoints, you would still assume he knows how to play a ruffing finesse, right?

 

Anyway, I didn't want to create a debate about the reputation system. But I stand by my point that if you don't realize gnasher is one of the best posters here, and knows enough about bridge that you don't need to explain him the difference between a negative double of 1H and a takeout double for the unbid suits, then you are wasting your time on BBF.

[JLOGIC]

At the risk of writing another unwanted post in support of gnasher, I don't think he wrote that the two treatments logically follow from each other. He merely wrote that he would play 3♦ as NF if he played 2♦ as NF.

 

Anyway' date=' 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.

[gwnn]

Oops. egg on my face.

[mgoetze]

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

 

I guess I just suck at searching the forums, but I couldn't find previous debate on this topic.

 

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

 

So, please just spell it out for me, are you saying that in "Expert Standard", both

 

1♣-(1♥)-X

 

and

 

1♣-(1♠)-X

 

promise 0-9 diamonds?

[han]

With 4-9 you might decide to ignore your 4-card suit. It says about as much about diamonds as a 1H opening says about diamonds.

[cherdano]

With 4-9 you might decide to ignore your 4-card suit. It says about as much about diamonds as a 1♥ response to 1♦ says about clubs.

FYP.

[mgoetze]

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

 

I thought anything specifically contradicted by Bridge World Standard cannot be "generally agreed."

 

After one club — (one of a major) — double — (pass) — ?, opener’s two-diamond rebid does not show extra values.

 

(BWS 2001 V.F, http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwsall.html )

[han]

FYP.

 

Yeah that's a better analogy.

[gnasher]

Wow, I totally disagree with gnasher for once.

 

I do not think it logically follows that if you play 2D as NF over 1C 1H X p , that 3D in this auction is NF. In the first auction you are forced to bid, and one might reasonably or not decide that 2D non forcing is reasonable because if partner has a club fit you can still play 3C which isn't a huge disaster, or 2D in a 7 card fit which isn't a huge disaster, and otherwise you start describing your hand better, and because if you have a strong hand with diamonds you can jump to 3D or cuebid 2H and still get to show diamonds and a strong hand. This also maintains the integrity of your 2C rebid which can still promise 6.

 

Over 2H, if you have a minimum hand with 4D and 5C, you can just pass and hope partner reopens X (or if you're 3145 you can X 2H). Bidding 3D now with a minimum not only forces you to 4C if you have no diamond fit but a club fit (which is much worse than playing 3C on the same type of hand), or 3D in a 7 card fit (much worse than 2D), but it also does not solve any problem of misdescribing your hand (you can still describe your hand fine after passing most of the time, sure they might bid 3H, but you are not forced to bid right now) and also isn't necessary to maintain the integrity of your 3C bid (3C still shows 6, since again you're not forced to bid).

 

Not only that, but it stops you from being able to ever describe a strong hand with diamonds and clubs below 3N, jumping to 4D obviously takes you past 3N, and cuebidding 3H does not show diamonds.

 

I thought it was obvious that no matter what you think 2D should be over a pass, bidding 3D here must be a reverse. I mean where does it stop, if they had jumped to 3H is 4D "logically" non forcing because 2D would have been over a pass? I don't buy this logic.

 

I'm rather handicapped in contributing to this discussion, because I haven't played 2♦ as non-forcing since about 1985, so I'm not quite sure why I would be playing it. However, I think the disagreement is because if you played 2♦ as non-forcing, it would be for different reasons than if I played it as non-forcing.

 

If I played 2♦ as non-forcing, it would be because the double was "for takeout", that is, the normal expectation would be that it promised both unbid suits, and if it didn't it would be good enough to cope with a 2♦ reply. Opposite such a double, with a reasonable hand and four diamonds I'd want to be able to compete with 3♦ over 2♠, because either partner would have diamonds or he'd be able to bid game.

 

As I understand it, if you played 2♦ as non-forcing, you'd still be playing the double as "spades", but just be allowing opener to reverse without reversing values. I agree that if those were the methods, 3♦ would be a proper reverse.

[JLOGIC]

I thought anything specifically contradicted by Bridge World Standard cannot be "generally agreed."

 

 

 

(BWS 2001 V.F, http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwsall.html )

 

2001 was a long time ago!