(1D)--1H--(P)--??

[mikeh]

So I take it that you would pass 1H? If mikeh was here he would post a hand where 1H is hopeless but 6C makes.

No I wouldn't.

 

Well, I might but it would only be to illustrate the problem with my usual approach, which is that 2♣ would be forcing.

 

Thus I would usually pass 1♥.

 

I am seriously considering switching to 'constructive but nf'. I don't think it is the panacea that some seem to feel it to be, but I suspect it may work better than forcing...which I have played for 30+ years. Not, however, out of fear of missing a club slam! It has, of course, far more to do with improving the contract, getting a lead, and competing for the partscore than it does about hoping to find game or slam.

 

And of course many times the problem doesn't arise if one plays transfer advances. (1♣) 1♥ (P) and we have no problem with Jxxx x KQJxxx xx: to me that is a prototypical 2♣ transfer, which is defined in my partnerships as the equivalent of a weak 2 in the suit shown, or better.....partner to bid, initially, as if the former.

[fromageGB]

And of course many times the problem doesn't arise if one plays transfer advances. (1♣) 1♥ (P) and we have no problem with Jxxx x KQJxxx xx: to me that is a prototypical 2♣ transfer, which is defined in my partnerships as the equivalent of a weak 2 in the suit shown, or better.....partner to bid, initially, as if the former.

Mais oui, however this time there is no transfer available. I, too, am thinking of changing to "constructive but not forcing". Something for the partnership to discuss.

 

Thanks to Codo/the hog/MrAce for the replies.

[nigel_k]

I play 2♣ constructive but NF. But I would expect partner to keep bidding if he has an opening bid or close to that. If he just has AKxxx with or without a little outside he can pass, and if I want to be in game opposite that I have to start with a cue bid.

 

So 2♣ could still be too much here. It looks like either partner will get us too high, or opponents would have reopened anyway. I would consider pass but I don't make the really heavy one level overcalls that other people on this forum do.

[han]

I am seriously considering switching to 'constructive but nf'. I don't think it is the panacea that some seem to feel it to be, but I suspect it may work better than forcing...which I have played for 30+ years.

 

I don't think it is a panacea either, but I also didn't read any posts suggesting that it is. As is common in bridge, whatever agreement you make you will regret it on some hands. Give me three more aces and I'd wish I had a forcing 2C available. However, I think that the strength of the given hand is more common.

 

Of course it depends also on overcall style. If you are on one side of the spectrum where an overcall shows something like an opening hand, then playing 2C as forcing makes a lot more sense. If you are on the other side, where KQ10xx is an automatic 1H overcall, then it will be rare to hold clubs-hands with which you will want to force.

 

Probably most of us are somewhere in between. I can imagine that for some pairs playing 2C as forcing when vulnerable but NF when non-vulnerable could even be an optimal agreement.

[gnasher]

I usually play 2♣ as forcing because I want to be able to play all cue-bids and jump shifts as promising a fit, and it feels wrong to have no way to bid a good hand without a fit.

 

However, I'm tempted to switch to NF and just wing it if I pick up a hand that wants to force. Does anyone else do that?

[JLOGIC]

 

I am seriously considering switching to 'constructive but nf'. I don't think it is the panacea that some seem to feel it to be, but I suspect it may work better than forcing...which I have played for 30+ years. Not, however, out of fear of missing a club slam! It has, of course, far more to do with improving the contract, getting a lead, and competing for the partscore than it does about hoping to find game or slam.

 

Mike I'm proud of you. You get it. That is what bridge in 2012 is about. I would add in "make life a little bit more difficult for them" as well.

[JLOGIC]

I usually play 2♣ as forcing because I want to be able to play all cue-bids and jump shifts as promising a fit, and it feels wrong to have no way to bid a good hand without a fit.

 

However, I'm tempted to switch to NF and just wing it if I pick up a hand that wants to force. Does anyone else do that?

 

It is probably playable, but I can't imagine playing 3C as a fit rather than just strong and forcing with clubs is better. Is fit really that important when RHO passes?

 

FWIW I do play with Bob that you just wing it when it goes bid bid bid to you, jump is fit and new suit is non forcing (even at the 3 level), good luck. The idea being if it goes bid bid bid to you you will never have a slam without a big fit for partner, so you can usually just jump to game or double and wing it if you have a strong hand with your own suit.