Is this forcing?

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c2hdp3cp3dp]133|100[/hv]

 

2N in this sequence would be natural for us, not some sort of lebensohl, so 3♣ is fairly wide ranging. X does not guarentee diamonds, it is a standard negative double which only guarentees 4+ spades and the values to compete (not sure how that would influence someone's view, but in case it does...)

 

Is 3♦ forcing?

[trevahound]

Hi Chris,

 

I think it's absolutely non-forcing, unless you play conventionally that a direct 3♦ would be weakish and NF. I also don't think we lose the spade suit if I have enough to bid 3♦ the first time.

 

Brian Zaugg

[TWO4BRIDGE]

NF

" The only forcing bid for the Neg-DBLer is a cue-bid " ( 3H here ).

[CSGibson]

I withdraw the question. It was an interesting discussion with partner, however, translating to precision what is a normal sequence in 2/1 or standard American.

 

Our exact context was this:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj75h72dq985c84&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(precision%2C%20could%20be%200)2hdp3cp3dp3nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

partner, who is a much more experienced precision player, pointed out that 3♦ right away should be forcing, since in essence it is a new suit, and also thought this sequence was forcing. I thought it was consistent with the negative double sequence posted above, except that partner is known not to have 6 ♣. Incidentally, I forgot that I should have slightly more values than in standard, so that I am either dead minimum or sub-minimum for the bid, as well as the wrong shape.

 

I think this hand will be an advertisement for us to use negative free bids after 2 level interference over our nebulous diamond opening, however. Those seem to work much better in a precision context.

[Fluffy]

NF 2♠, lebensohl or rubensohl all seem to work much beter on this hand.

[han]

I would add transfer lebensohl, which I think is better than either lebensohl or rubensohl and very suitable for this auction.