3 clubs forcing?

[dickiegera]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2cp2dp3c]133|100[/hv]

 

What does 3♣ show?

I would believe 5 or more clubs and at least one 4 card major.

 

Is 3♣ forcing and if not is it alertable?

 

Thank you

[aguahombre]

IMO, 3C should be forcing and, if it isn't for them, I believe it would qualify as unexpected enough to alert.

 

The problem, as always, is with the level of the players involved. Experienced players who consider 3c to be non-forcing would also be expected to know it is rare and should alert. Inexperienced players would probably have no clue about what the opponents expect and no idea that it should be alerted in ACBL.

[ggwhiz]

I agree that a non-forcing 3♣ bid should be alerted and it is often not in acbl speedballs in particular.

 

In my partnership it is game forcing and we always cater to the fact that it is often at least a mild slam try, especially at mp's where a 3nt bid instead would be most common. After 3♣ opener would bid 3nt with a dead end minimum and anything else to show positive values with club support.

[Vampyr]

The issue is more interesting in the EBU, where this is the traditional way to show a weak takeout in clubs, and I believe that beginners are still taught this way. The treatment is very rare among non-beginners though, so I am curious about the bid's alertability status.

[jillybean]

The issue is more interesting in the EBU, where this is the traditional way to show a weak takeout in clubs, and I believe that beginners are still taught this way. The treatment is very rare among non-beginners though, so I am curious about the bid's alertability status.

It may be more interesting to you but clearly the opening poster wants answers in an ACBL context.

[jeffford76]

The answer depends on the rest of your methods. If you don't have a different way to show just clubs, then it is forcing with clubs with no implication of a major.

[monikrazy]

Agree that 3c shows 4 of an unspecified major, 5 or more clubs and game-forcing values.Would not alert.

[Vampyr]

It may be more interesting to you but clearly the opening poster wants answers in an ACBL context.

LOL keep your shirt on. Especially as th OP question has been answered numerous times :rolleyes:

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, I was taught (in the ACBL) that that is a weak takeout as well.

 

I don't think it's best, given the desire to have 1NT-2♣; 2M-3m show 4oM and longer m, but it's still the way a lot of players (especially the >30 year players) play. It's probably better than having 1NT-2♣; 2M-2NT not promise a major (which is the consequence of a very common way that people show weak takeouts into the minor).

[PhilG007]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2cp2dp3c]133|100[/hv]

 

What does 3♣ show?

I would believe 5 or more clubs and at least one 4 card major.

 

 

Is 3♣ forcing and if not is it alertable?

 

Thank you

 

On that bidding sequence 3♣ is not forcing but simply showing a long weak

club suit.North should pass. South probably holds something like this:-

♠Jxx

♥xxx

♦x

♣AJxxxx

The 3♣ bid tells North "I wasn't asking for a major suit partner,I have

a long weak club suit. Please pass and let me play the hand"

[aguahombre]

On that bidding sequence 3♣ is not forcing but simply showing a long weak

club suit.North should pass. South probably holds something like this:-

♠Jxx

♥xxx

♦x

♣AJxxxx

The 3♣ bid tells North "I wasn't asking for a major suit partner,I have

a long weak club suit. Please pass and let me play the hand"

So, a lot of us are wrong. Thank you for establishing what is really is; I was under the false impression we could choose to make it forcing, and that the vast majority of people would consider it to be forcing.

[Vampyr]

So, a lot of us are wrong. Thank you for establishing what is really is; I was under the false impression we could choose to make it forcing, and that the vast majority of people would consider it to be forcing.

 

Yes, PhilG007's treatment is very old-fashioned and has long since fallen out of favour. There is no reason he can't play it, but it is very arrogant for him to present his preferred method as the definitive answer.

[aguahombre]

I was even going to point out that in our ignorance about the absolute non-forcing nature of Stayman followed by 3c, some of us have even established a way to get Opener to play the hand in 3C when we are weak.

[Zelandakh]

Just to reiterate the point about the meaning depending on system, I have play this sequence at various times as:

 

1. weak with long clubs

2. GF with 5+ clubs

3. GF with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major

4. GF with 5+ diamonds

5. GF with 6+ diamonds

6. Extended Stayman

 

All of these were with regular Stayman. In my current (Puppet) structure, this is GF with both majors, typically 4-4 or 5-4 (a Puppet version of Extended Stayman if you like). However, in ACBL-land my impression is that the default is very much still #2 (see SAYC for example) even with the increasing popularity of methods such as 4-suit transfers, which in some forms impact this sequence. So an alert as unexpected would seem appropriate.

 

NB: in Phil's defence for this thread, he has made it clear that he comes from a rubber bridge background where many of the conventions that BBF posters take for granted are less common. That said, ignorance is no excuse for posting in such absolute terms after it has become clear from other responses that this is not true.

[kenberg]

Alertability: I am never the right person to ask about legal matters, but I find it hard to see how there could be damage by a non-alert. West declined to bid over 2♣, it seems highly unlikely that he would come in now if 3♣ were alerted as non-forcing. Further, it seems to me that there are many, many treatments involving minors by responder after a 1NT opening. So none is "standard". Of course it is also hard to see what harm would be done by alerting it if played weak, so probably it is best to do so.

 

Next, suppose I am playing pick-up, or semi-pick-up, on bbo. I treat it as forcing. Could be wrong, but I treat it as forcing.

 

 

Now suppose we want to work something out with a regular or semi-regular partner.Here is a hand from Better Bidding with Bergen volume 1 page 74:

KQ64 / 7 / 94 / AQ9653 Partner opens a strong NT.

Marty says (or sez) that you begin with 2♠, a transfer to clubs, and then you bid your clubs naturally.

Well, I don't do that nor do most people I know.

I begin with 2♣ and, if partner responds 2♦ or 2♥, I bid 3♣.

I treat the auction 1NT-2♠-3♣-3♠ as a club slam try with short spades rather than 4 spades.

 

I was trying to see if Marty says anything about your auction, and I don't see that he does, at least here. Which is pretty surprising, actually.

 

Obviously, how you approach the above hand has a bearing on your question. If, with a strong hand holding 4 in a major and 6 in a minor you first transfer to a minor and then bid your major, it becomes more appealing to play 2♣ followed by 3♣ as weak.

I do think it is not the way the majority play, however.

 

 

This next gets a bit hairy.

I seem to recall an article somewhere, I think by Bergen, that gets into some other related matters. Suppose after 1NT that 2♠ shows clubs, and 2NT shows diamonds. As is well known, this means that responder, if holding a balanced invitational hand, must start with 2♣ even if he has no four card major (there are various ways around this, but leave that aside). So he begins the invitation with 2♣, perhaps opener bids 2♥. Now responder bids his four card spade suit if he has one, and opener takes this as invitational with four spades. Pretty standard for those who play that an immediate raise of 1NT to 2NT shows diamonds. But now suppose responder actually has a weak hand with four spades and six clubs. He could just transfer to clubs and forget it, but here is an option. He starts with 2♣. If partner bids 2♦ he bids 3♣ as a weak bid! If partner bids 2♠ he is delighted in finding his fit. Only 2♥ poses a problem The suggestion that I saw still allows him to bid 2♠. This can be either an invit with a balanced hand or a weak 6/4. Opener, if he wishes to accept the hoped for invit, bids 3♣ If indeed the 2♠ was a balanced invit, responder knows the invitation has been accepted and converts to 3NT. If responder has, instead of a balanced invt, a minor major weak hand, he passes 3♣ or corrects to a weak 3♦.

Anyway, playing this approach, your auction as given is weak.

 

Upshot: There are modern players who play your example auction as weak. I do not believe they are at all in the majority.

[Cyberyeti]

Just to reiterate the point about the meaning depending on system, I have play this sequence at various times as:

 

1. weak with long clubs

2. GF with 5+ clubs

3. GF with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major

4. GF with 5+ diamonds

5. GF with 6+ diamonds

6. Extended Stayman

 

All of these were with regular Stayman. In my current (Puppet) structure, this is GF with both majors, typically 4-4 or 5-4 (a Puppet version of Extended Stayman if you like). However, in ACBL-land my impression is that the default is very much still #2 (see SAYC for example) even with the increasing popularity of methods such as 4-suit transfers, which in some forms impact this sequence. So an alert as unexpected would seem appropriate.

 

NB: in Phil's defence for this thread, he has made it clear that he comes from a rubber bridge background where many of the conventions that BBF posters take for granted are less common. That said, ignorance is no excuse for posting in such absolute terms after it has become clear from other responses that this is not true.

 

Old fashioned Acol has a 7th meaning, weak with long clubs AND a 4 card major (doesn't matter in this sequence but does matter over 1N-2♣-2♥-3♣ where opener 44M can correct to spades)

[Zelandakh]

Old fashioned Acol has a 7th meaning, weak with long clubs AND a 4 card major (doesn't matter in this sequence but does matter over 1N-2♣-2♥-3♣ where opener 44M can correct to spades)

There's also the natural and invitational meaning that got popular for a short time in the 80s. It is just that I never played that at all.

[PhilG007]

Just to reiterate the point about the meaning depending on system, I have play this sequence at various times as:

 

1. weak with long clubs

2. GF with 5+ clubs

3. GF with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major

4. GF with 5+ diamonds

5. GF with 6+ diamonds

6. Extended Stayman

 

All of these were with regular Stayman. In my current (Puppet) structure, this is GF with both majors, typically 4-4 or 5-4 (a Puppet version of Extended Stayman if you like). However, in ACBL-land my impression is that the default is very much still #2 (see SAYC for example) even with the increasing popularity of methods such as 4-suit transfers, which in some forms impact this sequence. So an alert as unexpected would seem appropriate.

 

NB: in Phil's defence for this thread, he has made it clear that he comes from a rubber bridge background where many of the conventions that BBF posters take for granted are less common. That said, ignorance is no excuse for posting in such absolute terms after it has become clear from other responses that this is not true.

 

Oh I forgot to mention I also have long tournament experience too in addition to rubber bridge (!) ;)

[PhilG007]

Yes, PhilG007's treatment is very old-fashioned and has long since fallen out of favour. There is no reason he can't play it, but it is very arrogant for him to present his preferred method as the definitive answer.

 

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. They are tried and tested.

[PhilG007]

Old fashioned Acol has a 7th meaning, weak with long clubs AND a 4 card major (doesn't matter in this sequence but does matter over 1N-2♣-2♥-3♣ where opener 44M can correct to spades)

 

Why bother to show a 4 card major when partner's 2♦ response to the

(assumed)stayman bid denied holding one(?!)

[karlson]

Alertability: I am never the right person to ask about legal matters, but I find it hard to see how there could be damage by a non-alert. West declined to bid over 2♣, it seems highly unlikely that he would come in now if 3♣ were alerted as non-forcing. Further, it seems to me that there are many, many treatments involving minors by responder after a 1NT opening. So none is "standard". Of course it is also hard to see what harm would be done by alerting it if played weak, so probably it is best to do so.

 

It would be quite normal to want to make a takeout double if 3♣ was weak.

[cherdano]

The issue is more interesting in the EBU, where this is the traditional way to show a weak takeout in clubs, and I believe that beginners are still taught this way. The treatment is very rare among non-beginners though, so I am curious about the bid's alertability status.

Some might argue that in that sense, many bidding issues are "more interesting" in the EBU, as beginners are taught different agreements than the treatments advanced or expert players are using. [ducks and runs away hiding...]

[johnu]

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. They are tried and tested.

 

What does it tell you when almost all advanced and expert tournament players discard the old way and go in a different direction.

[sfi]

What does it tell you when almost all advanced and expert tournament players discard the old way and go in a different direction.

 

Mostly it confirms that people are influenced by trends in bridge, as in other areas in life. The rest of the responding structure is important of course, but the theoretical gains and losses in the different methods being discussed here are fairly small.

 

As a simple example, why haven't all the top american players adopted polish club? Why haven't all the top polish players adopted 2/1? It's much more to do with familiarity than anything else, IMO.

[johnu]

Mostly it confirms that people are influenced by trends in bridge, as in other areas in life. The rest of the responding structure is important of course, but the theoretical gains and losses in the different methods being discussed here are fairly small.

 

As a simple example, why haven't all the top american players adopted polish club? Why haven't all the top polish players adopted 2/1? It's much more to do with familiarity than anything else, IMO.

 

Sure there are some regional favorite systems, but probably because one system hasn't proven to be significantly better than another, not that there's any recognized algorithm to grade them. Within systems, some may be better with minimum balanced hands, others with unbalanced powerhouses, others on minor suit part scores, etc. It depends on what you consider important and how much weight you give for each strong and weak point.

 

Why would you play 3♣/3♦ as forcing in this sequence? In isolation, weak is ok. I think the turning point was when tournament players started playing some kind of 4 suit transfers. Great, you can pass the transfer with a weak hand, and make another descriptive bid when you are strong if you wanted without partner taking up your bidding space. But if passing the transfer is weak, you don't need the Stayman sequence as weak, so you have another group of hand types you can describe with that sequence. Maybe it's a small theoretical gain (and since just about any type of hand is relatively rare, most bidding gains are going to be small), but these types of gains add up.

 

And don't think that I blindly believe 3♣/3♦ forcing is the only way to play. I think 4+ card major suit transfers make a lot of sense, so you can handle strong 2 suited hands starting with a major suit transfer. That leaves Stayman and then 3♣/3♦ which can be used as invitational.