Sense check

[Cyberyeti]

My less usual partner and I had a disagreement about this (my main pd and I know what we're doing here), wonder if anything is standard here:

 

LHO opens 1N (12-14 if it matters)

partner overcalls a natural 2♠ (he did have 2 suited bids available)

RHO passes

you bid 3♣

 

is this

 

forcing

invitational

bad hand

[WellSpyder]

My less usual partner and I had a disagreement about this (my main pd and I know what we're doing here), wonder if anything is standard here:

 

LHO opens 1N (12-14 if it matters)

partner overcalls a natural 2♠ (he did have 2 suited bids available)

RHO passes

you bid 3♣

 

is this

 

forcing

invitational

bad hand

Not sure what is standard, but I would expect this to be forcing if undiscussed.

[billw55]

Not sure what is standard, but I would expect this to be forcing if undiscussed.

Same here. Lebensohl is pretty ubiquitous.

 

edit: a misunderstanding about the situation. Even so, I would treat this as forcing if undiscussed.

[dake50]

Going up for 4S if you like clubs. May quit 3S if that's all you say.

May insist 4S/3NT/5C even after 3S.

Yeah, FORCING.! Any less just lets 2S play.

[Zelandakh]

Let me ask you a question in return. In the auction, (1♠) - 2♥ - (P), how do you play a 3♣ advance with this partner?

[mikeh]

Same here. Lebensohl is pretty ubiquitous.

I think you misread the problem.

 

To me, with LHO opening a weak 1N, 2N by advancer would be invitational to 3N.

 

As for the OP question, the answer is 'it depends on agreement'. There are sound arguments both ways, but my preference and inclination is to play it forcing for one round, while not expecting that everyone would think that is the better of the two choices.

[Cyberyeti]

Let me ask you a question in return. In the auction, (1♠) - 2♥ - (P), how do you play a 3♣ advance with this partner?

 

Not 100% sure, I play with this guy maybe twice or 3 times a year, for me it's forcing, I'd have to ask him.

 

To me, with LHO opening a weak 1N, 2N by advancer would be invitational to 3N.

 

I can be 100% sure that this is the case with this partner.

[mycroft]

Weak NT, partner is bidding to not miss game, 3♣ "I'm running from spades" seems counterproductive to the goal of finding our game if it's there. So, forcing. Whether it promises, implies, denies or says nothing about spade support is a very interesting question.

[ArtK78]

100% forcing. And I believe it is relevant that it is a 12-14 1NT rather than a 15-17 1NT. If LHO opened a 15-17 1NT, it is very unusual for us to be looking for a game. But that is what the 2NT bid is for in this auction. 2NT would be the only forcing call if LHO opened a strong 1NT.

[mikeh]

Weak NT, partner is bidding to not miss game, 3♣ "I'm running from spades" seems counterproductive to the goal of finding our game if it's there. So, forcing. Whether it promises, implies, denies or says nothing about spade support is a very interesting question.

There is an alternative to 3♣ being forcing or running. It could be non-forcing, constructive. A lot depends on your agreements as to the range for 2♠. Note, I am not criticizing forcing as the best meaning...it is what I would play. I just think that there are more options than you seem to consider.

 

The one thing it shouldn't be, imo, is some form of spade raise. I am quite happy to give up on slam after a weak 1N on my left (unless I have a freak), so to me our spade bids are either 3♠ or 4♠ and we can use new suits for.....drum roll, please.....new suits.

 

If I do have a freak with big blacks and interest beyond game in spades, I bid 4♣, fit showing (and by inference slam interest, else why show clubs?)Edit: splinters may make more sense, but my default rule is that jumpshifts into new suits after we overcall are fit.

[gszes]

Method is still important for ex I use x as a form of

penalty try so a direct 2s bid is preemptive for me since I

would start with x with a decent hand with spades. Using leb

here a 3c bid would be forcing and a sign off or possibly

invitational hand would use 2n first.

 

If we have 2n available as leb *when the 2s bid is not weak)

then 3c would be forcing since we could use leb to show 3c as

invitational or possibly less.

[dake50]

mikeh

There is an alternative to 3♣ being forcing or running. It could be non-forcing, constructive. A lot depends on your agreements as to the range for 2♠. Note, I am not criticizing forcing as the best meaning...it is what I would play. I just think that there are more options than you seem to consider.

..The one thing it shouldn't be, imo, is some form of spade raise. I am quite happy to give up on slam after a weak 1N on my left (unless I have a freak), so to me our spade bids are either 3S or 4s and we can use new suits for.....drum roll, please.....new suits.

..If I do have a freak with big blacks and interest beyond game in spades, I bid 4C, fit showing (and by inference slam interest, else why show clubs?)Edit: splinters may make more sense, but my default rule is that jumpshifts into new suits after we overcall are fit.

 

*** So some sort of spade raise for a slam try (as 4C you suggest), but NOT as a game try?

"else why show clubs?"

I suspect the close double fit/not GAME tries are many times more frequent.

[helene_t]

I am surprised that everyone say it is forcing. I would assume nonforcing but mildly constructive. Maybe people who are used to strong nt assume that the defense against weak nt is primarily constructive but that should in my opinion not be the case, at least not at mp.

 

Many play a defense against 1NT that allows them to distinguish two-suited from 1-suited hands. If 2♠ promises a 1-suited hand there is of course no need to bid with a non-constructive hand. But our overcalls are wide ranging and responder will more often have an invitational hand than a gf hand.

[aguahombre]

Yes, 2S shows true 2/1 overcall strength for us after a weak NT. That makes 3C "approach forcing", much the same as after 2S overcalling a weak 2D bid...stronger than 2C would be if we were advancing a 1S overcall of a 1-bid.

 

Weak hands, even if shapely, do not enter directly vs a weak NT like they would over a strong one. I believe weak over strong and stronger over weak are common agreements...raises invite game, and the NT "cuebid" is needed as natural and invitational when their NT was weak.

[mycroft]

I would be happy with NF, constructive, but I consider that "almost forcing", or "forcing unless this actively makes your hand worse", so :-).

[steve2005]

Partner is a unpassed hand so in principle you would want it forcing. But I can see you could want NF or INV why not have it all three ways?

 

Use transfer advances in response. This would essentially be transfer Lebensohl in this situation.

[Cyberyeti]

Partner is a unpassed hand so in principle you would want it forcing. But I can see you could want NF or INV why not have it all three ways?

 

Use transfer advances in response. This would essentially be transfer Lebensohl in this situation.

 

While I have some sympathy with this, is not going to happen with this partner, while a good player, even normal Lebensohl is sometimes beyond him.

 

All you need to know about our bidding is that we bid 3 slams that evening, unlike the science you normally see in my auctions, the 3 auctions were (unopposed): 1♦-3♦(limit)-3♥-3N-6♦, 1♠-2♣-3N-6♠ and 1♦-1♠-3♠-6♠, all made and were decent although you might not want to be in some of them, we scored 67%. Welcome to playing with Mr W, please put your bridge clocks back 30 years.

 

On this board, I assumed 3♣ was forcing so ended up playing 3♠, fortunately they defended it worse than we bid it (2♠= would have been fine as would 3♣=) and we got a huge board for +140.

[the hog]

Same here. Lebensohl is pretty ubiquitous.

 

This has nothing to do with Leb. I suggest you read the op again. Yes, I would take 3C as forcing.

[the hog]

Same here. Lebensohl is pretty ubiquitous.

 

This has nothing to do with Leb. I suggest you read the op again. Yes, I would take 3C as forcing.

[Zelandakh]

Not 100% sure, I play with this guy maybe twice or 3 times a year, for me it's forcing, I'd have to ask him.

I think asking him and playing the way he prefers would make the most sense. Using the same structure for both sequences seems like a good idea with an occasional partner prone to the odd memory lapse or two. FWiiW I have always played it the same way as Mike (although transfer advances also appeal) and an additional option that noone has brought up would be to use a similar structure to the one you play over a weak 2♠ opening, with 2NT being some form of enquiry.

[dake50]

'helene_t'

I am surprised that everyone say it is forcing. I would assume nonforcing but mildly constructive. Maybe people who are used to strong nt assume that the defense against weak nt is primarily constructive but that should in my opinion not be the case, at least not at mp.

Many play a defense against 1NT that allows them to distinguish two-suited from 1-suited hands. If 2♠ promises a 1-suited hand there is of course no need to bid with a non-constructive hand. But our overcalls are wide ranging and responder will more often have an invitational hand than a gf hand.

 

*** Getting to 3C is such a small/rare target.

That is why 3C forcing > 3C club constructive > 3C clubs weak.

Can 2S be bid when 2S is unplayable?

So must your bidding have a rescue of 2S?

A suggestion to play 3C on this "little" (no game) hand?

Seems great investment of bidding into that "little" hand - misspent investment, I say.

[benlessard]

Can 2S be bid on a 5 card suit ? if yes than you need a way to bid 3C forward going but not forcing.

 

If 2S always promise 6 than I guess 3C should be forcing.

[Cyberyeti]

Can 2S be bid on a 5 card suit ? if yes than you need a way to bid 3C forward going but not forcing.

 

If 2S always promise 6 than I guess 3C should be forcing.

 

2♠ in principle shows 6, but just might be 5 good spades and a bad 4 card minor at MPs.

[Jinksy]

With most pickup partners, I suggest a simple maxim at the start of the session (nicked from someone I used to play with): 'If in doubt, it's forcing.'

[Cyberyeti]

With most pickup partners, I suggest a simple maxim at the start of the session (nicked from someone I used to play with): 'If in doubt, it's forcing.'

 

This is my normal approach, not however my partner's