gwnn Posted August 21, 2014 Report Share Posted August 21, 2014 2♦-x-p-3♣p-3♦-p-4♣ Is this forcing? We had a little misunderstanding with paulg about this while trying the uBid app. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 21, 2014 Report Share Posted August 21, 2014 No I don't think so. Advancer is limited and it is conceivable that we need to stop in 4♣ when advancer doesn't have a diamond stopper. I can see a case for playing it as forcing, though. Advancer could use the 4♦ bid to look for a 4-3 fit in a major while using the 4♣ bid to show a hand suitable for a club slam. Maybe advancer could bid a 3-card major instead of 4♦, but I am not sure if 3♣ denies a 4-card major. Of course advancer won't usually have a 4-card major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broze Posted August 21, 2014 Report Share Posted August 21, 2014 Might depend to some extent what an immediate 3♦ would mean (for me it is Majors and 4♦ is more Majors). Even so I would never assume this was forcing without specific agreement to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 21, 2014 Report Share Posted August 21, 2014 If 3♣ showed values, it's covered your partnership's general rule about sequences where you try for 3NT and then bid 4m. If 3♣ didn't show values, it's non-forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMoe Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 If 2N is Lebensohl, then 3♣ shows values (9+). Even so, 4♣ shows a minimum and no ♦ stop. The question is whether 3♦ is GF or forcing to a fit. If the latter then 4♣ is not forcing. Doubler must bid assuming 9-10 HCP opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 The question is whether 3♦ is GF or forcing to a fit. If the latter then 4♣ is not forcing.It might just be a matter of terminology but in my system document I use the term GF to mean "forcing to 3NT" with UGF meaning unconditionally forcing to game. The difference is precisely what Andy wrote - the rule about whether it is possible to stop in 4m after trying for 3NT. So 3♦ being GF alone is not enough to say for certain whether 4♣ is forcing - the general rule takes precedence here. To me, if there is no other agreement in place (pick up partnership) then it should be non-forcing, since 4♦ is available to force with litle cost. But perhaps that is simply a reflection of my personal logic rather than how the rest of the world views things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicklont Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Partner doubles and then cues their suit. How can he pass after that? Please don't do that to me!He would have preferred me bidding NT of a major suit, but I could not do that, sorry.I don't like the concept that GF bidding may end up in 4♣ or 4♦ when 3NT was not biddable.It makes for awkward slam bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 I don't like the concept that GF bidding may end up in 4♣ or 4♦ when 3NT was not biddable.It makes for awkward slam bidding. Not if you play a direct raise to Four as forcing (and therefore a slam try). This frees up the cue bid to explore other denominations and still stop in 4m. Even if I cue and remove 3NT to 4m that's nf for me. But I certainly would not call something GF if I play it as nothing of the kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 It might just be a matter of terminology but in my system document I use the term GF to mean "forcing to 3NT" with UGF meaning unconditionally forcing to game. Was there something wrong with the established usage of "F3NT" for "forcing to 3NT" and "FG" for "forcing to game"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Was there something wrong with the established usage of "F3NT" for "forcing to 3NT" and "FG" for "forcing to game"?Which of those covers "forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit", i.e. game forcing except for minors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Which of those covers "forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit", i.e. game forcing except for minors?"F3N", without saying "FG" naturally implies 4m can be dropped. We don't need anything else to cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Which of those covers "forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit", i.e. game forcing except for minors? "forcing to 3NT". If the auction gets to 4 of a minor it has gone past the level of 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.