Forcing or not forcing question.

[Adam1105]

I think North's, me, 1♠ bid is forcing. My partner, south, said it wasn't. Who is right?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt2hqt75dq9ckqj6&n=skj65hj2dk2cat972&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c1ddp1hp1sp]266|200[/hv]

 

Thanks very much.

[whereagles]

Under normal agreements (dbl = 4 spades, 1♠ = 5 cards) the bid is somewhat strange.

 

I wouldn't say it's 100% forcing, but I would never think of passing this because there's no telling what responder might be up to :)

[ArtK78]

This auction is very peculiar. I disagree with whereagles - under normal agreements, a negative double of 1♦ shows both majors - typically 44. A free bid of a major shows 4+ cards. So it would be normal on this auction to bid 1♠ on the North hand over 1♦, which would be forcing.

 

Having not chosen the 1♠ bid initially, the subsequent 1♠ bid must be a forward going bid with a heart fit. Therefore, it is forcing, but it shows an entirely different hand than the one shown in the OP.

[paulg]

I think North's, me, 1♠ bid is forcing. My partner, south, said it wasn't. Who is right?

The first question is whether you agree on the meaning of the double?

[wank]

as others said, the standard meaning for double is 44 in the majors. you should address that before you consider this sequence.

[diana_eva]

If you play negative free bids, double then bid = strong; bid directly = non-forcing. I haven't seen it at 1st level though, and this is not a style most people would assume as "standard".

[whereagles]

I disagree with whereagles - under normal agreements, a negative double of 1♦ shows both majors - typically 44.

You're right. I saw the auction wrong.

[jillybean]

For me 2♦ is the only forcing bid here. 1♠ is an impossible bid so perhaps it should be forcing but I you can't play it without agreements.

[rmnka447]

After 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ - ?, a Double should show at least 4+ cards in both majors. With a 1 bid responding hand (5-9 value), responder may even have 5+ cards in one of the majors -- choosing to show both majors rather bid the longer and risk losing a fit in the other major.

 

If Double shows both majors, then a simple major bid over 1 ♦ doesn't guarantee anymore than 4+ cards. 1 ♠ would be the bid I would make with the North hand.

 

The problem with the South hand, IMO, is that it isn't and never would be an opening hand for me. Bean counters may adjudge it a 12 HCP hand, but with 5 quacks, it looks more like about a 10 pointer to me. It also only has 1 QT not enough for 1 bid opener IMO.

 

With less than an opener, I wouldn't nail South for passing 1 ♠ even if it is forcing. The pass says exactly that South has -- less than a normal opening -- a hand where game may not make even opposite a responding hand equivalent to an opener. It also indicates some tolerance for ♠s.

 

If you have an agreement that the double shows at least one 4 card major, but not necessarily both, then I would think that 1 ♠ simply shows 4+ ♠ and less than 4 ♥ and would be nonforcing. That would allow you to find a ♠ fit when one exists without getting too high when you have less than invitational values (i.e. enough to force for at least 1 round).

[Adam1105]

My neg. dbl is showing "a" four card major.

 

"The Bridge Guys," (a pretty reliable source, I think) specifically says a "negative double" does not mean 44 in majors. It states that one four card major is 100% OK for my neg. dbl after my opp's one diamond.

 

Larry Cohen, though, says that it DOES mean 44 in majors.

 

Obviously I like the "free bid" style of showing one major. (It was a BBO tourney and no agreement, of course.)

 

My thinking was: "My partner answered with his 4 card Heart suit so, easily at the "1 level," I showed my 4 card Spade suit because my partner could also have a 4 card spade suit."

 

Question: If one plays with the idea that a negative double equals 44 in majors, then what should I bid and instead of "double" after opps 1♦? How can we find a major fit? If there were one there?

[Stephen Tu]

My neg. dbl is showing "a" four card major.

 

"The Bridge Guys," (a pretty reliable source, I think) specifically says a "negative double" does not mean 44 in majors. It states that one four card major is 100% OK for my neg. dbl after my opp's one diamond.

 

Does it? I checked their article, I didn't see anything about promising only one major after 1♦ overcall. Their example auction with this in an appeal case had both majors.

 

In any case, it's only one site, and the vast majority of better players play that the double promises both majors after one diamond. Over higher level overcalls of the other minor, only one major is promised, though one is supposed to have a plan if partner bids the "wrong" major (bid NT, support opener's minor).

 

Question: If one plays with the idea that a negative double equals 44 in majors, then what should I bid and instead of "double" after opps 1♦? How can we find a major fit? If there were one there?

 

Just bid one spade. Which is forcing and only shows four after 1♦.

[Adam1105]

I double checked bridge guys, and you may be right, stephen tu. My bad on that point, I guess. Well, I will strive to play neg. doubles that way now.

[helene_t]

Can we make a double with 5-4 in the majors? If so, with which strength?

 

I would take it as 5-4 and probably forcing.

[cherdano]

I would take it as 5=4 and non-forcing. The only reason not to bid 1♠ with 5=4 would be that I am afraid I am not strong enough to make a second bid in competition, and would therefore miss hearts.

[biggerclub]

If you want to force, why not bid 2♦? Do you hate your partner?

 

I play an unusual system over OPPs 1♦ bid so my call is 2♣ (GF -- inv minors sys on over 1 level interference). I think most would bid 1S (F1) at the first round.

 

When the OPPs have been in the auction, use the Q bid as unconditional force and anything else can be less than that. Or at least that's my philosophy. I try to build a fence around my partners whenever possible and prevent them from making a mistake if I can.

[whereagles]

If you want to force, why not bid 2♦? Do you hate your partner?

 

No, but I hate dumping every strong hand into a nebulous cue bid.

 

In general it sounds like a good idea to have some natural forcing bids. At least I think so. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[fourdad]

After 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ - ?, a Double should show at least 4+ cards in both majors. With a 1 bid responding hand (5-9 value), responder may even have 5+ cards in one of the majors -- choosing to show both majors rather bid the longer and risk losing a fit in the other major.

 

If Double shows both majors, then a simple major bid over 1 ♦ doesn't guarantee anymore than 4+ cards. 1 ♠ would be the bid I would make with the North hand.

 

The problem with the South hand, IMO, is that it isn't and never would be an opening hand for me. Bean counters may adjudge it a 12 HCP hand, but with 5 quacks, it looks more like about a 10 pointer to me. It also only has 1 QT not enough for 1 bid opener IMO.

 

With less than an opener, I wouldn't nail South for passing 1 ♠ even if it is forcing. The pass says exactly that South has -- less than a normal opening -- a hand where game may not make even opposite a responding hand equivalent to an opener. It also indicates some tolerance for ♠s.

 

If you have an agreement that the double shows at least one 4 card major, but not necessarily both, then I would think that 1 ♠ simply shows 4+ ♠ and less than 4 ♥ and would be nonforcing. That would allow you to find a ♠ fit when one exists without getting too high when you have less than invitational values (i.e. enough to force for at least 1 round).

 

This post saved me a lot of typing. I agree with every word.

[paulg]

My neg. dbl is showing "a" four card major.

This is a popular approach in my local club, with the direct bid of a major promising a five-card suit and forcing for one round. They would all play 1♠ as natural and forcing in the sequence given. It is not a strong club and I would not recommend it, but they are happy with it.

 

Although Stephen is probably right that the vast majority of better players play double showing both majors, I reckon an increasing number are playing double as a transfer to hearts.

[GrahamJson]

It's all a matter of style. With my regular partner we play an immediate bid of a new suit as non forcing (although could still be reasonable values) whilst a double followed by a new suit is forcing. However others play it the other way around. With an unfamiliar partner I would treat the current sequence as forcing as passing could risk missing game if partner also assumed it to be so.

[masonbarge]

From the ACBL site:

 

Responder’s Rebid after Making a Negative Double

 

With a minimum hand (6 to 9 total points:

 

• Pass opener’s minimum rebid.

• Give a simple preference to opener’s original suit, or

• Bid a new suit without a jump.

 

So the basic rule is that this sequence is not only not forcing, but partner would be justified in thinking it is a minimum, with five spades and four hearts. Absent any other agreement, that's how I would take it.

 

And in general terms of preventing confusion, don't ever assume a bid at the one-level is forcing!

[ArtK78]

This is a perfectly good bid and shows: Good five-card spade suit, decent heart support (at worst four small or three to K10x), 16-18 total points. It lets you play in hearts across from a partner with five hearts and 2- spades.

 

It's definitely not forcing. The only force is a cue bid. It's what you have to do to show an old-fashioned cue bid if you play Michaels.

 

Moreover, if you bid this, you'd better not get excited if partner bids 2 hearts. He's still 0-7 HCP. I'd bid 2♥ with

♠x

♥xxxxxx

♦xxx

♣xxx

I think you are confused. The 1♠ bid was made on the second round of bidding by responder.

[ayebee]

Perhaps the question is why you want 1♠ to be forcing here? 1♠ seems to be a sound contract as you seem to have 4 losers off the top in any black suit contract and will lose 6 tricks on a diamond lead against 3NT (unless east has 7 and no side entry).

[iandayre]

My neg. dbl is showing "a" four card major.

 

"The Bridge Guys," (a pretty reliable source, I think) specifically says a "negative double" does not mean 44 in majors. It states that one four card major is 100% OK for my neg. dbl after my opp's one diamond.

 

Larry Cohen, though, says that it DOES mean 44 in majors.

 

Obviously I like the "free bid" style of showing one major. (It was a BBO tourney and no agreement, of course.)

 

My thinking was: "My partner answered with his 4 card Heart suit so, easily at the "1 level," I showed my 4 card Spade suit because my partner could also have a 4 card spade suit."

 

Question: If one plays with the idea that a negative double equals 44 in majors, then what should I bid and instead of "double" after opps 1♦? How can we find a major fit? If there were one there?

 

Larry Cohen is correct. I suspect Bridge Guys don't disagree. This specific auction is the only one where a negative double guarantees both majors. If partner had opened 1D and you got a 2C overcall, then double shows at least one major, and any time the unbid suits are a major and a minor, the double does not guarantee the minor (it may have support for opener's minor plus the unbid major).

[GrahamJson]

I think deciding whether it is forcing or depends on whether you want to win the hand or win the post mortem. Other posters have given good technical reasons why it should be not forcing. However from what I have seen few BBO players read the text books. If you bid on and it was meant to be non forcing it is unlikely you will lose much, but if you pass and partner has a big hand you could miss game, or even slam (strange things go on around here sometimes).