Forcing or not

[baraka]

A friend had this hand...

 

♠KQx

♥-

♦AJxx

♠KQJxxx

 

She oppened the bidding 1♣, LHO bid 1♥ (what else?), Partner responded X (negative), RHO bid 2♥ and she bid 3♦.

 

She and I asked some people about the meaning of the 3♦ bid. We got some answers. We asked 2 GLMs and 1 ELM and got 3 different answers !!!

 

a) Not forcing, just dont want to let 2♥ go.

 

b) Shows extra but not forcing.

 

c) Shows a reverse just the same.

 

Wow ! What is your pick ?

[helene_t]

This is related to a very popular topic on this forum, namely whether 2♦ (when available, i.e. not here) would be forcing or not. Some argue that the double only shows spades so diamonds is a new suit. Hence it is a reverse.

 

Others argue that responder will have one of the minors and if it isn't diamonds then you have a huge club fit and can afford to go one level higher. Hence, 2♦ would not be forcing. This works best if it is your style not to double with 44(32), hence the double shows that you have something in one or both minors.

 

Here the situation is a bit different since opener can pass with a minimum. Besides, if 3♦ would show a minimum it is not clear what opener could do with 15-17 points since 3♥ or 4♦ would obviously force to game.

 

If you want 3♦ to be forcing then you need to either make a responsive double or an artificial 2NT bid with the 15-17 hands. The question is if any of those two calls are available in your system, and whether a responsive double would be practical. It is not good to design a system in such a way that you have to double with a particular range irrespectively of the defensive strength of your hand. That makes it very difficult for partner to decide whether to leave in the double.

 

So I suggest that this 3♦ shows about 15-17 points and is encouraging but not forcing:

- with 11-14 opener would pass (unless you have an artificial 2NT available to show that hand type)

- with 18+ opener has to do something else. Maybe bid the suit of the opponents, maybe double, maybe jump to 4♦ with a very good shape.

 

A case could certainly be made for playing it as forcing. But playing it as weak is nuts :)

[lycier]

Yes,I agree with Helene_t's opinion.

After 2♥,opener rebid-3♦=deny mini hand with intermediate strength,not forcing; but opener jump 4♦=reverse bid with strong strength,GF and forcing.

[ggwhiz]

Agree with Helene 100%, especially the "so I suggest" part. I'm very surprised that you got 3 different answers.

[Zelandakh]

A long time ago this would be non-forcing supporting partner's diamonds. Some still play it that way and, indeed, it is not so long ago that I heard of an extremely good pair having a mix-up in this kind of auction. But I think the modern standard is very much forcing here. One question that no one appears to have raised so far is whether Support Doubles are a logical agreement for Opener's rebid. If they were on then 3♦ would naturally also deny 3 spades. There are also other options here that have come up on the forums before, such as playing 2NT to show diamonds. That gets around the issue by raising a new one but luckily the new issue is easier to deal with.

 

In any case, I will not guess at which of your 3 was the ELM since such titles are essentially worthless but I will suggest that the oldest of the 3 was "a" and, tentatively, that the youngest is "b". Next time you speak with them, I suggest asking them a little more about how they play the initial double. That might shed a little more illumination on their thinking and why you got different answers.

[gszes]

I would have chosen x over 2h to show extra values no clear direction with the given hand. I would hate to have to pass 2h with

a hand like Kx x KQxx KQxxxxx just because I am minimum. Having x and 3h and 4d available to show various types of strong hands

seems to be sufficient. Minimal but highly distributional hands (that would hate to defend) should have a couple of places to

bid also (3c or 3d)

[jodepp]

I think I'm about to irk everyone who has responded so far :)

 

I think everyone who thinks 3♦ isn't forcing for one round is falling prey to "Mad Hatter" thinking ("my bids mean exactly what I want them to mean"). Consider the problem parameters:

 

1) We bid a new suit at a (much) higher level;

 

2) That suit is higher-ranking than the one we opened;

 

3) If partner prefers our first suit, partner must prefer it at the 4-level.

 

To me, these thoughts say 'forcing'. IMO it isn't fair to make partner guess what our intentions are; 3♦ is likely to be interpreted as 'forcing' by it's nature.

[The_Badger]

Interesting post Baraka :)

 

3♦ seems on the face of it forcing, but I'm more in the camp that it is competitive non-forcing.

 

If the auction went

 

1♣ - 1♥ - Dbl - 2♥

2♠...that would be competitive non-forcing

 

So I tend to agree with gszes that you need to keep 3♦ as competitive non-forcing too.

 

If the negative double always shows exactly a 4 card ♠ suit, them if the auction goes

 

1♣ - 1♥ - Dbl - 2♥

Dbl...that responsive double by opener should deny a 4 card ♠ fit (otherwise he could bid them at some level or make a 3♥ cue bid) but promises extra values generally.

[helene_t]

3) If partner prefers our first suit, partner must prefer it at the 4-level.

Yes, we obviously can't make this bid with some random 1345 16-count. We have to be prepared for partner to bid either 3nt or 4♣ if he has a minimum with less than four diamonds.

 

So if this is nonforcing it has to show six clubs.

 

Having thought about it a bit more I think it is maybe better to play it as forcing. Now the OP hand might be good enough that we are OK with a forcing 3♦ bid, but if not we would have to double.

 

What do double and 2NT mean? If 2NT is natural then dbl has to cover a lot of hand types but maybe that is ok. With no clear direction, responder can bid hid spades again, which we can pass or correct to 3♣. Would double followed by 3♣ show four diamonds or would it just be singlesuiter, stonger than a direct 3♣? In the first case, does it even show extra values? In the latter case, if 3♦ is forcing it looks like we can't get diamonds into the picture with less than GF strength. But maybe double followed by 2NT would show this.

 

So we probably need an artificial 2nt bid. I think it is better to play Lebensohl than to let 2NT show minors, though. What about this:

 

- dbl shows four diamonds, say nothing about strength. Responder can sign off via lebensohl (or suggest 2♠ with a good suit), 3m by responder is semipositive.

- 2NT is lebensohl, ostensibly a minimum with six clubs.

- 3♣ is natural, 15-17

- 3♦ natural, forcing. Don't want to double in case it would wrongside a diamond or nt contract

 

3nt can be bid directly or via lebensohl. Maybe the slow route is 18-19 balanced while the direct route is long clubs.

[the_clown]

Basically what jodepp said.

 

I am surprised that so many posters actually play it as nf.

[1eyedjack]

Go back 30 years or so and to a substantial segment of the population North's "negative" double is simply t/o. To a small minority it might not even have guaranteed 4 Spades. But regardless of that guarantee or not, opener could expect some Diamond tolerance, at least if responder lacks the strength for further action. In that case it is reasonable for North to bid 3D on weaker hands, certainly non-forcing, in the expectation of a playable fit.

 

These days it is considered safe, and the norm, to X with just about any hand with 4 Spades and values for a 1-level response. So he could only have a singleton Diamond, and 5 Hearts. Then there is less of a case for 3D to be non-forcing. You might still bid it if stuck for an alternative, and resign to getting too high. When that happens the fault may lie more with the wide definition of the modern double. Sometimes I am not sure that the 30 year old style isn't better.

[Caitlynne]

Given these two assumptions:

1. You open 1D with equal length in the minor suits that includes at least 4 cards in each minor (and no 5 card major, of course); and

2. A negative double is takeout promising either both unbid suits or, if not, a tolerance for opener's suit.

 

Then the 3D bid is a shows extra (a reverse) and is forcing (unless you play that 3H shows a strong hand with 3 spades, 3 or 4 diamonds, and 6 clubs in which case it can be played as only very encouraging).

[ggwhiz]

There is a difference between a full reverse ie. 1♣ - p - 1♥ - 1♠ (overcall by 4th seat) and then bidding diamonds as opposed to your hand where partner has made a negative double which denies the type of garbage we respond to 1♣ with when we are short in clubs.

 

That's where the highly encouraging rather than a full forcing reverse comes from imo but even in the first case we play reverses as highly encouraging but passable (rarely) if you responded to 1♣ with some 4-5-3-1 4 count. Strictly by partnership agreement. We are allowed to pass with this shape and 6-7 points on your actual auction, also rare.

[Charlie Yu]

Seems like a 3NT probe with 5-4 in the minors.