It didn't occur to me that he could pass this

[Vampyr]

[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp2c2s3dp]133|100|IMPs[/hv]

 

Am I wrong?

[Stefan_O]

Yes, is definitely round-force.

 

(Apparently you were not playing 2/1...)

It might not be 100% game-force after the competition, if he just makes pref to 3♥ or rebids 4♣...

I guess rules are a bit "flexible" there... and different players might have different opinions re GF or not.

[steve2005]

Is game-forcing with 2 exceptions even with opposition bidding after 2/1

1) If you stop and double opponents

2) No good fit is found and side lacks stoppers for 3N may end up in 4 minor rarely

[Vampyr]

Is game-forcing with 2 exceptions even with opposition bidding after 2/1

1) If you stop and double opponents

2) No good fit is found and side lacks stoppers for 3N may end up in 4 minor rarely

 

Ummm... in our system 1♥-2♣ is forcing to 2♥. I would advise you not to look like an idiot by responding assuming conditions that are clearly not in force in the OP.

[mike777]

3d sounds game forcing to me even if we assume 2c is not. In any event I would not stop short of game as responder and we can discuss later in the bar over a cold one.

 

 

Is this an Acol quiz question? :)

[TylerE]

Ummm... in our system 1♥-2♣ is forcing to 2♥. I would advise you not to look like an idiot by responding assuming conditions that are clearly not in force in the OP.

 

I would suggest not looking like as ass by getting snippy when someone makes assumptions in the face of you providing no system details.

[hrothgar]

Ummm... in our system 1♥-2♣ is forcing to 2♥. I would advise you not to look like an idiot by responding assuming conditions that are clearly not in force in the OP.

 

I'd advise that you not expect people to be able to guess at the meanings of your own idiosyncratic treatments...

 

[When I post a MOSCITO auction I have the good grace to explain nonstandard treatments as to avoid wasting everyone's time]

[kenberg]

As far as system is concerned the question of 3D being forcing would not arise if 2C were gf, so I assumed that 2C was not gf. And then I went on to assume that any discussion that you had was insufficient. So we have to go by what is reasonable. Myself, I cannot imagine passing 3D. If I have diamonds, that's great and I would then raise diamonds. If I don't have diamonds then I have to get us out of diamonds. That's part of it. But also, partner sometimes has a good hand. Witha good hand with hearts and diamonds, what else is there to do other than bid 3D?

 

So yes, I think that it is forcing. But you say 2D was forcing to 2H, and playing 1H-2D-2H-P seems odd to me. So of course I don't know how a poll would go if you confined it to people who see an uncontested 1H-2D-2H as passable.

 

 

But playing online with someone you barely know, if that's what this was. leads to such things. I enjoy playing online, and I often play with people I barely know, and so there are these things.

 

But yes, I cannot imagine that I would pass. I would make other calls you would not approve of though.

[akwoo]

I play regularly in a partnership where 1H-2C-2D (opponents pass throughout) is non-forcing, so you might want to take this comment with that grain of salt.

 

I don't think 3D as non-forcing is unreasonable - you would X first if you wanted to force.

[Cyberyeti]

I would suggest not looking like as ass by getting snippy when someone makes assumptions in the face of you providing no system details.

 

She puts London as location, assuming 2/1 GF is unwise, a Brit would normally state it if they were playing it.

 

3♦ should be forcing for everybody who hasn't discussed it and agreed that it isn't, whether it's F1 or FG with no agreement is unclear.

[ahydra]

Some play a style where all good hands must X first, thus limiting the 3D to about 15, normally 5-5 shape. If so responder could pass sensing a misfit with e.g. 3136.

 

ahydra

[helene_t]

I will assume that a forcing pass is not available and that 2nt would be natural and forcing . Now feel free to call me names.

 

In that case a nf 3d bid is the only way to stop in 3d. Maybe forcing is more useful. But presumably dbl followed by 3d is stronger.

 

For 2/1 pairs the auction

1h p 1s 2d

3c

is most commonly played as invitational but here presumably responder hae shown enough that there is no need to distinguish between weak and invitational.

[The_Badger]

hi Vampyr,

 

This is an interesting post because how some players bid is completely different to others. As MrAce demonstrated in a recent post, his interpretation of a suit rebid at the three level (as opposed to a new suit) went against what many other people were suggesting, including myself.

 

As he succinctly put it, "He makes the bid because of shape, not shape and beans".

 

I do feel there is some general difference between British and American bidding sequences, and interpretation of bids, especially where the opponents have intervened.

 

To me, if opener bids a new minor at the three level, it is forcing for one round at the very least, whatever system you are playing. Opener is unlimited, except where a partnership are using a strong club system.

[Vampyr]

She puts London as location, assuming 2/1 GF is unwise, a Brit would normally state it if they were playing it.

 

Yes and as mentioned above, the (non)forcing nature of 3♦ would not be in question if we were already forced to game.

[Vampyr]

I will assume that a forcing pass is not available and that 2nt would be natural and forcing . Now feel free to call me names.

 

In that case a nf 3d bid is the only way to stop in 3d. Maybe forcing is more useful. But presumably dbl followed by 3d is stronger.

 

I do not know if it is useful to have a way to stop in 3♦; with what hand would I want to go on a solo adventure with no guarantee of a fit? for this reason I don't know if it is sensible to have two ways to bid 3♦, and would reserve the double for more flexible hands, eg with ♣Hx. I may be wrong about this. (Bid a passable 3♦ with a moderate 6/6?)

 

The actual hand, not that it's super relevant, was x AKJ10xx K10xxx x.

[Vampyr]

I'd advise that you not expect people to be able to guess at the meanings of your own idiosyncratic treatments...

 

[When I post a MOSCITO auction I have the good grace to explain nonstandard treatments as to avoid wasting everyone's time]

 

Nothing nonstandard here. Pure natural bidding, no artificial colours, no preservatives.

[helene_t]

Nothing nonstandard here. Pure natural bidding, no artificial colours, no preservatives.

But the answer to your question could depend on the strength promised by the 2♣ bid. 8+ is different from from 12+ while both could be consistent with the agreement that 2♣ is a one round force but we could end in 3♦ on some auctions.

[helene_t]

I do not know if it is useful to have a way to stop in 3♦; with what hand would I want to go on a solo adventure with no guarantee of a fit? for this reason I don't know if it is sensible to have two ways to bid 3♦, and would reserve the double for more flexible hands, eg with ♣Hx. I may be wrong about this. (Bid a passable 3♦ with a moderate 6/6?)

 

The actual hand, not that it's super relevant, was x AKJ10xx K10xxx x.

If opener has a 1552 12-count and responder has a 3136 10-count ... especially for those who play 4-card majors since you would like to show the fifth heart. But you play 5-card majors in this partnership, don't you?

 

At this vulnerability it is probably a bit far fetched since a weak hand can afford to pass.

[Vampyr]

But the answer to your question could depend on the strength promised by the 2♣ bid. 8+ is different from from 12+ while both could be consistent with the agreement that 2♣ is a one round force but we could end in 3♦ on some auctions.

 

Yes, that is true, but again if partner is 8+ rather than 10+ I still don't see why I want to climb past his suit at the 3-level on a possible (probable?) misfit.

[Vampyr]

If opener has a 1552 12-count and responder has a 3136 10-count ... especially for those who play 4-card majors since you would like to show the fifth heart. But you play 5-card majors in this partnership, don't you?

 

At this vulnerability it is probably a bit far fetched since a weak hand can afford to pass.

 

Yes and I agree.

[Zelandakh]

The default rule in Acol is that a new suit at the 3 level is forcing. I can see no reason why this auction would be an exception unless playing some sort of GB2NT (which you would surely have mentioned). And in almost any system other than Acol this would barely be a question.

[Vampyr]

I can see no reason why this auction would be an exception unless playing some sort of GB2NT (which you would surely have mentioned).

 

Yeah, we have talked about it but been too lazy to adopt it.

[helene_t]

I am not sure if a gb2nt is practical in this auction, especially when you play weak nt. GB2NT could easily wrongside a 3nt contract. It is more useful in balancing seat, and when you have already found (or are likely to have) a major suit fit, or when notrumps has already been bid, or when the 2♠ was a raise rather than an overcall.

[Kaitlyn S]

With the assumption that the 2C response is "SAYC" showing at least 11 (some might say 10), I would say that both 3D and pass by opener are forcing. The way people float in nowdays, giving up a cooperative penalty double of 2S to create a forcing bid seems wrong. By cooperative penalty, I mean responder defends 2S doubled unless he has a heart fit, is really short in spades, or has a ton of clubs.

[Tramticket]

As Zelandakh says, the default rule in Acol is (and has always been) that a new suit at the three level is forcing.

 

Furthermore, in modern Acol a new suit after a 2-over1 response (e.g. the uncontested auction 1H, 2C, 2D) is forcing. Bidding 3D a level higher in the disturbed auction shows extra and must be forcing - I would argue that it must be GF.