[Ant590]

Heated debate on the following sequence --- two "experts", each convinced that the other was barking:

1♦ -- 1♥
2♣ -- 2NT
3♣

both agreed 5-5 minors, but one though weak running, the other game-forcing looking for best strain. I guess there is a corollary to the question: what is 3♠ after 2NT?

[hotShot]

We have the meta-agreement that repeating a suit is NF unless defined otherwise.

Responders 3♠ would be asking for a half stopper in ♠ suggesting to play 3NT.
Openers 3♠ would be asking for ♠ stopper, denying to have a stopper in that suit.

[helene_t]

Obviously to play. I am surprised that some "expert" could disagree with that. If opener is looking for best strain he can bid 3♠ (although it is not clear to me what it means it is obviously forcing). 3♥ should be forcing, too, I think.

We once had this discussion:

1♠-1NT
2♥-2NT
3♠
and here most thought it was forcing. It makes more sense to offer a choice of game when the majors are in the picture - besides, it makes little sense to "improve" 2NT to 3♠ when responder could be short in spades. Finally, there are no other forcing bids available here. 3m would be nonforcing, showing a minimum 54(40).

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=31492 something I found randomly this morning

[gnasher]

3♣ is to play.
3♦ is forcing if you'd bid 1♦-1♥;2♦ on a 6-4 minimum, and non-forcing if you wouldn't.
3♥ is forcing with a 1354 shape.
3♠ is FSF, covering all game-forcing hands that can't do something else. That means game-forcing 5-5s, and possibly also game-forcing 6-4s.

[hrothgar]

Ant590, on Feb 2 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

Heated debate on the following sequence --- two "experts", each convinced that the other was barking:

1♦ -- 1♥
2♣ -- 2NT
3♣

both agreed 5-5 minors, but one though weak running, the other game-forcing looking for best strain. I guess there is a corollary to the question: what is 3♠ after 2NT?

Both 2♣ and 2NT are typically nonforcing...

How can 3♣ now establish a game force?

[jjbrr]

nf!

[mike777]

Ant590, on Feb 2 2010, 05:40 AM, said:

Heated debate on the following sequence --- two "experts", each convinced that the other was barking:

1♦ -- 1♥
2♣ -- 2NT
3♣

both agreed 5-5 minors, but one though weak running, the other game-forcing looking for best strain. I guess there is a corollary to the question: what is 3♠ after 2NT?

Interesting post.

I could understand if you have a meta agreement any bid on this auction over 2nt is game forcing. That just forces you to pass 2nt with less.

It also gives you more room to explore if gf at a lower level.


Otherwise you may end up playing at the 3 level in an eight card or even a 7 card fit. 4=5=2=2.

[jdonn]

Wow didn't know this was so unanimous, I thought neither was standard. Shows what I know. FWIW I definitely prefer forcing. Then you don't have to invent ambiguous meanings for 3♠, you don't have to make partner choose between non-fits when he is 4522, you give yourself more room when you want to force...

With an unknown partner I would have assumed NF from both sides of the table since I think more people play that, but wouldn't have guessed unanimous.

[P_Marlowe]

NF.

You have 3S, 4C to force, but only 3C to play in 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Feb 2 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

Ant590, on Feb 2 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

Heated debate on the following sequence --- two "experts", each convinced that the other was barking:

1♦ -- 1♥
2♣ -- 2NT
3♣

both agreed 5-5 minors, but one though weak running, the other game-forcing looking for best strain. I guess there is a corollary to the question: what is 3♠ after 2NT?

Both 2♣ and 2NT are typically nonforcing...

How can 3♣ now establish a game force?

2NT is non-forcing, but shows more than a minimum response, so opener could want to game force opposite a hand that was strong enough to rebid 2NT, even though he wasn't strong enough to jump shift over the initial 1♥ call, i.e. something like 16 would be consistent with making a NF bid over 1♥, but wanting to be in game over 2NT. I don't play it forcing myself; just saying it's not inherently inconsistent with the auction.

[hanp]

hrothgar, on Feb 2 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

Ant590, on Feb 2 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

Heated debate on the following sequence --- two "experts", each convinced that the other was barking:

1♦ -- 1♥
2♣ -- 2NT
3♣

both agreed 5-5 minors, but one though weak running, the other game-forcing looking for best strain. I guess there is a corollary to the question: what is 3♠ after 2NT?

Both 2♣ and 2NT are typically nonforcing...

How can 3♣ now establish a game force?

What kind of logic is that? Opener can easily have 17 and responder has about 11, why couldn't opener make a gameforcing bid?

Anyway, I prefer NF, but forcing definitely has merit. Good to have an agreement. In Holland everything seems to be NF. And I mean everything.

[Jlall]

Strongly prefer NF.

[peachy]

I like the agreement that when an invitational 2NT is pulled, it is forcing. This works for me and I don't have to worry about it. The OP auction could reasonably be agreed as an exception, same as 1D-1M-2D-2NT.
Also, if I don't know if a bid is forcing or not [talking general, not this auction], I will consider it forcing. In the long run it is less expensive this way.

[karlson]

I think NF is standard, and seems best to me.

[Fluffy]

My gut reaction is clearly non forcing.

However I have more problems with 3♦, I'd take it as forcing.

[the hog]

NF for me.

[straube]

NF. Think it's standard.

[mikegill]

My understanding was that bids of this ilk had no standard meaning and were open to partnership agreement. I honestly don't know which meaning I prefer tbh. In this particular auction, nf makes more sense to me I suppose.

[mike777]

a lot of people don't seem to mind to play at 3 level in an 8 or 7card fit...ok....