[kayin801]

1♦-X-1♠-2♥-
P-P-3♣

Is 3♣ forcing? 1♠ was forcing.

[gwnn]

i like to play it as forcing, I guess there will be many people who think it's non forcing. my life is simple, all 3 level new suits by responder are forcing.

[wank]

NF, in fact not even constructive, with lots of clubs. forcing hands with longer clubs would start with 2c. forcing hands with shorter clubs can X now or bid 4C if freaky shaped.

[mikeh]

I'd take it as nf, but I'm glad you posted it: I am establishing what I hope will be a serious partnership and I am making a list of auctions to review to make sure we have the same general expectations. This is now on my list!

[bluecalm]

NF. I wouldn't be sure at all in new partnership about it but I think playing it as forcing is very bad.

[kayin801]

Without discussion I actually took it as forcing. How do you handle a GF black two suiter otherwise? My partner held AQ10xx, Ax, x, AJ109x. Is X really the right bid there? 3♥ looks super messy, as does starting with XX or 2♣.

Edit: Maybe to rephrase the problem, is 3♣ forcing here:

Scoring: IMP

(P)-1♦-(X)-1♠
(2♥)-P-(P)-?

---

[mike777]

I would play it as natural and good invite. Granted this would be a pretty rare auction for me. I would strain to rebid as opener.

Pard could have a lot of hands with 5 spades or even be say:
Axxx...xx...x....AKxxxx ( which would not be a gf hand across from our opening bids)( this is a typical issue when one plays neg. free bids)
---


With your example gf hand I would start with xx...yes this can cause problems also.

[Siegmund]

It's on my list of questions to ask my regular p, since I can see a case both ways.

[karlson]

I play it NF with anyone I've discussed it with. On the given hand I don't see why I won't survive starting with double. Obviously would rather be playing it forcing on this hand.

[bluecalm]

Once you get something like Axxx x xx KJTxxx there you will change your agreement to NF regardless of previous stance.
Strong hands may be bid via double or opponents suit. Sure it's not as accurate as having 3♣ forcing available but giving up on hands like the above is just hopeless, especially at MP's.

[gnasher]

kayin801, on Jun 12 2010, 01:12 AM, said:

Without discussion I actually took it as forcing. How do you handle a GF black two suiter otherwise?

The rationale for playing it non-forcing is that competitive hands occur about four times more often than game-foricng hands, and a partscore swing is worth roughly half a game swing.

Like many such problems, this can be solved by playing transfers from 2NT upwards.

Quote

My partner held AQ10xx, Ax, x, AJ109x. Is X really the right bid there? 3♥ looks super messy, as does starting with XX or 2♣.

I wouldn't mind doubling with this. If partner leaves it in, bids a black suit, or makes a natural notrump bid, I'm happy enough. If he bids 3♦, I can try 3♥, and if he can't bid 3NT or 4♠ we probbaly belong in 5♦.

The hands where it's problematic to double are the ones where you don't want partner to leave it in. AQ10xx x Ax AJ109x, for example.

[peachy]

Not forcing. If playing 2/1, it is not even constructive but a signoff with 4-6 in spades-clubs. An auction without competition with that hand would have been 1D-1S-1NT-3C (signoff) when NMF or checkback is on card.

[kayin801]

peachy, on Jun 12 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

Not forcing. If playing 2/1, it is not even constructive but a signoff with 4-6 in spades-clubs.  An auction without competition with that hand would have been 1D-1S-1NT-3C (signoff) when NMF or checkback is on card.

With 4-6 in the blacks and weak wouldn't you rather bid a nf (assuming it is nf) 2C over 1D-X, given RHO ostensibly has the spades? I guess with something like AQxx, xx, x, xxxxxx 1S makes sense.

[peachy]

kayin801, on Jun 12 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 12 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

Not forcing. If playing 2/1, it is not even constructive but a signoff with 4-6 in spades-clubs.  An auction without competition with that hand would have been 1D-1S-1NT-3C (signoff) when NMF or checkback is on card.

With 4-6 in the blacks and weak wouldn't you rather bid a nf (assuming it is nf) 2C over 1D-X, given RHO ostensibly has the spades? I guess with something like AQxx, xx, x, xxxxxx 1S makes sense.

I did misread the auction but both in your original and rephrased auctions, 3C is NF because there are forcing calls available. GF hands have forcing bids available either by first round Rdbl, or bid 1S first round and cuebid second. In your rephrase auction, somebody is operating; otherwise opponent who bid 2H is marked with close to zero HCP.

[P_Marlowe]

kayin801, on Jun 11 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

1♦-X-1♠-2♥-
P-P-3♣

Is 3♣ forcing? 1♠ was forcing.

Hi,

a matter of agreement, but standard without add agreement 3C is forcing.
But it is common to play 2NT in this seq. as Lebensohl style, which would
make 3C depending which version you play nonforcing.

But for most - forcing, new suit on 3 level is forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

kayin801, on Jun 12 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 12 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

Not forcing. If playing 2/1, it is not even constructive but a signoff with 4-6 in spades-clubs.  An auction without competition with that hand would have been 1D-1S-1NT-3C (signoff) when NMF or checkback is on card.

With 4-6 in the blacks and weak wouldn't you rather bid a nf (assuming it is nf) 2C over 1D-X, given RHO ostensibly has the spades? I guess with something like AQxx, xx, x, xxxxxx 1S makes sense.

Hi,

1S and pass, why do you want to introduce a xxxxxx suit on the 3 level?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pooltuna]

kayin801, on Jun 11 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

1♦-X-1♠-2♥-
P-P-3♣

Is 3♣ forcing? 1♠ was forcing.

I don't play 1♠ as forcing in this auction so 3♣ can't be

[mikeh]

pooltuna, on Jun 12 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

kayin801, on Jun 11 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

1♦-X-1♠-2♥-
P-P-3♣

Is 3♣ forcing? 1♠ was forcing.

I don't play 1♠ as forcing in this auction so 3♣ can't be

you are in a very small minority, to play 1♠ as nf. Most of the rest of the world has learned that having to start all good hands with redouble is sub-optimum.

[inquiry]

I play 1♠ as forcing, and 3♣ as forcing.

[MarkDean]

mikeh, on Jun 12 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jun 12 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

kayin801, on Jun 11 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

1♦-X-1♠-2♥-
P-P-3♣

Is 3♣ forcing? 1♠ was forcing.

I don't play 1♠ as forcing in this auction so 3♣ can't be

you are in a very small minority, to play 1♠ as nf. Most of the rest of the world has learned that having to start all good hands with redouble is sub-optimum.

Is it not standard, however, for 2 of a suit to be NF if they double partner's 1♠ opening?