Help
pickup partner, opps silent:
1♣ - 1♠
1NT - 2♦
2♠ - 3♣
?
Is pass possible here? Or is 3♣ forcing?
Page 1 of 1
forcing or not?
#1
- enigmatic
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,757
- Joined: 2009-July-31
- Gender:Male
Posted 2010-August-30, 14:34
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
-gwnn
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2010-August-30, 14:46
With a pickup partner you never know, but I would say it was forcing.
It all depends on what 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 3♣ means. If the direct 3♣ is forcing, then the slow 3♣ is to play, and vice versa. I am sure that most would say the slow route is stronger.
EDIT: I assumed that 2♦ was NMF.
It all depends on what 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 3♣ means. If the direct 3♣ is forcing, then the slow 3♣ is to play, and vice versa. I am sure that most would say the slow route is stronger.
EDIT: I assumed that 2♦ was NMF.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,444
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2010-August-30, 14:47
If you're not playing new minor forcing, then 2♦ was NF and opener's hand is limited, so 3♣ is clearly NF.
If you are playing new minor forcing (most do, but it's not strictly standard) then either treatment makes sense, but this sequence should have the opposite meaning of 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♣ (i.e. one should be invitational to game and the other forcing).
The "more standard" modern treatment is that jumps in previously mentioned suits are invitational to game; examples include 1♣-1♠-3♠ and 1♣-1♠-3♣ and 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♠. Under this interpretation, 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♣ would be invitational (not forcing). It follows that 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦-2X-3♣ would be forcing to game.
Note that the (somewhat dated) Root and Pavlicek "Modern Bridge Conventions" book endorses the opposite treatment, and indeed there are substantial advantages to that approach, however I would view it as "less standard" than the discussion above.
What a pickup partner on BBO will think is anyone's guess -- I do not think this is the sort of sequence where there is universal agreement or where every intermediate to advanced player who "knows" new minor force will be on the same wavelength.
If you are playing new minor forcing (most do, but it's not strictly standard) then either treatment makes sense, but this sequence should have the opposite meaning of 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♣ (i.e. one should be invitational to game and the other forcing).
The "more standard" modern treatment is that jumps in previously mentioned suits are invitational to game; examples include 1♣-1♠-3♠ and 1♣-1♠-3♣ and 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♠. Under this interpretation, 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♣ would be invitational (not forcing). It follows that 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦-2X-3♣ would be forcing to game.
Note that the (somewhat dated) Root and Pavlicek "Modern Bridge Conventions" book endorses the opposite treatment, and indeed there are substantial advantages to that approach, however I would view it as "less standard" than the discussion above.
What a pickup partner on BBO will think is anyone's guess -- I do not think this is the sort of sequence where there is universal agreement or where every intermediate to advanced player who "knows" new minor force will be on the same wavelength.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,814
- Joined: 2009-July-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:New Orleans
Posted 2010-August-30, 15:12
not possible and forcing
"Tell me of your home world, Usul"
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
#5
- 2011 Poster of The Year winner
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,002
- Joined: 2010-July-08
- Gender:Male
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 835
- Joined: 2009-May-03
Posted 2010-August-30, 17:40
1m - 1M
1NT - 2om! ( NMF )
2any - 3m = GF and shows Responder's real intent : support for Opener's minor and cancels interest in Responder's Major ( have only 4 of them ).
If Responder wanted an invite ( or weak depending on your prior agreements) in Opener's minor, he would have jumped to 3m over 1NT:
1m - 1M
1NT - 3m ( weak ...or invitational )
In general:
" All jumps are weak ( or invitational) whereas GF bids go thru NMF first ".
Here is another:
1m - 1M
1NT - 2om!
2any- 3M = GF
And one more:
1m - 1M
1NT -2om!
2any- 3om = GF
1NT - 2om! ( NMF )
2any - 3m = GF and shows Responder's real intent : support for Opener's minor and cancels interest in Responder's Major ( have only 4 of them ).
If Responder wanted an invite ( or weak depending on your prior agreements) in Opener's minor, he would have jumped to 3m over 1NT:
1m - 1M
1NT - 3m ( weak ...or invitational )
In general:
" All jumps are weak ( or invitational) whereas GF bids go thru NMF first ".
Here is another:
1m - 1M
1NT - 2om!
2any- 3M = GF
And one more:
1m - 1M
1NT -2om!
2any- 3om = GF
Don Stenmark ( TWOferBRIDGE )
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2010-August-31, 01:27
JLOGIC, on Aug 31 2010, 06:29 AM, said:
Fing
orc
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2010-August-31, 03:03
pooltuna, on Aug 30 2010, 03:12 PM, said:
not possible and forcing
Not possible? Not only possible, but slammish and forcing in our world. No other way to create a force with club support.
AKXX XX A KQXXXX is one of many hands "possible". With lots of lesser hands, responder would have just placed the contract, knowing opener has a weaker weak NT with 3 spades.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,987
- Joined: 2009-February-15
Posted 2010-August-31, 03:16
Definitely forcing.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,459
- Joined: 2007-June-03
- Gender:Male
Posted 2010-August-31, 05:29
Forcing either way, but I would very much assume 2♦ was NOT nmf.
Still decidedly intermediate - don't take my guesses as authoritative.
"gwnn" said:
rule number 1 in efficient forum reading:
hanp does not always mean literally what he writes.
hanp does not always mean literally what he writes.
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,814
- Joined: 2009-July-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:New Orleans
Posted 2010-August-31, 07:23
aguahombre, on Aug 31 2010, 04:03 AM, said:
pooltuna, on Aug 30 2010, 03:12 PM, said:
not possible and forcing
Not possible? Not only possible, but slammish and forcing in our world. No other way to create a force with club support.
AKXX XX A KQXXXX is one of many hands "possible". With lots of lesser hands, responder would have just placed the contract, knowing opener has a weaker weak NT with 3 spades.
if you are slammish then pass is still possible? I was answering OPs 2 questions in sequence. I.e. the call was not only forcing but passing was inconcievable
"Tell me of your home world, Usul"
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
#12
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2010-August-31, 08:37
Pass is always possible, but it's not advisable after a clear forcing call 
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2010-August-31, 09:18
pooltuna, on Aug 31 2010, 07:23 AM, said:
aguahombre, on Aug 31 2010, 04:03 AM, said:
pooltuna, on Aug 30 2010, 03:12 PM, said:
not possible and forcing
Not possible? Not only possible, but slammish and forcing in our world. No other way to create a force with club support.
AKXX XX A KQXXXX is one of many hands "possible". With lots of lesser hands, responder would have just placed the contract, knowing opener has a weaker weak NT with 3 spades.
if you are slammish then pass is still possible? I was answering OPs 2 questions in sequence. I.e. the call was not only forcing but passing was inconcievable
Sorry, Pool. I thought it was the same question, asked redundantly ---and that you were saying the bid was impossible. My bad.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#14
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 430
- Joined: 2010-May-18
Posted 2010-September-02, 20:32
Being forcing is clear. The next question is how many spades are now promised? NMF is often based on 5-card in the first responded major, does 3♣ now cancel that message? If so, then what do you do with 5+ spades and a slammish hand? Maybe if you play strong jump shift this would not be a problem (as you would have bid 2S earlier with good spades and clubs), but what if you don't?
Page 1 of 1