[billw55]

ops quiet, first seat opening:

1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 1♠
1NT - 3♦ <--- F or NF?

Now maybe everyone says "depends on agreements" .. in that case, what would you consider north american standard? European?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

NF, inv. values, 6-4.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

billw55, on 2012-February-17, 13:34, said:

ops quiet, first seat opening:

1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 1♠
1NT - 3♦ <--- F or NF?

Now maybe everyone says "depends on agreements" .. in that case, what would you consider north american standard? European?

a bit tricky but I would never pass it. I would think 1s sets up a gf without any discussion.


Good hand to discuss later if pard meant 3d was not forcing.

[CSGibson]

This is forcing. 1♠ sets up a force, even if it was only one round then I have to think that 2♦ would cover the invitational hands.

[Codo]

It really depends on 1 ♠. If this was simple up the line bidding, I can see no reason why 2 ♦ should not be weak and to play and 3 ♦ invitational.

Of course, you may develop better bidding system where you do not need a 2 ♦ sign off, but obviously you haven't yet.

If 1 ♠ is 4 suit forcing, 3 Diamond is forcing.

Opposite an unknown partner, I would aussume 4sf, so 3 ♦ is forcing too.

[billw55]

Interesting. If 1♠ is GF, then what does 3♦ show as opposed to 2♦?

[CSGibson]

billw55, on 2012-February-17, 15:49, said:

Interesting. If 1♠ is GF, then what does 3♦ show as opposed to 2♦?

I'd say in the context of 1♠ establishing a game force, it shows a good 6+ card diamond suit, slam interest.

I don't think 1♠ has to be game forcing without agreement, but I do think it should be at least invitational values, since you didn't bypass diamonds to begin with. In that context, 2♦ would show the invitational hand, and 3♦ the forcing hand.

But either way, 3♦ is definitely forcing.

[mike777]

I would take 3d as a slam try and setting trumps, pard pls cuebid now.


1s for me would be natural and gf with longer diamonds. With less than gf or equal d and s, I would start with 1s


2d would be natural and gf but a bit less than 3d
---


sidenote XYZ which is discussed often here in the forums can help a bit with hands less than gf with longer d and 4spades.

[Cyberyeti]

CSGibson, on 2012-February-17, 15:54, said:

I'd say in the context of 1♠ establishing a game force, it shows a good 6+ card diamond suit, slam interest.

I don't think 1♠ has to be game forcing without agreement, but I do think it should be at least invitational values, since you didn't bypass diamonds to begin with. In that context, 2♦ would show the invitational hand, and 3♦ the forcing hand.

But either way, 3♦ is definitely forcing.

May depend if 1♣-2♦ is weak or strong.

[billw55]

OK next question. What should 2♠ by responder (over 1♥) show?

[Codo]

billw55, on 2012-February-20, 07:45, said:

OK next question. What should 2♠ by responder (over 1♥) show?

To be discussed.

You may choose 1 ♠ as a natural bid and 2 ♠ as artifical gf without 4 spades.
If you play that 1 ♠ is either spades or artifical gf, 2 ♠ can be used as a 5+5 hand, similar to other auctions where the jump in the 4. suit shows a twosuiter.

[Cthulhu D]

I thought most people didn't play 1C-1D-1H-1S as fourth suit forcing? So with that said 3D invitational values, 6 diamonds (he's probably got a 4=2=6=1 hand)

ACBL website suggests they don't, for whatever that's worth: http://web2.acbl.org...suitforcing.pdf

[blackshoe]

Around here, most play 1♠ as 4SF. I don't. I play Walsh, so 1♠ shows 4+ spades and invitational values (and 1♦ shows 4+ diamonds). When I later bid 3♦ over 1NT, since I play Two Way Checkback so could have bid either 2♣ (inv) or 2♦ (GF), I'm showing 4 spades and 6 diamonds and invitational values (with a GF, I'd start with 2♦). BTW, the auction 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♦ would show a weak hand with 4 spades and 6 diamonds.

tl;dr: I agree with Marlowe.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I thought most people didn't play 1C-1D-1H-1S as fourth suit forcing?

The writers of the yellow card pamphlet, and about three other people in the world, use 2S over 1C-1D-1H as FSF. I've yet to meet any of them at the table.
It is true that 1S is more likely to include a spade suit than most other FSF bids. Opener will be correspondingly more willing to bid 2S rather than notrump with 4-4-1-4 hands.

[CSGibson]

Siegmund, on 2012-February-20, 09:56, said:

The writers of the yellow card pamphlet, and about three other people in the world, use 2S over 1C-1D-1H as FSF. I've yet to meet any of them at the table.
It is true that 1S is more likely to include a spade suit than most other FSF bids. Opener will be correspondingly more willing to bid 2S rather than notrump with 4-4-1-4 hands.

I and my regular partner are two of the three. I wonder who the third is?

[awm]

CSGibson, on 2012-February-20, 10:26, said:

I and my regular partner are two of the three. I wonder who the third is?

Elianna and me.... oops, that's four.

[Codo]

And my partner- I do not count, he forced me to use it...

[Antrax]

+1 to the "1♠ is a natural, 4+, one round force, 2♠ is GF" camp.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-20, 09:35, said:

I play Walsh, so 1♠ shows 4+ spades and invitational values.

You certainly might play it that way, but I wouldn't call it Walsh. Walsh responds 1S with 4 spades, a longer diamond suit, and less than G.F.

[the hog]

Forcing for me as 1S is 4th suit forcing.