[wank]

---

Should this be forcing?

I passed, thinking partner was probing for NT, and found out we had no diamond stop so parked the bus in part-score. I'm thinking partner should have something like kxxxx akx xx QJx. The sequence seems akin to overcalling, getting supported, cueing the opps' suit to check for a stop and then signing off.

Partner actually had a 5422 21 count and we scored up with -2140. This was actually in danger of being an amusing board as they had a PRC 'guess' in the trump suit to make 7 or -2 (you can safety play for 6), so we were close to scoring +9 for missing game.

I think if partner wants to go slamming in he should just raise to 4c, instead of tarting about with hearts. All the other good players I asked though said partner's sequence was forcing. I'm unrepentant. Comments?

[helene_t]

It probably should be nonforcing but I wouldn't dare passing it without agreement, raising 4♣ to 5♣ in a constructive auction is usually no disaster

[Zelandakh]

A quick question for you - what do you and your partner think about the auction 1♣ - 1♠; 3♣ - 3♥; 3♠ - 4♣? The issue of "fuzzy" follow-ups to IJSs is one that comes up regularly on BBF and one of the things I have learned through these threads is that comparing the auctions with the equivalent one in which Responder had opened and rebid 3 of their suit is often a good way of resolving matters without having to create special agreements.

[PhilKing]

Maybe you asked the wrong people.

[the_clown]

I think it should be forcing, with your example hand I would just bid 3NT.

It could be a slam try or some 5512 or similar and looking for the best game.

[P_Marlowe]

I guess there is a case to play it as NF, but ... I dont like stopping in 4m.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Deleted...I misread the 1S open as 1C open ...

[inquiry]

I think strain before slam is a good general rule here, so 3♥ was a 3NT probe, and 3♠ denied a diamond stopper and modest (doubleton?) spade support. 4♣ would be non-forcing. I would be in the same boat as you.

[MrAce]

I am probably one of the very long time users of invitational 3m bids over a major (about 15 years now)

I play this NF. A pair who is using this should never give up on their ability to seek 3 NT without fearing that they can never stop before game. And by experience I can confidently say that you will hold a lot of hands which are decent for 3 NT opposite the correct hand but have no interest in playing 5m. This is a very frequent auction if you play 3 m invitational. After all you have an opener opposite an invitational hand with good 6 card suit.

[jallerton]

wank, on 2014-August-18, 04:44, said:

---

Should this be forcing?

I passed, thinking partner was probing for NT, and found out we had no diamond stop so parked the bus in part-score. I'm thinking partner should have something like kxxxx akx xx QJx. The sequence seems akin to overcalling, getting supported, cueing the opps' suit to check for a stop and then signing off.

Partner actually had a 5422 21 count and we scored up with -2140. This was actually in danger of being an amusing board as they had a PRC 'guess' in the trump suit to make 7 or -2 (you can safety play for 6), so we were close to scoring +9 for missing game.

I think if partner wants to go slamming in he should just raise to 4c, instead of tarting about with hearts. All the other good players I asked though said partner's sequence was forcing. I'm unrepentant. Comments?

This is a matter of partnership agreement. Without previous discussion, I think that both partners need to be aware of the possibility of potentially ambiguous sequences. It might have been more practical for you to bid 4♣ rather than 3♠, but your partner's bidding was particularly dangerous: he should realise that there is a possibility that 4♣ might seem NF to you, so it's silly to risk it when his hand is close to a slam force.

[MrAce]

I agree with Jallerton. If we leave aside what's best theoretically, without agreement, passing 4 Cl probably was not the best strategy. You may lose +130 and end up minus, true, however the consequences may be much more costly if pd is not in same page with us.

[fromageGB]

I preface this comment by stating I have never played IJS, but if someone asked me to, I would say that 3♥ was a natural rebid, and I would expect something like a 5422 shape. When I give preference to spades rather than NT, he takes me for a 2236 shape without good diamonds, and on his 5413 shape he correctly puts me back to 4♣. This has to be to play.

Non-forcing, therefore, in the absence of agreements. If opener has good hand, he can always bid game or slam or ace ask, as I have described my hand pretty well, or if he wants to force more out of me and still keep a slam option - have I got 3 card heart support? - he can bid 4♦. 4♣ must be to play.

[fromageGB]

wank, on 2014-August-18, 04:44, said:

...they had a PRC 'guess'...

What's that?

[jallerton]

fromageGB, on 2014-August-19, 04:21, said:

What's that?

PRC must stand for Principle of Restricted Choice.

'Guess' was presumably in inverted commas because the odds favour the winning play over the losing one.