[PhantomSac]

he is lol because you said you doubt you could find anyone who played 1C 1S X p 2D as forcing, so he posted a link that contained 6 links to threads discussing whether or not 2D is NF in that auction. It is one of the most asked about auctions of all time on this forum, with a large majority of the top players here IIRC preferring forcing.

[Vampyr]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-26, 19:24, said:

They are all either very good players or pros,

Jill Meyers
Fred Hamilton
Lee may be Roger Lee (just guessing)
Bart Bramley

Their achievements are beyond district level, some of them represented USA in various world wide events and won. I know Jill did, I know Bart won so many nationals and by nationals i do not mean LM pairs or GNT. They won main events such as Blue Ribbon, Reisinger, Vandy, Spingold.

I personally like 3♦ being forcing.

Well, Lee, Lawrence, Hamilton and someone whose name I couldn't read bid 3♦.

[MrAce]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-27, 17:38, said:

Well, Lee, Lawrence, Hamilton and someone whose name I couldn't read bid 3♦.

No, not Hamilton.

Hamilton bid 3♠ and said maybe 4♦

Lawrence bids 3♦ and J.S (John Swanson, also another player with a lot of credentials) debates that 3♦ should not be forcing but a hand with good playing hand. He also says a hand can be offering 3 NT. Constructs a hand

xx
A
AQxx
KJxxxx

[Vampyr]

OK, I couldn't really read the names and definitely couldn't read the comments.

I recently played in 3♦ +2 when partner didn't think 3♦ was forcing on this auction, and I did. I thought it was logical for it to be forcing at least to 4♣ (or 3NT obv), since that is what partner would have to bid to take a preference back to clubs. (Of course this doesn't apply if you play that doubles promises diamonds).

Phil King was on hand, and we asked his opinion; he said as he does above that it was better to play it as forcing. We believed him and still do.

A question that gets asked a lot in threads of this nature is "how small a target are you aiming for?" I do not think that stopping in 3♦ and knowing that it's right is very important (and it could still happen after I double) compared to getting to the right game when I have a good hand.

[gwnn]

 gszes, on 2015-June-27, 16:17, said:

I am unsure if you are lol because my statement was so completely obvious it was not worth mentioning or because i was completely oblivious to the above reference that agrees with my statement Or you wanted to play devil's advocate and show at least one in disagreement.

Maybe next time you can click on the link and find out, huh? But yes PhantomSac already said what I meant.

[KurtGodel]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-26, 17:48, said:

You are never going to go broke by underestimating the bridge knowledge of most club level players.

This is gold.

[rhm]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-27, 23:29, said:

I do not think that stopping in 3♦ and knowing that it's right is very important (and it could still happen after I double) compared to getting to the right game when I have a good hand.

As usual you completely miss the point.
You have no clue what the discussion is all about.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

 rhm, on 2015-June-27, 15:22, said:

But that only means you are out of the game if you would like to bid 3♦ non forcing. Now you would have to double and if opponents do something inconvenient you get stolen blind, never finding your diamond fit.
Not forcing does not mean 3♦ shows a minimum opening nor that we do not have a high level contract. Fit establishment is crucial and responders strength is not well known.

It seems to me this scenario that opponents inconvenience me is (much) more likely when I am weaker than stronger.

I'm not out the game - my double of 2♠ shows, of all things a takeout double. But crucially, when partner has a minimum, we get to stop on 3♣.

I may be slightly biased, since I do not have any strong balanced hands in my 1♣ opening, so my double almost guarantees diamonds (because I can bid 2NT to show a good 3♣ or better rebid).

One big advantage of 3♦ FG is that when we do have the strong hand, we can have simple effective slam auctions, and straightforward decisions if they compete further. Sure we can just keep doubling on a hand like this, but it doesn't show a 46 powerhouse - partner will just pass our second double way too often in my experience.

The "reverse is NF" brigade just seem to be turning normal principles on their head here. I could live with 3♦ as a one round force here, but not unless playing one of my gadgets - with a hand that wants to stop in 4m partner starts by cueing 3♠ asking for a stop, and then removes 3NT to 4m to show weakness. Slam hands bid four of either minor forcing directly.

Anyway, I am willing to wager that no one in the entire history of bridge has ever stopped in 3♦ in this sequence when that was a remotely rational thing to do.

[benlessard]

A side question

you hold 5332

1S--(2C)--X--(P)
??

ive always bid 2D with that shape with the logic that we could still endup in 2H. But with the philosophy that X really show only hearts and the fact that X with 53 is a lot more likely than 35 in the red some prefer 2H.

Other than this case i agree that X doesnt promise the minor so 2D is a reverse and 3D is GF.

[Vampyr]

 rhm, on 2015-June-28, 06:46, said:

As usual you completely miss the point.
You have no clue what the discussion is all about.

Rainer Herrmann

This post adds nothing to the subject at hand. If you don't like my comments don't read them. And don't waste others' time by posting crap.

[nige1]

 Phil, on 2015-June-26, 08:56, said:

This hand appeared in our monthly newsletter:
♠ x x ♥ A ♦ A K x x ♣ A Q J x x x
1♣ (1♠) x (2♠);
?
No discussion about 2N.

 helene_t, on 2015-June-26, 10:12, said:

3S just in case p might think 3d is non forcing

On reflection, agree with Helene_T:

We have no agreement about a 2NT rebid. Presumably, we haven't discussed whether 3♦ is forcing, although expert opinion is that it should be.

A good player might be reluctant to put his partner to the test if there is any possible ambiguity about 3♦ when there are other clearly forcing bids at this disposal. That seems to have been the feeling of some of the expert panel. OK! OK ! Not as expert as BBO posters, obviously

Double might show 3 ♥s, so perhaps you should bid 3♠?

[rhm]

 nige1, on 2015-June-28, 12:50, said:

We have no agreement about a 2NT rebid. Presumably, we haven't discussed whether 3♦ is forcing, although expert opinion is that it should be.

This is just a false summary.
Truth is: Some experts consider a 3♦ bid forcing and at least as many do not.

Rainer Herrmann

[Jinksy]

 rhm, on 2015-June-28, 06:46, said:

As usual you completely miss the point.
You have no clue what the discussion is all about.

Rainer Herrmann

You can do better than this.