[Cascade]

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠

Are both of these auctions forcing and showing long spades and if so what is the difference?

Assume you play in some context where you have some action to show a minimum after the reverse --- 2NT or some such.

[Cyberyeti]

The first auction says "we're playing in spades" the second asks for an opinion ?

[nige1]

Agree with Cyberyeti. Perhaps ...
1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠
with ♠ K Q J x x x x ♥ Q x x ♦ x ♣ x x

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠
with ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A Q x ♦ x ♣ x x x x

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2015-July-28, 17:17, said:

Agree with Cyberyeti. Perhaps ...
1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠
with ♠ K Q J x x x x ♥ Q x x ♦ x ♣ x x

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠
with ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A Q x ♦ x ♣ x x x x

The second looks like a 3♥ bid rather than 3♠ over 3♣ given that I presume if you have some means of showing a min and haven't used it, you'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥ with 4 and a GF.

[wanoff]

Looks more like 2♠

[awm]

There was also a 2♠ bid available which most play as forcing. I'd interpret:

The jump to 3♠ shows a suit that can play opposite singleton and GF.
With a weaker suit, 2♠ followed by a forcing follow up.
With a weaker hand, 2♠...3♠
The second auction doesn't even show long spades; I'd expect a strong 4-card holding accepting diamonds as trump and looking for a possible slam if opener is short in clubs.

[blackshoe]

Is Lebensohl or Ingberman in play?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-28, 19:51, said:

Is Lebensohl or Ingberman in play?

Yes there is some way to show a negative. (As it happens I like to play a form of Herbert negatives but I didn't think the precise mechanism was that important.)

However, having read some of the answers, it is relevant I think that 2♠ would not be forcing.

[Cascade]

nige1, on 2015-July-28, 17:17, said:

Agree with Cyberyeti. Perhaps ...
1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠
with ♠ K Q J x x x x ♥ Q x x ♦ x ♣ x x

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠
with ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A Q x ♦ x ♣ x x x x

What about when trying to distinguish the first example with a stronger hand:

♠ AKQTxxx ♥ Kx ♦ Kx ♣ xx for example?

[mike777]

Cascade, on 2015-July-28, 15:47, said:

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠

Are both of these auctions forcing and showing long spades and if so what is the difference?

Assume you play in some context where you have some action to show a minimum after the reverse --- 2NT or some such.

for me....


1) 6s+ roughly 9-10+ hcp gf
2) 5s roughly 9-10+ hcp gf

----


2s=5+ fewer hcp non gf
2nt=4s fewer hcp/art non gf

[Cyberyeti]

Also depends in part what 1♦-2♠ is.

[Free]

First auction says "lets play in ♠", while the second auction is scrambling to a fit somewhere

[apollo1201]

I agree with lots above for some parts of their answers (but I'm not expert).

2S - 5+ S's, forcing (opener promised another bid anyway by reversing, unless responder bids game or slam), unlimited (could be minimum but does not deny a GF hand)
3S - semi-solid 6-card at least, GF, 9+ (at least an intersting "piece" outside of S's)
2nd auction with 4SF - 4 S's (responder denied 5 by not bidding 2S), that accept to play in 4-3 (so includes some top honors), with no clear fit for opener's suit (maybe 3 H's and 2 D's), and no suitable C stopper - maybe AKxx Jxx Jx xxxx (with more HCP in H's you can bid 3H and if you don't have HCP in majors then you probably have C's stopped or are weak and go with the 2NT approach!)

[Cascade]

What if opener's third bid shows significant extra distribution, does the same inference apply to 3♠? For example 1♦ 1♠; 2♥ 3♣; 3♥ 3♠?

How do you bid ...

---

And what about variations where north's spades are slightly weaker, say even only a six-card suit, and a grand maybe available in another denomination. With six do you need to wait for ♠AKQJxx to set the suit?

[mike777]

for me:

3s over 2h given your example.
very often still 3s if "slightly weaker"

yes it may be difficult to bid a grand in another denomination but a 4 loser hand after a strong reverse and with the opp staying silent is pretty darn rare.

---


After: 1d=1s=2h=3c=3h=3s

A typical hand might look like:
AKQTx
xx
x
xxxxx

across from:
x
AKJTx'
AKJTxx
x

[PhilKing]

nige1, on 2015-July-28, 17:17, said:

Agree with Cyberyeti. Perhaps ...

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠
with ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A Q x ♦ x ♣ x x x x

I don't think this is how tricks are formed.

[rmnka447]

Quite a lot of how you handle reverse auctions depends on how you play your reverses. My comments are in the sense of solid/strong reverses where opener promises another bid over responder's rebid. 2 NT or 4th suit, whichever is cheaper, may be the start of a signoff. Reverser needs to be aware that after the potential signoff bid, responder may pass reverser's next bid.

The auction

1 ♦ - 1 ♠
2 ♥ - 3 ♠

should show strong ♠ and imply some slam interest. I recall making this call on something like ♠ AKQ10xx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx [♣ xx and getting to a great slam even with a 4-0 trump break. Opposite a presumably 17+ reverse, you're at about 29-30 minimum putting you in the slam exploration zone. At worse, even opposite a misfit reversing hand, 4 ♠ ought to have a decent play unless reverser has some monster distributional hand. The reason 3 ♠ must be slammish is because you have jumped a whole level of bidding for discerning where you belong.

With the hand Nige1 cited as a 3 ♠ bid ♠ KQJxxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ x ♣ xx, I'd simply bid 2 ♠ as a start. 2 ♠ isn't the signoff and must show some decent hand with ♠. You can continue bidding ♠ and partner will get the picture.

Maybe I'm an iconoclast, but with the other hand ♠ Qxxxx ♥ AQx ♦ x ♣ xxxx, I would bid neither 2 ♠ nor 3 ♣, but would bid 2 NT. Neither suit seems good enough to make the rebid on. 2 NT also adheres to a principle of bidding opposite a big hand. If you don't have anything clear cut to say, bid as cheaply as possible to let the big hand tell it's story. After partner's next bid, you'll make another call and partner will know
you didn't have the signoff hand.

Maybe if you play softer reverses you might need 3 ♣ as sort of a 4SF to prevent a pass of responder's rebid and continue to determine if game is available. But opposite a strong reverse, a 4SF bid shouldn't be necessary as any non signoff should be a virtual GF. So I'd look to bid 3 ♣ with something like ♠ Q10xx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ AQxxx or similar.

[Zelandakh]

We have had this one before. As I recall, the best suggestion last time was to play one of 2♠ followed by 3♠ and a direct 3♠ as showing a club stop and the other as denying one. Going via 3♣ is then something like a black 2-suiter with slam interest. If you were to play 2♠ as non-forcing then obviously the situation would be quite different.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2015-July-28, 17:17, said:

Agree with Cyberyeti. Perhaps ...
1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠
with ♠ K Q J x x x x ♥ Q x x ♦ x ♣ x x

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠
with ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A Q x ♦ x ♣ x x x x

PhilKing, on 2015-July-29, 16:44, said:

I don't think this is how tricks are formed.

I play 2♠ as non-forcing but, on reflection, I agree with PhilKing that the 2nd example is poor.
Perhaps ♠ A K J x x ♥ Q x x ♦ x ♣ x x x x would be better?

[all loomis]

Cascade, on 2015-July-28, 15:47, said:

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♠

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♠

Are both of these auctions forcing and showing long spades and if so what is the difference?

Assume you play in some context where you have some action to show a minimum after the reverse --- 2NT or some such.



spade jump is just 6 good s's, gf. 3c presumes a card in c's, 5 or ragged 6 s's.

3d's is willingness to play there opp. min reverse, 2n to play opp min reverse. 3h forcing but may be weak, allow opener to bid out shape and power.

and if you are strong, 4s, 4h, 4d invite further action with a c control.