BBO Discussion Forums: forcing? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

forcing?

Poll: forcing? (21 member(s) have cast votes)

see above

  1. yes (4 votes [19.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.05%

  2. no (17 votes [80.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.95%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Göttingen, Germany
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2014-August-21, 08:31

2-x-p-3
p-3-p-4

Is this forcing?

We had a little misunderstanding with paulg about this while trying the uBid app.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#2 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2014-August-21, 08:38

No I don't think so. Advancer is limited and it is conceivable that we need to stop in 4 when advancer doesn't have a diamond stopper.

I can see a case for playing it as forcing, though. Advancer could use the 4 bid to look for a 4-3 fit in a major while using the 4 bid to show a hand suitable for a club slam. Maybe advancer could bid a 3-card major instead of 4, but I am not sure if 3 denies a 4-card major. Of course advancer won't usually have a 4-card major.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#3 User is offline   broze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,001
  • Joined: 2011-March-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2014-August-21, 09:40

Might depend to some extent what an immediate 3 would mean (for me it is Majors and 4 is more Majors).

Even so I would never assume this was forcing without specific agreement to the contrary.
'In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.' - Douglas Adams
0

#4 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2014-August-21, 13:30

If 3 showed values, it's covered your partnership's general rule about sequences where you try for 3NT and then bid 4m.

If 3 didn't show values, it's non-forcing.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#5 User is offline   SteveMoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,168
  • Joined: 2012-May-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati Unit 124
  • Interests:Family, Travel, Bridge Tournaments and Writing. Youth Bridge

Posted 2014-August-21, 20:07

If 2N is Lebensohl, then 3 shows values (9+). Even so, 4 shows a minimum and no stop. The question is whether 3 is GF or forcing to a fit. If the latter then 4 is not forcing. Doubler must bid assuming 9-10 HCP opposite.
Be the partner you want to play with.
Trust demands integrity, balance and collaboration.
District 11
Unit 124
Steve Moese
0

#6 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,666
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2014-August-22, 02:44

View PostSteveMoe, on 2014-August-21, 20:07, said:

The question is whether 3 is GF or forcing to a fit. If the latter then 4 is not forcing.

It might just be a matter of terminology but in my system document I use the term GF to mean "forcing to 3NT" with UGF meaning unconditionally forcing to game. The difference is precisely what Andy wrote - the rule about whether it is possible to stop in 4m after trying for 3NT. So 3 being GF alone is not enough to say for certain whether 4 is forcing - the general rule takes precedence here.

To me, if there is no other agreement in place (pick up partnership) then it should be non-forcing, since 4 is available to force with litle cost. But perhaps that is simply a reflection of my personal logic rather than how the rest of the world views things.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#7 User is offline   dicklont 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 2007-October-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Bridge, music, sports

Posted 2014-August-22, 03:57

Partner doubles and then cues their suit. How can he pass after that? Please don't do that to me!
He would have preferred me bidding NT of a major suit, but I could not do that, sorry.
I don't like the concept that GF bidding may end up in 4 or 4 when 3NT was not biddable.
It makes for awkward slam bidding.
--
Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul. (Nige1)
0

#8 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2014-August-22, 04:08

View Postdicklont, on 2014-August-22, 03:57, said:

I don't like the concept that GF bidding may end up in 4 or 4 when 3NT was not biddable.
It makes for awkward slam bidding.


Not if you play a direct raise to Four as forcing (and therefore a slam try). This frees up the cue bid to explore other denominations and still stop in 4m. Even if I cue and remove 3NT to 4m that's nf for me.

But I certainly would not call something GF if I play it as nothing of the kind.
0

#9 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2014-August-22, 05:33

View PostZelandakh, on 2014-August-22, 02:44, said:

It might just be a matter of terminology but in my system document I use the term GF to mean "forcing to 3NT" with UGF meaning unconditionally forcing to game.


Was there something wrong with the established usage of "F3NT" for "forcing to 3NT" and "FG" for "forcing to game"?



... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
1

#10 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-August-22, 09:07

View Postgnasher, on 2014-August-22, 05:33, said:

Was there something wrong with the established usage of "F3NT" for "forcing to 3NT" and "FG" for "forcing to game"?

Which of those covers "forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit", i.e. game forcing except for minors?

#11 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2014-August-22, 09:14

View Postbarmar, on 2014-August-22, 09:07, said:

Which of those covers "forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit", i.e. game forcing except for minors?

"F3N", without saying "FG" naturally implies 4m can be dropped. We don't need anything else to cover it.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#12 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-August-22, 09:15

View Postbarmar, on 2014-August-22, 09:07, said:

Which of those covers "forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit", i.e. game forcing except for minors?


"forcing to 3NT". If the auction gets to 4 of a minor it has gone past the level of 3NT.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users