[tobycurtis]

Hi all,

So my main question is -- is it forcing when you bid a new suit after partner's cuebid raise of your first suit?

Here's the hand in question:

---

I was South, and I was under the impression that my 2♠ bid was forcing. Partner was a GIB and passed, and game was missed. I'm pretty sure the new suit is forcing, but if not...how do explore for slam?

Thanks,
Toby

[mgoetze]

Yes, this should definitely be forcing.

[ahydra]

100% forcing for one round. Whether or not it's GF is a matter of partnership agreement - to be honest I'm not sure what the standard is. There's a big gap between a minimum 1D and a GF-opposite-a-UCB 1D, so it may not be too viable to play it as GF.

ETA: Was a UNT not available for this hand? Seems perfect for it.

ahydra

[petterb]

ahydra, on 2014-December-28, 10:20, said:

ETA: Was a UNT not available for this hand? Seems perfect for it.

Not perfect when partner correctly takes it as showing hearts and diamonds.

[ahydra]

petterb, on 2014-December-28, 17:57, said:

Not perfect when partner correctly takes it as showing hearts and diamonds.

Of course a lot of people still play two lowest unbid so that isn't suitable here. But modern UNT is "as many minors as possible", i.e. (1C)-2NT = diamonds and an unspecified major with 3C asking which major. If playing that method I prefer to use it on this hand as if you then follow it up with a strong bid of some sort, you've shown your entire hand in just 2 calls.

ahydra

[mgoetze]

ahydra, on 2014-December-31, 20:10, said:

Of course a lot of people still play two lowest unbid so that isn't suitable here. But modern UNT is "as many minors as possible", i.e. (1C)-2NT = diamonds and an unspecified major with 3C asking which major. If playing that method I prefer to use it on this hand as if you then follow it up with a strong bid of some sort, you've shown your entire hand in just 2 calls.

Too bad downvoting is not allowed, because randomly slapping the label "modern" on your pet treatment to make it sound somehow superior, when it's not, would certainly merit it.

[Zelandakh]

tobycurtis, on 2014-December-28, 04:55, said:

Partner was a GIB

ahydra, on 2014-December-28, 10:20, said:

Was a UNT not available for this hand?

petterb, on 2014-December-28, 17:57, said:

Not perfect when partner correctly takes it as showing hearts and diamonds.

ahydra, on 2014-December-31, 20:10, said:

Of course a lot of people still play two lowest unbid so that isn't suitable here. But modern UNT is "as many minors as possible"

Regardless of what "modern UNT" might or might not be, GIB plays it as the red suits so it is clear that this treatment was not available. For the record, my "Modern Michaels" is for (1♣) - 2♣ to be either a wjo in a major or a strong hand with ♠ + ♦. That allows me to play the "old-fashioned" UNT variant.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-January-16, 05:26, said:

Regardless of what "modern UNT" might or might not be, GIB plays it as the red suits so it is clear that this treatment was not available. For the record, my "Modern Michaels" is for (1♣) - 2♣ to be either a wjo in a major or a strong hand with ♠ + ♦. That allows me to play the "old-fashioned" UNT variant.

Allow me to recommend "Postmodern Michaels", where (1♣)-2♣ shows clubs and (1♣)-2♦ shows the majors.

(Yes, I just made that name up, same as you guys.)

[Trick13]

mgoetze, on 2015-January-16, 05:37, said:

Allow me to recommend "Postmodern Michaels", where (1♣)-2♣ shows clubs and (1♣)-2♦ shows the majors.

(Yes, I just made that name up, same as you guys.)

I guess I must play "Reverse postmodern Michaels" (I was mistakenly calling it "multi over minor") where (1♣)-2♣ shows a major and (1♣)-2♦ shows diamonds.

[yunling]

I don't think it is 100% forcing. Consider 2♣-2♦-2M in a precision context which is passable, the situation is quite similar here. If you don't jump with this hand, then on what hand would you bid 3♠?