[benlessard]

1♠---p----p---X
p----2♠---p---3♥

is 3H forcing what is your expectation for the 2♠ bid ?

does it guaranted a 2nd bid ?


Benlessard

[HeartA]

2S guarantees another bid, so 3H is forcing.

[luke warm]

i'd guess no, not forcing... we don't know which type t/o x partner had, maybe he was going to pass anything (and now must bid)...

[han]

2♠ is a gameforce, so 3♥ is absolutely forcing. It would be unplayable otherwise.

My agreement is that in this auction opener bids his cheapest 4-card suit (unless he has a 5-card suit). So here opener has either a 5-card heart suit or is 3-4-3-3.

[Codo]

2♠ was forcing and it should be self forcing too. This is why 3 ♥ surely is forcing. Doubler needs not to jump around to show extras, because pd make on of the strongest bids he had.... (besides 7 NT maybe..)

[hotShot]

2♠ is forcing, but it comes from a passed hand. So i disagree that it is game forcing or even self forcing.
2♠ shows tolerance to play any suit you bid, which would mean your partner is short in ♠, if he were strong enough to force to game, he could have made a t/o dbl last round.
If he's strong enough to force to game, only a significant ♠ length could have kept him from bidding last round. But with that he could have passed 1♠x (which should be better than any partscore you can make) or bid NT because he stopps the ♠.
Since your dbl should show shortage in ♠, it is even unlikely that partner is trying to expose a psyche wishing to play in that suit.

[luke warm]

i don't see how 2♠ can possibly be game forcing, someone help me out with that

[fred]

luke warm, on Jun 28 2006, 09:19 PM, said:

i don't see how 2♠ can possibly be game forcing, someone help me out with that

In America at least, "expert standard" is that a cuebid response to a direct seat 1-level takeout double is "forcing to suit agreement" (or to a game contract).

If, for example, your RHO opens 1C, you DBL, LHO passes, partner bids 2C, and you bid 2 of some suit:

- your bid is forcing
- if partner bids a new suit that is forcing (because suit agreement has not occurred yet)
- if, after that, you raise partner's new suit to the 3-level that is not forcing (because suit agreement has occurred)
- if instead of bidding a new suit, partner raises your suit to the 3-level that is not forcing (because as before there has been suit agreement)

If the opening bid is 1S (instead of 1C), the cuebid now becomes pretty close to being "forcing to game" because the only way you can have suit agreement below the game level will result in a contract of 4 of a minor.

To the best of my knowledge there is no real "expert standard" in this area when the double occurs in the balancing seat. I suspect that most experts have not given this matter a great deal of thought, but if they were faced with this situation and had no solid agreements, they would fall back on the same agreements that they would use for a direct seat double (not because this is necessarily "right" but because it is a practical way to deal with an undiscussed situation).

I have no strong feelings as to whether or not the "forcing to suit agreement" approach is "best" when the cuebid is made in response to a balancing (as opposed to direct) seat double. I can think of reasonable arguments for both sides of this one. It is also reasonable (in my view) that some things in this area should change if either the cuebidder or the takeout doubler is a passed hand.

But among the American expert community at least, cuebid responses to takeout doubles (regardless of the position of the double) are NOT forcing to game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

fred, on Jun 28 2006, 11:34 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 28 2006, 09:19 PM, said:

i don't see how 2♠ can possibly be game forcing, someone help me out with that

In America at least, "expert standard" is that a cuebid response to a direct seat 1-level takeout double is "forcing to suit agreement" (or to a game contract).

It seems around here, some prefer the cuebid of 2m after (1m)-X-(p) as not promising a rebid; i.e. initially it shows the strength to jump to 2M and typically 4-4 in the majors. Of course, stronger hands may cuebid and take another bid with less strict shape requirements.

I won't have a guess at whether it's more popular over here than the North American standard. Also, I don't know which agreement is better, except I am 100% sure that either treatment can be more useful given the right hand for it...

Arend

[benlessard]

first of all its possible for the doubler to have less then 10hcp. In standard balancing X tend to be 3pts weaker then dircet X.

2nd i dont think 2s is game-forcing at all. Its too dificult to find a hand not worth an overcall (or a take-out X) and strong enough to force to game after a balancing X. Even after a direct seat X a cue-bid shouldnt be GF.


3rd The balancing X can be more off-shapes (5422) then a direct take-out X so responder with a good hand playable in 2 suiter or in NT can cue-bid to end-up in the best spot


4th The cue-bidder shouldnt have 4h unless hes 6-4. Or hes got a huge hand.


These are pretty clear to me.


What is less clear is does the cue-bidder show h tolerance ?

I dont think so. Its really possible for the cue-bidder to have 54 or better in the minors or a long minor goodish hand with half a stopper not quite worth an overcall.


So my pick is that the doubler 2nd bid are

2nt half a stopper

bid his best minor with all minimum hand

bid 3h with a hand too strong for a 2h overcall.

so for me 3H is forcing but over 3c or 3d the cue-bidder can pass. 2S isnt self-forcing (doesnt promise another bid.)


Ben

[luke warm]

fred, on Jun 28 2006, 04:34 PM, said:

But among the American expert community at least, cuebid responses to takeout doubles (regardless of the position of the double) are NOT forcing to game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

thanks fred

Quote

first of all its possible for the doubler to have less then 10hcp. In standard balancing X tend to be 3pts weaker then dircet X

yes, i've doubled in balancing seat with a 10, 11 count before.. but aside from that, we've had arguments on this subject before and i don't recall that anyone came right out and said, but: can a passed hand make a game forcing bid?

[Codo]

This "passed hand" passed because opps bidding left no good bid to partner.
So maybe the best hand, he must pass with (and will bid later) can be some flat 16 HCPs.
F.E. what had you bid with: xxxx,Ax,AKxx,ABx after a one spade opening on your right?

Even if YOU had bid, there should be a lot people out there, who will pass.

And after the reopening X they can and will force to game.

[hotShot]

OK lets assume I hold: xxxx,Ax,AKxx,ABx
Obviously I have a bidding problem, but does it get any better?

If our agreement is, that this is a second seat pass, our 4th seat partner will have to reopen more often, resulting in weaker reopening dbl's and a wider rage of possible shapes. So partner can now have 12,11,10,.... HCP for his reopening dbl.

So after partners reopening dbl, to what game do you want to force?

Without a ♠ stop NT is out. If partner had 6♥, he would have bid them. So all you can hope for is partners 5card ♣ or 4card ♦.
Since responders pass contains no information about a possible ♠ fit it is possible that partner has 2♠, 4♥, 3♦ and 4♣ and you don't have a fit at all.

[Codo]

At least you can reach 3 NT as long as pd has good spades..
And if opener has a 5422 hand without a stopper, he can surely name his longest suit, so yes, it really gets better in many cases.
I absolute agree, that 2434hands from doubler leads to a misfit at game level, but I see no way to solve this problem.

[luke warm]

you have xx KQxx Qxx QJTxx and it goes (1s) p[you] (p) x (p) your bid... for whatever reason, you choose 2s (maybe you mean it to show hearts and a minor, who knows?)... now partner bids 3h.. are you forced to bid 4h? how bout if your hand had been xx KQxx xxx JTxx? still forced to bid 4h?

trying to understand, that's all... i think fred's answer is enough, but unfortunately he won't be around at our tables next time this comes up

[mike777]

I am trying to figure what hand types 2s cuebid shows:
1nt=natural less than invite
2c, 2d,2h=weakish
2nt=invite
3c,3d,3h=invite

I assume x even in balancing seat shows a limited range of hands.
I assume 1nt in balance seat shows around 10-14ish, balanced and a few spades even without a stopper ala Jeff Rubens.

I suppose it is possible to come up with hands that do not promise a rebid over 2s but they must be very rare?

[flytoox]

luke warm, on Jun 29 2006, 10:57 PM, said:

you have xx KQxx Qxx QJTxx and it goes (1s) p[you] (p) x (p) your bid... for whatever reason, you choose 2s (maybe you mean it to show hearts and a minor, who knows?)... now partner bids 3h.. are you forced to bid 4h? how bout if your hand had been xx KQxx xxx JTxx? still forced to bid 4h?

trying to understand, that's all... i think fred's answer is enough, but unfortunately he won't be around at our tables next time this comes up

JImmy, with this hand, you shouldnot cuebid 2S. 3H is better