[cherdano]

1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)
3♦

Is 3♦ forcing? Please vote for you preferred agreement, assuming the partnership is not playing good/bad 2N in this situation. (Feel free to mention what you would assume with an expert pickup partner.)

Thanks, Arend

[P_Marlowe]

nonforcing.

Simply ask yourself, would 3D
be nonforcing if 2S was bid
instead of 1S?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

Forcing.

3C after 1D would be nonforcing.

Peter

[whereagles]

I like option 3

[cherdano]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 11 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

nonforcing.

Simply ask yourself, would 3D
be nonforcing if 2S was bid
instead of 1S?

Are you comparing the given auction with 1♣ (2♠) X (P) 3♦? Here 3♦ is not a free bid, which changes this situation completely (for me at least).

[jdonn]

Forcing, it's a free bid in a new suit (the double did not promise diamonds).

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

Forcing, it's a free bid in a new suit (the double did not promise diamonds).

I think it's forcing because it's a reverse in a new suit.

I don't think most people would interpret 1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-3♣ as forcing.

[pclayton]

I'd vote forcing. Its basically a high reverse.

Good bad solves obviously this problem.

[effervesce]

I play good/bad 2NT but if I was playing with a partner who does not play that convention I wouldnt be sure!! So option 3 for me.

Why am I not sure? Because there is a responsive double available over the 2S raise - 3D obviously denies 3H btw. If you had some diamonds, would you all make a responsive double with a strong hand here or 3D with the strong hand??? That is the question... And of course, whether you play better/convenient minor or short club may also influence what the bids mean...

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2007, 05:34 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 11 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

nonforcing.

Simply ask yourself, would 3D
be nonforcing if 2S was bid
instead of 1S?

Are you comparing the given auction with 1♣ (2♠) X (P) 3♦? Here 3♦ is not a free bid, which changes this situation completely (for me at least).

Yes I do, and yes it is a free bid, but than the
double was made on the one level, i.e. the
double promises a bit less.

But I have read in another thread, that the
answer to your question may depend on the
meaning of the neg. X, for me it promises all
other suits, if you play that it promises only
hearts, ... fine.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: In real life it does not matter, because 5D
is a long way, and if we have 3NT than partner
will bid it.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Apr 11 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

Forcing, it's a free bid in a new suit (the double did not promise diamonds).

I think it's forcing because it's a reverse in a new suit.

I don't think most people would interpret 1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-3♣ as forcing.

Yes that is what I meant but worded much better.

[FrancesHinden]

Forcing, and likely to be 5-6 in the minors.

[inquiry]

I play

1C-(1S)-x-(2S)-3D as forcing

but I play

1C-(1S)-x-(pass)-2D as non-forcing,

Both look like reverses. First one with bad hand you could pass, second on with good hand you could cue-bid 2S at a low level to establish a force.

[Fluffy]

Even playing good bad it is hard to imagine a hand that would like to bid 3♦ non forcing.

[Edmunte1]

I think 3!d shows extras, something around 14+-17, 5-4 or 6-4 but it's not forcing. I would have started with a double, then 3♦ with a stronger hand.

[awm]

BTW, how do people play 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-X?

I would think this double shows two places to play, probably ♣+♦ since with 4♥ I could bid hearts. So actually bidding 3♦ should be forcing.

This is different from 1♣-(1♠)-X-Pass... opener cannot double to show two places to play, and has 2♠ or 3♦ available to create a force.

[helene_t]

Agree with Adam.
1♣-(1♠)-X-(P)
2♦

is a matter of aggreement, but this 3♦ is clearly forcing.

[SoTired]

1C 1S X p 2D/2H is not forcing. It is not a reverse. Opener is raising responder's suit.
1C 1S X 2S 3D/3H is a freebid raising responder's suit. Treat it the same as 1C 1S 2D/2H 2S 3D/3H. It is not a reverse.

[helene_t]

SoTired, on Apr 13 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

1C 1S X p 2D/2H is not forcing. It is not a reverse. Opener is raising responder's suit.
1C 1S X 2S 3D/3H is a freebid raising responder's suit. Treat it the same as 1C 1S 2D/2H 2S 3D/3H. It is not a reverse.

This is true for hearts, but not for diamonds. Responder can have any hand with 4 hearts, or any hand with more than four hands and not enough strength for a 2♥ freebid.

Some like to be able to bid 2♦ non-forcing to avoid rebidding a mediocre 5-card clubs, or supporting hearts on a 3-card, or rebidding 1NT without a spade guard. Presumably responder is supposed to pass 2♦ with something like
Jxx
AQxxx
Jxx
xx

and to giving a weakness-showing preference for clubs with
Jxx
AQxxx
Jx
xxx

and starting with 1NT (or pass) rather than dbl with
Qxxxx
AJxxx
Qx
x

hopefully not have
xxxx
AJxxx
Kx
xx

Personally I don't understand this approach. It seems to have very little merit, especially if you always open 1♦ with 4-4 minors and most of the times also with 4-5 minors.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Apr 13 2007, 03:56 AM, said:

BTW, how do people play 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠)-X?

Support double with extra playing strength (essentially takeout)