[pclayton]

Simple auction (IMPs if it matters):

1♣ - (1♦) - pass (3♦)
3♥

Is 3♥ forcing?

[FrancesHinden]

My life is simple.
If opener has a hand that wants to play in game, he can bid 4H.
If opener has a hand with clubs and hearts, too strong to bid 4H opposite a partner who couldn't bid over 1D, he can open 2C.

Therefore 3H is not forcing.

[han]

Agree with Frances.

[mikeh]

agree with han

[helene_t]

agree with Mike. Btw if opener has a hand that will force to game without bypassing 3N, maybe he can double.But in general, if you don't open 2♣ you cannot force a partner who hasnt promised anything.

[jdonn]

Unless you are just trying to prove something to someone Phil, what is this question doing here... and in this forum??

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Dec 18 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

Unless you are just trying to prove something to someone Phil, what is this question doing here... and in this forum??

LOL, this exact question came up in Juniors BBO.

I was the lone voice in the panel that thought it was NF, which I thought was just incredible.

I needed a reality check.

[neilkaz]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 18 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

My life is simple.
If opener has a hand that wants to play in game, he can bid 4H.
If opener has a hand with clubs and hearts, too strong to bid 4H opposite a partner who couldn't bid over 1D, he can open 2C.

Therefore 3H is not forcing.

Flawless logic, with which I agree ! 3♥ is NF.

[awm]

I think it is forcing, because I don't think hands come in the "I want to be in game" versus the "I don't want to be in game" baskets.

Instead, I think opener categorizes hands by "I think we can take X tricks in our best fit." Since it's quite possible that the best fit is clubs in this auction, opener evidently wants to try for ten tricks in clubs. Thus opener thinks we have ten tricks in our best fit, and if that best fit is hearts it seems logical to play for the game contract.

To give another example, say the auction is:

1♥ - (2♦) - P - (3♦)
3♠

Is 3♠ forcing? It seems like there are many hands where responder has utter garbage but hearts are equal or longer to spades, where responder is going to have to bid 4♥ (correct to opener's longer major). So why does it make sense that if spades are longer responder can pass? And what exactly is opener supposed to do with a game-forcing heart-spade hand if 3♠ is NF, bid 4♠ and force partner to correct to 5♥?

Or do you really think the heart-spade reverse is forcing and the club-heart reverse is not?

[han]

The heart-club reverse is different, see Frances's logic.

To Phil. the advice given in the junior BBO tournaments varies greatly depending on the mentors that are around. It can be truly horrifying or very interesting.

[awm]

But what if opener holds:

♠x
♥AKQxx
♦x
♣KQJTxx

It's a three-loser hand. If partner has three hearts then 4♥ is a fine spot (okay I might need the hearts to break 3-2). If partner does not have three hearts then I'm happy to play 4♣, but playing 5♣ seems dumb if partner's broke. So I want to bid exactly 3♥ forcing.

I'd argue that this type of hand, where I think I have a good shot at ten tricks opposite a bust with a moderate fit for one of my suits, is much more common than a hand where I "want to be in game" opposite a bust with a moderate fit regardless of whether that game is at the four or five level.

Why can I magically make one more trick when our fit is in clubs? Just because the club game is one level higher doesn't give me the extra trick.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Dec 18 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

The heart-club reverse is different, see Frances's logic.

To Phil. the advice given in the junior BBO tournaments varies greatly depending on the mentors that are around. It can be truly horrifying or very interesting.

There were a few heavy hitters commenting on this.

[han]

Names, names!

[pclayton]

The regulars. You know who runs it.

I given them a link to this thread. Maybe they can check in with their reasoning.

[jdonn]

Adam I don't know what to say....this should have been the most unanimous poll in forums history. On the hand you give you want to bid 4♥, which has play even opposite a doubleton. You are totally missing the point that the player who bids 3♥ is almost always taking a chance. What if he has 9 tricks in both?

And why is it so unusual that the longer suit would take more tricks when partner fits it than the shorter suit would? Of course not in your examples when you use suits that are totally solid except for one honor, but what if the clubs are AQxxxx in some hand? A very likely two club losers playing in hearts, but one if partner prefers clubs.

And despite the first comment of your first post, there is indeed a huge difference between forcing partner to game in your first suit and not. I have heard it said there is a bonus for bidding game! Therefore you should take different chances. Why wouldn't the auctions be different, you have different options in the two cases.

[mikeh]

awm, on Dec 18 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

But what if opener holds:

♠x
♥AKQxx
♦x
♣KQJTxx

It's a three-loser hand. If partner has three hearts then 4♥ is a fine spot (okay I might need the hearts to break 3-2). If partner does not have three hearts then I'm happy to play 4♣, but playing 5♣ seems dumb if partner's broke. So I want to bid exactly 3♥ forcing.

I'd argue that this type of hand, where I think I have a good shot at ten tricks opposite a bust with a moderate fit for one of my suits, is much more common than a hand where I "want to be in game" opposite a bust with a moderate fit regardless of whether that game is at the four or five level.

Why can I magically make one more trick when our fit is in clubs? Just because the club game is one level higher doesn't give me the extra trick.

Bidding, like life, is not perfect. Give me that hand, and I will cheerfully bid 4♥. Partner knows I hold 5 good ones (maybe not this good, but not KJ10xx either) and so he won't 'correct' with 2=3 in hearts and clubs. If my hearts are worse, probably my clubs are better or I have a side Ace.

xxxxx xx xxx xxx: I pass 4♥. Heck, he might make it.

Now, if he gets doubled..... I'd guess someone has 4 trump and now I run.

Look at it the other way: assume that 3♥ shows 5=6 or better. Which is more likely: a moderate 5=6 such as x AJ10xx x AKxxxx (surely we can't be passing 3♦ with this) or your virtual game in hand force?

3♥ nf but, since it reveals good playing values, forward-going. I know, some people don't think that forward-going is can be non-forcing, but it is where I come from

[awm]

The extent of opener's values isn't necessarily important here. Sometimes he has to play responder for a card.

The point is, if responder prefers opener's first suit to the second, which is not an infrequent situation, then we have to play at the four level. Maybe this makes, maybe it doesn't. But opener seems willing to take that chance. Why then, when responder prefers opener's second suit to the first, are we not willing to take the chance at 4♥ when the reward for success is so much greater?

[jdonn]

Because his hand is x AJxxx x KQJxxx which is relatively safe in 4♣ when responder prefers them, extremely dangerous in 4♥ when responder prefers them on a hand with which he wanted to pass 3♥.

Responder knows there is a bonus for game too. Let him decide when we can get it! You are saying opener can't take a chance half the time without being forced to take a chance all the time.

[awm]

So to clarify, which of the following auctions are forcing:

(1) 1♣ - 1♦ - P - 3♦ - 3♥

(2) 1♥ - 2♦ - P - 3♦ - 3♠

(3) 1♣ - 1♠ - P - 3♠ - 4♦

Also, what is the logic behind the following being forcing:

(4) 1♣ - P - 1♠ - P - 2♥

Is it just because "we agreed that way", or is it actually forcing for a logical reason? If there's a reason, why doesn't the same reason apply in auction (1) above?

Is the following forcing:

(5) 1♣ - P - 1♠ - 3♦ - 3♥

How is this different from (1) above? How is it different from (4)?

Is the following forcing:

(6) 1♣ - P - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥

Even if one can answer all these things, keep in mind that it's important the answers follow some kind of consistent rules rather than just being arbitrary. I think a good rule is with the exception of game-level bids, reverses are forcing. Maybe you think you have a better rule, but I'd like to hear a rule and not something convoluted.

And one more for good measure....

(7) 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ - 3♦ - 3♥

[jdonn]

awm, on Dec 18 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

Even if one can answer all these things, keep in mind that it's important the answers follow some kind of consistent rules rather than just being arbitrary. I think a good rule is with the exception of game-level bids, reverses are forcing. Maybe you think you have a better rule, but I'd like to hear a rule and not something convoluted.

Rule = Reverses are forcing when responder has bid, nonforcing when responder hasn't bid. It's certainly not convoluted and makes great sense. I also believe it constitutes standard, so much as any such "rule" can.