[han]

Scoring: IMP

---

My partner yesterday had this hand, I wonder if you will agree with his choice(s).

1H - (2C) - 2S - (p)
3C - (p) - ??

It is tough to argue against 2S but maybe someone wants to. 3C is forcing but does not imply support, 2NT and 3H would have been non-forcing for us I believe. What do you bid now?

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3♦, but 3♥ and 3♠ also seem reasonable. If partner had bid 3♦ himself, that would have been forcing, so he probably isn't going to raise me. If he does, I'll find out what he thinks of Squire's dictum that a return to partner's suit at the game level is non-forcing.

[655321]

Agree with 3♦.

Bidding a major suit seems to exaggerate our holdings there by one card, prefer to exaggerate our diamonds.

[mikeh]

With some partners, 2♠ would be a big overbid... with others only a mild overbid...

I know that it is not standard to call this a game force bid, but think about it... construct for me an auction in which this 2♠ call is NOT forcing to game in practice. After all, it is standard to promise another bid, and you cannot rebid a 5 card suit, so what bid can you make over ANY non-game/non-raise call by partner? Does anyone think they can/should pass 3♥? Or 3♠? Maybe in Acol (I don't know) but in std or 2/1? Maybe it's possible, but it isn't where I play

So I think, strongly in some partnerships and to some degree in all 2/1 and std partnerships, this is a negative double.

Make it a 6 card suit, with equivalent strength, and in some partnerships I would make the call... expecting to bid 3♠, non-forcing, at my next call.

As for extricating myself from the frying pan I placed myself in, I agree with jumping into the fire with the misleading 3♦. After all, the odds are I can pass his next bid (or raise 3Major to game). But I am still worried that he may take me for a better/different hand than I hold.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Mar 10 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

With some partners, 2♠ would be a big overbid... with others only a mild overbid...

I know that it is not standard to call this a game force bid, but think about it... construct for me an auction in which this 2♠ call is NOT forcing to game in practice. After all, it is standard to promise another bid, and you cannot rebid a 5 card suit, so what bid can you make over ANY non-game/non-raise call by partner? Does anyone think they can/should pass 3♥? Or 3♠? Maybe in Acol (I don't know) but in std or 2/1? Maybe it's possible, but it isn't where I play

Well. E.g. in BWS 2S is forcing to 3H. With this hand I could pass a 3H or 3D rebid, give a NF 3H preference over a 3D rebid, and have a tough rebid over 2N (but both 3S on AQJT9 or overbidding with 3N on stopper help and a AQJT9 suit possibly over overcaller's ♠K are reasonable).

[Cascade]

3♦ looks far and away best.

[andy_h]

3D looks about right, await partner's next move.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Mar 11 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

I know that it is not standard to call this a game force bid, but think about it... construct for me an auction in which this 2♠ call is NOT forcing to game in practice. After all, it is standard to promise another bid, and you cannot rebid a 5 card suit, so what bid can you make over ANY non-game/non-raise call by partner? Does anyone think they can/should pass 3♥? Or 3♠? Maybe in Acol (I don't know) but in std or 2/1? Maybe it's possible, but it isn't where I play

I think that responder can pass 2NT, 3♥ or 3♠. If opener rebids 3♦ (forcing), responder's 3♥ and 3♠ are non-forcing.

Isn't this fairly standard, regardless of locale or basic system? It's recommended by, for example, Mike Lawrence.

This is the first time that I've heard of a disturbed two-level response promising another bid, and I don't think it very playable. As you say, if one had this agreement the only place one could expect to stop in would be 3♠; this puts too much strain on the negative double.

[whereagles]

Another waiting bidder here: 3♦ and let pard clear up the mess he's made

[FrancesHinden]

Um, why is everyone so confident that 3D from opening would have been forcing?
(Apart from mike, who plays that 2S promises another bid, that is).

What what you rebid over 2S looking at some boring minimum opening such as

x(x)
KQxxx
AKxx(x)
xx(x)

?

That's not to say that it will be passed very often - I think it will very, very, very rarely be passed. But I'm not convinced it is 100% forcing (and gnasher who is another English limit bidder has disappointed me here!).

Anyway, what I bid now depends on my style over 2C with 5-3 in the majors. If I would always have raised hearts (via some conventional call if necessary) I would bid 3H now, becuase I have denied three hearts.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

Um, why is everyone so confident that 3D from opening would have been forcing?

I think it puts too much strain on the cue bid to play everything else non-forcing, so I'm prepared to give up the opportunity to play in 3♦ in order to improve our game-bidding. This is more important after, say, 1♥ (2♦) 2♠ - you really want to be able to bid clubs forcingly here - but my memory isn't up to varying the meaning of bids according to the order of the suits.

If your memory is better than mine, after 1♥ (2♣) 2♠ you could play 3♣ as a transfer, thereby getting the best of both worlds. I'm not sure if it's best to play everything else as a transfer, or just to invert 3♣ and 3♦.

Quote

What what you rebid over 2S looking at some boring minimum opening such as

x(x)
KQxxx
AKxx(x)
xx(x)

With xx KQxxx AKx xxx I'd rebid 2NT, which IMO doesn't promise a club stop. With ♥KQxxx and ♦AKxx I'd bid 3♦, accepting that I might have to play 3♥ in a 5-2 fit or 4♦ with inadequate values, but also assuming that partner knew this when he bid 2♠.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

Um, why is everyone so confident that 3D from opening would have been forcing?

Does that matter? If pard can still have 4 diamonds, he won't rush to bid 4/5♦ without probing for 3NT before.

[brianshark]

3♦ for me. Han just said that they can stop in 2N or 3♥ so 2♠ is hardly an overbid. Besides, with a hand like that, if pressed to choose, I'd GF before I'd downgrade it.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Mar 11 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 11 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

I know that it is not standard to call this a game force bid, but think about it... construct for me an auction in which this 2♠ call is NOT forcing to game in practice. After all, it is standard to promise another bid, and you cannot rebid a 5 card suit, so what bid can you make over ANY non-game/non-raise call by partner? Does anyone think they can/should pass 3♥? Or 3♠? Maybe in Acol (I don't know) but in std or 2/1? Maybe it's possible, but it isn't where I play

I think that responder can pass 2NT, 3♥ or 3♠. If opener rebids 3♦ (forcing), responder's 3♥ and 3♠ are non-forcing.

Isn't this fairly standard, regardless of locale or basic system? It's recommended by, for example, Mike Lawrence.

This is the first time that I've heard of a disturbed two-level response promising another bid, and I don't think it very playable. As you say, if one had this agreement the only place one could expect to stop in would be 3♠; this puts too much strain on the negative double.

There is, or should be, a world of difference between these two auctions:

1♠ (2♣) 2♥


and

1♥ (2♣) 2♠

For all those who say that 2♠ not promising another bid is unplayable, I say that playing it as forcing only to 3♥ is unplayable... even tho one may survive it often.

Consider opener with a good hand and no fit, and a 6 card heart suit.... must he cuebid to establish the gf? If so, then how on earth do the two hands ever limit themselves thereafter.... the cue bid becomes a hopeless, almost meaningless crutch.... overloaded beyond any semblance of usefulness.

The given auction should promse another bid (whereas my first example need not) for the same reason that std bidders play the sequence 1♠ 2♥ 3♣ as forcing... our 2♠ call requires that partner raise the level.

I appreciate that I am in the minority, at least on this forum, but sometimes the voice in the wilderness has it right Of course, more often that voice is delusional