[kenrexford]

♠x ♥x ♦KQJxxx ♣AKxxx

1♦-1♥-X-P-?

Idea #1: Bid 2♣. This never ends at 2♣. You can always express the power of this hand later, and you save space.
Idea #2: Bid 3♣. This is a player, and you need to advertise this now. The nature of player-vs-overall-strength can be resolved later.
Idea #3: Bid 4♣. This is not a splinter -- you'd go through 2♥ first with that hand, or some other call. This shows a high distribution player.
Idea #4: Bid 5♣. This unambiguously shows this hand.

Which idea, if any, makes sense? If a call makes sense to you, but for different reasons, explain your reasons.

[helene_t]

Afraid 4♣ could be a splinter and 5♣ shuts the gate. I would bid 3♣.

[matmat]

what would 3h be?

[helene_t]

Good question, I suppose it could be played as either a solid diamond suit or as some sort of spades raise, presumably a splinter. Assuming that the double shows spades.

[han]

Is 3C forcing Ken?

[Fluffy]

3♣ limit.

[whereagles]

3♣, followed by 5♣ if pard insists on spades.

[whereagles]

Well, it's just that in practice pards tend to rebid my singleton. That's all

[P_Marlowe]

#1 no way, this shows a min. opener,
it is an illusion to believe that one will be able to catch up later,
it is possible sometimes, but usually it leads to TD call due to
hesitation

#2 fine with me, this shows add. strength, but does not commit
your side to game, 11 tricks is a long way to go

#3 fine with me as well, I prefer #2, but can live with this one,
forcing to game is certainly not the worst idea

#4 no, if you want to play at least game, give yourself the chance
to find out if a (small / grand) slam is on or not, 5C makes it hard
to check for key cards below game level

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

han, on Mar 25 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

[P_Marlowe]

kenrexford, on Mar 26 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

han, on Mar 25 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

ok, than I should modify my answer to include
a remark that for me 3C is nonforcing.

Assuming 3C is forcing, than you dont need 4C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

kenrexford, on Mar 26 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

han, on Mar 25 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

Do you think that this is standard? I'd like to know how others think about it. I'm used to playing it as NF but I know some very good players play it as forcing. What would you assume without discussion?

[helene_t]

I think NF is standard but I might be wrong.

[inquiry]

han, on Mar 26 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 26 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

han, on Mar 25 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

Do you think that this is standard? I'd like to know how others think about it. I'm used to playing it as NF but I know some very good players play it as forcing. What would you assume without discussion?

I would never assume 3♣ is forcing unless partner beat me over the head with it several times and insist on playing it as such. We have 2♥ cue bid available as a force, we have 4♣ to show big old two suiter (no I don't play 4♣ as a splinter for spades, nor do I play 3♠ or 4♠ as splinter for ♣s). For what it is worth, I don't think 4♣ should be forcing either. It just shows a more distributional hand than 3♣, which shows more hcp hand (a strong 54 type hand).

IF I was worried that partner would take 4♣ as either a splinter or as forcing, I would bid 3♣. If I thought partner would take 4♣ as huge two suiter but not forcing, I surely would bid 4♣, as that is what I have. Partner needs little more than an ace and a club fit headed by the Queen to have a play for 5♣.

Of course, if you play 3♣ as forcing (seems strange to me), you can bid 3♣ and then rebid a non-forcing 4♣. But this sequence is fraught with danger, if it goes, for instance,

1♦-1♥-x-p
3♣-X-pass-4♠
?

What do you do? You have described a hand with more values and less shape than you hold, you don't know if partner is ready to saw off 4♠ and if he does, if he is counting on you to have less shape and more defense or if he has the "STUFF" on his own. If you had bid 4♣ instead of 3, you would be happy to let parnter decide what to do next.

[Apollo81]

I'd bid 2♣ and then raise a preference to 3♦. Closer to immediate JS (which I assume is forcing) then 2♣/pass a preference.

[kenrexford]

FTR, my answer "yes" is not based on my understanding. It is based on the parameters within which the question was asked.

[gnasher]

han, on Mar 26 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 26 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

han, on Mar 25 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Is 3C forcing Ken?

Yes.

Do you think that this is standard? I'd like to know how others think about it. I'm used to playing it as NF but I know some very good players play it as forcing. What would you assume without discussion?

Where I come from it's standard to play 3♣ as forcing.

I don't really understand why anyone thinks this should be non-forcing. In the sequence
  1♦ 1♥ 1♠ pass
  3♣
everyone plays 3♣ as forcing. Why should
  1♦ 1♥ dbl pass
  3♣
be treated any differently? In each sequence responder has shown spades and an unlimited hand, and said nothing about any other suit. The only difference is in the number of spades he has shown.

It's possible that playing this as non-forcing is left over from the days when double promised both unbid suits. In that style, it's sensible to play a jump in either unbid suit as a limit bid.

[cherdano]

I probably would take 3♣ as non-forcing undiscussed, but I agree with gnasher's reasoning, forcing seems better.