[han]

OK, let's play it as forcing Arend, but I don't understand why gnasher's argument argues for a forcing 3C.

Well, I understand that there is no clear reason to play 3C forcing in one auction and NF in the other, but I don't understand why it is better to play 3C as forcing. I can see the upside (easier when you have the GF two-suiter as you don't need to cue) and the downside (not able to show extras when you have a 17-count), and it isn't clear to me which is more important.

Without the 1H bid you don't have much choice. Here you could cue 2H with all GF hands in either auction. That would make the cue more ambiguous but there is lots of room and given that RHO hasn't raised it is not very likely that they are going to take it away from us.

[gnasher]

han, on Mar 26 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

... I don't understand why gnasher's argument argues for a forcing 3C.

You're right - it should have been an argument only for consistency between the two sequences.

Including another hand type in the cue bid might work badly if the overcaller decides to bid 3♥ over it, but I agree that this might be outweighed by the constructive benefits of an invitational 3♣.

[keylime]

I bid 2♣ without any form of good/bad 2NT in the arsenal. It doesn't hang partner's bad dummy.

[inquiry]

han, on Mar 26 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Well, I understand that there is no clear reason to play 3C forcing in one auction and NF in the other,

I think there is a good reason to play if forcing after
1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (pass)
(3♣)

while on the auction this auction, it is not forcing
1♦ (1♥) DBL (pass)
(3♣)

The reason has to do with unlimited nature of 1♥ and the limited nature of Dbl. OVer double, you may be under pressure even to rebid 2♣. You need a way to show an real club suit and some real values without forcing the auction. After all, if you bid only 2♣ parnter is very unlikley to have enough to make another call other than a preference back to 2♦. They call the double "negative" for a reason.

However on the first auction, the 1♥ bid is forcing, and reasonably unlimited. You expect partner not to pass 2♣ often, and you will have real ♣ when you bid them, as you have a raise of spades (even with three), 1NT, and 2♦ as reasonable alternatives.

On the first auction, a 2♥ cue-bid will have implications related to ♠ no doubt, while on teh second one the cue-bid just shows a general force.

I think if you play a jump to a new suit after a negative double as forcing (or a reverse after a negative double for that matter), you are going to have a lot more trouble than just bidding normally. At least, imho.

[han]

inquiry, on Mar 26 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

They call the double "negative" for a reason.

Yeah, a historic reason, Helene explained it to me last week. If I remember correctly, takeout doubles used to be called negative doubles and the "negative" was a reminder that this did not show length in the suit doubled.

I may have messed up the story but anyway, it is not very relevant. The only thing that the double limits is the number of spades, the strength of the doubler is not limited. So I think that Gnasher is right in calling these two auctions similar.

[Cascade]

I think 3♣ is forcing.

2♣ or 5♣ for me - neither is ideal.

[benlessard]

In standard 3C is forcing and the reverse at 2D too (if you open 1C). Some older style didnt allow to rebid 1nt without a stopper so for some of them the 2D reverse wasnt forcing, but for me this style made little sense. Even If you open 1C with 2344, 3244, 2245 i prefer to rebid 1nt without a stop then to rebid 2D as nf.

Ps 4C is obviously a splinter.

Ill bid 3C on the hand. There is case for playing the jumpshift as invitationnal because a cue is available for all the GF, however cueing with a wide range of GF hands is annoying.

1D--- (1S)------X------(p)
2S-----(3S)-----???

here partner is under pressure and with a stopper and a huge clubs fit will bid 3Nt. and you might easily miss a slam.