[Apollo81]

In an auction like

1♣-(2x)-Dbl*-(p)

*negative

which of opener's rebids are forcing?

[han]

Whoops, missed the title.

[blackshoe]

what are the possible values of x?
why 3D?
what does "negative" mean in this context?

[jdonn]

Yes I would really need a more precise definition of what you mean by 'negative'. I always define these doubles very specifically in terms of values promised.

I will add this is a useful auction for lebensohl.

[jtfanclub]

Assuming it shows a semi-positive, the forcing bids for declarer are:

The cue bid and anything higher that isn't game, such as 1♣ (2♦) X (P) 3♥.

2NT should be forcing, since any hand with a non-forcing 2NT call should pass.

[awm]

It depends a little on what your actual agreement is about the double. I usually play:

Double is takeout. It promises something close to a normal "takeout double" shape. I don't randomly double with off-shape hands. Bidding a new suit would be forcing (so I also don't have to double to "create a force"). I'm generally content to pass with semi-positive hands including length in the opponents suit; semi-positive hands with shape sometimes get upgraded to game forces, or make a jump bid.

For opener after one of these doubles, I play that two-level suit bids are not forcing and use lebensohl to distinguish forcing/non-forcing three-level calls. Note that since the double is really takeout I'm willing to bid four-card suits on occasion (even at the three level). This means I rarely want to bid 2NT "natural non-forcing" on these auctions.

[keylime]

I would think cuebid, and any suit over the suit of the overcall at the next highest level. Additionally, 2NT should be quite forcing, especially because if you've had to open a forcing club on a 2 suiter, it's the only to communicate that to partner.

[ulven]

You should play X as FG and let this discussion evaporate...
That's the agreement for all 3 big-club pairs in the Swedish Open Team (as if anyone cares ;-) )

[the hog]

ulven, on Apr 28 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

You should play X as FG and let this discussion evaporate...
That's the agreement for all 3 big-club pairs in the Swedish Open Team (as if anyone cares ;-) )

X as Gf as 2NT+ as Rubensohl makes perfect sense.

[Vilgan]

X as negative sounds like the issue here.. not what call is forcing. If you play it as GF all problems evaporate. If you play it as a non GF response but near the top of that range (say a good 5 to a bad bad 8), then it seems like all calls but 2 NT are forcing at least one round (and 2 NT should be invitational I think.. been a bit since I played precision). Having to jump to force to game when responder has ALMOST enough to make game a good shot opposite your 1♣ opener sounds just makes me go blah. Main thing is regardless of what X shows (GF or not), it should be a tightly constrained point range.

[pclayton]

Ulf's suggestion is a good one, but it does hamper you with the boring 5-7 count that just wants to compete, and thats what the double usually shows as a minimum.

I would say that a negative double creates a force through 3♣. I don't think opener has to jump to show extras and I don't feel the need to stop on a dime after we've been preempted.

You didn't mention if a new suit by responder is forcing or not. If its NF, you are loading an awful lot onto a negative x.

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Apr 28 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

You didn't mention if a new suit by responder is forcing or not.

Forcing

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Apr 25 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

Yes I would really need a more precise definition of what you mean by 'negative'. I always define these doubles very specifically in terms of values promised.

I will add this is a useful auction for lebensohl.

Lower end = something less than game forcing but more than total crap. The point of the post was to see what people would think lacking any more specific agreement.

[Impact]

Regardless of your agreements (unless X=GF) the minimum values for competition over a 2C overcall (over 1PC) are lower than the values for competition over a 2S overcall for the simple reason that one is competing at the 2 -level while the other forces to at least the 3-level (absent penalty pass).

I prefer to use completely artificial structures (including transfers & Rubensohlian methods tweaked of course) to allow responder to show long suit with limited values immediately as the risk of additional competition is the tricky part ....

regards

[shevek]

We play a lot of non-forcing actions here.

After 1♣ - (2♣) - ?

We would double with ♠Kxxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxx ♣xx

& bid 2♥ with ♠xxx ♥KJTxxx ♦xx ♣xx

This focuses on partscores. Strong club systems do well on games & slams, not so well on partials. We try to redress that, without losing much game accuracy.

After dbl, opener's 2x is non-forcing. Have to jump or cue to force.
However, if their overcall is 2♥/♠, Lebensohl applies so 3x is forcing. Not keen on Rubensohl here.

If the overcall is 3x, responder's suit is forcing. Most also play double now as GF but we still don't. We would still double 3♣ with the hand above and pass opener's 3y.