[gwnn]

Kxx
Jx
A7xxxx
Tx

imps, all white

1♣-2♣-?

where 1♣ is natural of 17-19 balanced and 2♣ is a potentially 5-4 michaels. 2♦ would be forcing 1 round and double would should some sort of balanced hand with random values.

[hotShot]

Since 2♦ is forcing, what is a direct 3♦?
If that's a weak long suit without fit, fine.

Otherwise since LHO will bid, I can pass and plan to overcall 3♦ over opps 2M contract. If partner is 17-19 he will find a bid over 2M, in which case we will still reach game.

[fromageGB]

Not my system, but seing as 2♦ is forcing, I can't see what's wrong with bidding it. Passing then bidding 3♦ must be weaker.

[MikeRJ]

Pass for now. If I bid a forcing 2D and there is further competition I think partner will play me for more than I have.

I think 2D should be played as non-forcing, with good hands starting with a double or a cue of one of the majors.


Mike

[helene_t]

2♦ forcing is not really standard, is it? Unless you play 2M as natural because RHO might have 4 only. Against a normal Michaels, 2♠ would normally be the forcing diamond bid.

Anyway, 3♦ for me.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jun 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

2♦ forcing is not really standard, is it? Unless you play 2M as natural because RHO might have 4 only. Against a normal Michaels, 2♠ would normally be the forcing diamond bid.

Anyway, 3♦ for me.

If 2♦ is NF then isn't 3♦ quite a bit much on a suit like this?

Oh I see nm you were answering under the problem conditions.

I'll bid 2♦ forcing.

[han]

Whatever 3D is, I hate it on ace-empty-sixth.

I would also bid 2D. Why are we playing it forcing, what nonsense is that?

[andy_h]

han, on Jun 8 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

I would also bid 2D. Why are we playing it forcing, what nonsense is that?

Maybe it's the analogy of doing a 2/1 bid over RHO's overcall at the 1lvl, or a 2-over-2 bid. I think I also play this way (forcing)...but now have probably seen the light!

[han]

2D NF is standard here.

[jdonn]

han, on Jun 9 2008, 05:44 AM, said:

2D NF is standard here.

Disagree. Maybe it should be and/or will be though.

[neilkaz]

han, on Jun 8 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

Whatever 3D is, I hate it on ace-empty-sixth.

I would also bid 2D. Why are we playing it forcing, what nonsense is that?

We don't always agree but we do here http://www.prairiene...e/BB/b_unus.htm

We have ways to force in ♦ and, IMHO they don't involve 2♦

[skjaeran]

If you use 2M as inv+ or forcing bids with corresponding minor or some such, 2♦ would be NF. Else 2♦ would be forcing.

2♦ forcing would be a stretch on the actual hand, I MIGHT chose that bid nevertheless.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jun 12 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

If you use 2M as inv+ or forcing bids with corresponding minor or some such, 2♦ would be NF. Else 2♦ would be forcing.

2♦ forcing would be a stretch on the actual hand, I MIGHT chose that bid nevertheless.

Translation:

If you use sane methods here, methods that would solve this problem, you'd bid 2♦ with this hand (3♦ probably a fit-jump) and 2♠ with diamonds, forcing. Now, however, you must bid 2♦ forcing and pray that this is not an overstatement, or pass.

I agree with all of this, but I'd definitely pass. But, I'd also definitely not play this way because I don't want to pass with this hand.

Hopefully the field is bidding 2♦ with both majors...