[tenbrvc]

Recently in a club game, the bidding went

1H P 1S P
2H P 3C

3C was alerted as forcing and artificial.

I know in standard bidding, a new suit by responder is always forcing, but I don't understand this artificial part.

Does anyone else play this way also? My questions are why would you do so, and what is the advantage over standard methods? What is your hand like that you would want to use a convention like this? And would 3D be natural? Just wondering.

Sorry, I don't have the hands, but I don't think it's important. I'm just curious about this convention, and it's really bugging me!

Thanks.

[Tola18]

tenbrvc, on Jul 18 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

My questions are why would you do so, and what is the advantage over standard methods? What is your hand like that you would want to use a convention like this? And would 3D be natural? Just wondering.

And what are the standard methods according to you?


I dont know this convention, but my thinking is: 2H in this situation is nonforcing. Thus, if partner bids anything else than pass, he wants something, and hishers bids therefore at least inviting.
So why not make it official and systematic, and use the 3C as some sort of assembling forcing bid?? A sort of Ogust: tell more please!

[tenbrvc]

By standard, I'm thinking of Standard American Yellow Card.

Good question!

[Tola18]

tenbrvc, on Jul 18 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

By standard, I'm thinking of Standard American Yellow Card.

Good question!

Yes, I understand this, and ask you what it will be. Please explain!

Perhaps Im simply ignorant. But I see 2H as nonforcing, in almost every system, also SAYC. It shows here positively on 6 card, so pass is OK also against singelton.



But say, 1H - 2D, 2H is different matter. 2H is usually weak and perhaps even nonforcing, but I would pass it only with absolutely minimum.

[Jboling]

I have heard of the names "Bourke relay" and "third suit forcing". The main reason for the convention I think is that you do not have a natural forcing bid with a strong singlesuiter (2♠, 3♠, and 4♠ are all nonforcing). I think most play the higher third suit (3♦ in this case) as natural, while I prefer both third suits as seminatural, showing for example a NT-stopper or just the better third suit.

[Walddk]

I don't think it is a convention as such. It's merely game-forcing (new suit at the 3-level) and can be a suit or just a feature. Two examples:

♠ AKJxxx
♥ x
♦ xxx
♣ AQx

1♥-1♠
2♥-3♣


♠ AQJxxx
♥ x
♦ AKxx
♣ xx

1♥-1♠
2♥-3♦

You have no wish to play in the minor in either example when opener most probably has denied a side suit, but you have no clear direction and must sometimes bid a 3-card suit to create a force.

Roland

[tenbrvc]

Thanks Roland!

I feel your description makes the most sense to me. And I like your examples!

[Jboling]

Roland is right about that in this case there is less need for an actual convention, while after a minor suit opening and rebid you have more open options, for example 1♣-1♠-2♣-?

1. You might have a 4-4 fit in a red suit, with an invitational or stronger hand.
2. You might want to explore for stoppers for 3NT, with or without interest in a slam in clubs.
3. You might have a long spade suit, and want to sign-off, make an invitation to game, or explore for a slam.

You can sort out these options better if you use the lower or both third suits as forcing.

One version on the follow-ups are found in the WJ2005-system (Polish Club), http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2001...2005webpage.htm, under the Third-suit Forcing section.

[tenbrvc]

Awesome! Thanks for the link, Jari!

[Tola18]

You dont need to thank me, tenbrvc, I am happy to be able to give you some help on the way.