[mike777]

As a nonexpert I would just assume all new suits bid at the three level freely are forcing.

I give up trying to stop on a dime in 3h.

----------------

My guess is at imps this will result in overbidding to some games and at MP playing 3c x...at times.

[Echognome]

I know it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but playing reverse flannery, as I do in at least one partnership, would make these both forcing for me. With the invite only hand you could double or just decide to stretch and force.

[Phil]

Echognome, on Apr 5 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

I know it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but playing reverse flannery, as I do in at least one partnership, would make these both forcing for me. With the invite only hand you could double or just decide to stretch and force.

Sathya and I discussed this yesterday in a Rev Flannery setting and decided that

1m - pass - 1♠ - 2om
pass - pass - ?

2♥ is forcing, but 3♥ isn't.

[bid_em_up]

MarkDean, on Apr 3 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

Sweet, I am clearly out to lunch: I am the only who voted just the second one. I think the first one is an invite: partner doubles with most good hands, can bid 3♣ if he really has a good hand and is afraid of a pass. On the second one, the double is more likely to be passed, and there is less room in general - I tend not to try to stop on a dime in such situation.

No, you're not.

[jdonn]

So there is no consensus but leaning toward forcing in both cases. I actually feel neither should be forcing (despite arguing that one of them should be forcing in another thread). I suppose they are good situations for agreements is all you can really say, and otherwise not to pass or bid them on weak hands with a random partner undiscussed.

[hanp]

First I prefer NF, you can bid 3C with a GF. Second I think has to be forcing.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Apr 6 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

First I prefer NF, you can bid 3C with a GF. Second I think has to be forcing.

I'm glad you came, you made the vote exactly symmetrical at this point with 5/12/12/28 which is important for my sanity.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Apr 6 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

hanp, on Apr 6 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

First I prefer NF, you can bid 3C with a GF. Second I think has to be forcing.

I'm glad you came, you made the vote exactly symmetrical at this point with 5/12/12/28 which is important for my sanity.

Voted!

[junyi_zhu]

jdonn, on Apr 3 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

1♦ - P - 1♠ - 2♣
P - P - 3♥

1♦ - P - 1♠ - 3♣
P - P - 3♥

I asked two good players this and they gave exactly opposite answers. I personally agreed with them each once and disagreed with each once. So, here we are, which (if any) 3♥ bids are forcing?

(I'm not sure to what extent it matters, but assume a 2/1 context, with mandatory support doubles on the 2♣ auction)

well, all the treatments have some merits. Still, I just play both as forcing cause it's simple, it makes bidding with strong hands easier and it allows me to overbid invitational hands systematically, which isn't really that bad in competitive sequences.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Apr 6 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 6 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

hanp, on Apr 6 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

First I prefer NF, you can bid 3C with a GF. Second I think has to be forcing.

I'm glad you came, you made the vote exactly symmetrical at this point with 5/12/12/28 which is important for my sanity.

Voted!

Not glad you came.

[Gerben42]

Only the first one for me. The 2nd one is not a jump so probably simply competitive. In short, agree with Wayne

[gnasher]

Gerben42, on Apr 6 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Only the first one for me. The 2nd one is not a jump so probably simply competitive. In short, agree with Wayne

Me too.

[y66]

Jlall, on Apr 6 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 6 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

hanp, on Apr 6 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

First I prefer NF, you can bid 3C with a GF. Second I think has to be forcing.

I'm glad you came, you made the vote exactly symmetrical at this point with 5/12/12/28 which is important for my sanity.

Voted!

Symmetry restored. The BWS default agreement is

Quote

When a call could logically be interpreted as either forcing or nonforcing and there is no explicit agreement:
  In general, in a competitive situation, treat as nonforcing; in a noncompetitive situation, treat as forcing or nonforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer