[kfay]

From: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0&#entry466106

I had this discussion with a few local people recently:

What do you think of the difference between these auctions?

1NT-(P)-2♦-(Dbl)
P-(P)-3♣

1NT-(P)-2♦-(Dbl)
P-(P)-Rdbl-(P)
2♥-(P)-3♣

Where 2♦ is a transfer, Pass of the double shows exactly 2 hearts, and redouble is a re-transfer.

Is there a difference between these auctions for strong and weak NTers?

[whereagles]

I don't know what the difference is, but I would never dream of passing as opener in any of the cases.

It would be sensible to define one as non forcing and the other as forcing. The 1st case is the candidate for NF, by the fast arrival principle.

But, as I said, I wouldn't assume anything without explicit agreements.

[ArtK78]

It makes some sense that the first sequence is non-forcing and the second sequence is forcing. Responder knows after opener's pass of the double that the heart fit is minimal, and there rates to be a better fit in clubs (assuming that responder has 5 or more clubs). So he can better place the contract.

In the second sequence, responder is forcing opener to ignore the double of 2♦ and proceed with the transfer before bidding 3♣ even with the knowledge that opener has only 2 hearts. It makes sense that this is a stronger sequence.

The weak meaning to the first sequence is absolute in the context of a weak NT opening.

[Phil]

ArtK78, on Jun 3 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

It makes some sense that the first sequence is non-forcing and the second sequence is forcing.

I've only discussed this sequence with one partner and this is what we decided.