[bd71]

Partner and I had a different take on this bidding sequence today. Two questions about this:

1. What is strength/range of the 3D bid?
2. Is the 3D bid game-forcing?

The hand where I jumped to 3D, which I valued as worth about 12 points, was...

---

We ended up in 6D, making, when the opponents didn't cash their top two clubs. Partner says we ended up in the bad spot where we needed to get lucky because he thought I was stronger with this bidding.

I simply wanted to be in game, and thought that this sequence would show 12+.

[bd71]

Correction...the bidding sequence was 1D-1H-1S-3D if that matters.

[awm]

The guideline I've always used in these situations is that bids of suits our side has already named are not forcing (unless the auction is defined as forcing for some other reason), whereas bids of new suits by an unlimited hand are forcing.

So in this auction, 3♦ would show more than a minimum response (otherwise you could bid 2♦) but would not be forcing (it's a suit our side has already named). It therefore shows "game invitational" values, something like a good 10 to a bad 12 points.

To force game and look for slam, bid the fourth suit. This is "fourth suit forcing" -- it's nominally a convention but it's part of standard american bidding (much like negative doubles or a strong artificial 2♣ opening are conventions which are part of standard american bidding). Raising diamonds after fourth suit (i.e. 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣!-some bid by opener, 3♦ or 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♠-some bid by opener-3♦) would create a force to game and show at least a good 12 points.

[Cascade]

3♦ shows about 11 hcp.

Raises are always limit bids unless specifically defined as forcing as awm says.

[pooltuna]

1) the strength is that of a limit raise not GF

2) see above

3) if you are just supposed to bid 2♦ with this how does partner know the difference between this hand and say J83 AQ32 7632 86 which IMO is the obvious bid with the latter hand.

[Siegmund]

Matter for partnership agreement.

Almost all 2/1 pairs agree that jumps in a previously bid suit are invitational, not forcing. Among SA pairs, both agreements exist, and it's something one needs to always ask a new partner. (As you've seen, there are a lot of people who either haven't asked, or whose answer has been "I don't know.")

I personally think the forcing agreement is the significantly superior one, but I understand I am in a minority for feeling so. In a new partnership, I play it whichever way my partner says he is used to playing it.

Out of the 11-point hand and the 14-point hand, one jumps to 3D after 1D-1H-1S, and one bids the fourth suit.

[neilkaz]

bd71, on Jul 18 2010, 12:07 AM, said:

Correction...the bidding sequence was 1D-1H-1S-3D if that matters.

This is an invite for me and if you want to force game use 4sf.

[vuroth]

Agree with the 4sf idea. If you play 4sf, then the jump in ♦ shows something different than a GF.