[paulg]

This auction almost happened in the Lady Milne vugraph but it has led to a debate spanning the country (and almost an ocean).

---

How forcing is 3♣ in this auction, playing standard methods?

[phil_20686]

I'm pretty sure standard is NF invitational. I am also pretty sure everyone (any good) I know plays it as forcing.

Its a general meta rule that one does not correct partscores. Virtually every time it comes up it is better to just the strain correction as forcing. The other super obvious example is 1x-1y-2y-3x,

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-15, 06:43, said:

Its a general meta rule that one does not correct partscores. Virtually every time it comes up it is better to just the strain correction as forcing.

You seem to think that the only possibile meanings are forcing and correction. Some sequences are best played as invitational and non-forcing.

Quote

The other super obvious example is 1x-1y-2y-3x,

If x is a minor and y is a major, I think it's best to play that one as invitational. How else do you bid a 10-count with only four of y, and a known eight-card fit in x?

[gnasher]

In Paul's poll, I think that outside the British Isles (and possibly Australasia) this sequence is forcing. In Acol-land I think that for many people the 3♣ bid is still non-forcing. That's not a correction of contract, but an exploratory move on a 5413 10-count.

Give it another 20 years and we'll all be playing it as forcing.

[Fluffy]

if 2♥ is forcing then 3♣ is game forcing, with invitational value you raise previous round.ç

if 2♥ is not forcing then this makes no sense but won´t be forcing.

[paulg]

2♥ is definitely forcing.

The hands that caused the discussion were:

♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣Kxx

and

♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦K ♣Kxx

On the first, an invitational 3♣ is best and on the second a forcing 3♣. You have to give something up and playing three clubs as forcing means that you have to lose hearts, at least for now, on the first hand.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2012-April-15, 07:34, said:

On the first, an invitational 3♣ is best and on the second a forcing 3♣. You have to give something up and playing three clubs as forcing means that you have to lose hearts, at least for now, on the first hand.

You can give up clubs instead: bid 2♥ and then pass 2♠.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

paulg, on 2012-April-15, 04:30, said:

This auction almost happened in the Lady Milne vugraph but it has led to a debate spanning the country (and almost an ocean).

---

How forcing is 3♣ in this auction, playing standard methods?

I would think the "meta rule" would be that "cheapest new suit" would be forcing ( 2D! ) and could be artificial.
Thus, 2H here would be natural and not forcing:
Ergo:
1C - 1S
2C - 2D!
2S - 3C = GF and removes interest in ♠

whereas:
1C - 1S
2C - 2H ( non-forcing, showing 5s/4h )
2S - 3C ... I have no idea unless Responder considered 2H = forcing.

[JLOGIC]

100 % forcing.

[EricK]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-April-15, 09:05, said:

I would think the "meta rule" would be that "cheapest new suit" would be forcing ( 2D! ) and could be artificial.
Thus, 2H here would be natural and not forcing:
Ergo:
1C - 1S
2C - 2D!
2S - 3C = GF and removes interest in ♠

whereas:
1C - 1S
2C - 2H ( non-forcing, showing 5s/4h )
2S - 3C ... I have no idea unless Responder considered 2H = forcing.

In this last sequence, although 2♥ is NF, presumably it shows either some extra strength or distributional assets - else you'd leave it in 2♣. Hence this sequence is showing the 5413 invitational hand.

On a related note, isn't there a method where 2♦ and 2♥ opposite 1♣ show 5/4 in the majors with various strengths? That would have helped here!

[MrAce]

To me this is as forcing as it can be.

1♣--1♠
2♣--3♣ is invitational to me. Am i too simple minded ?

[JLOGIC]

MrAce, on 2012-April-15, 15:40, said:

To me this is as forcing as it can be.

1♣--1♠
2♣--3♣ is invitational to me. Am i too simple minded ?

The theory is that if you have 5 spades and 4 hearts, you don't want to bid 3C since partner might pass with 4 hearts and a min or 3 spades and a min, in which case you might miss a game because you only have values for it with a major suit fit, therefore you want to use this sequence to solve that problem.

[MrAce]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-15, 15:57, said:

The theory is that if you have 5 spades and 4 hearts, you don't want to bid 3C since partner might pass with 4 hearts and a min or 3 spades and a min, in which case you might miss a game because you only have values for it with a major suit fit, therefore you want to use this sequence to solve that problem.

I had no clue that we have a side 4 card ♥ untill you warned , because that 2♥ bid in the given auction does not promise 4 ♥ for me. (AQTxx AJT xx AJx)

Of course you are right i wouldnt raise ♣ directly with side 4♥ and inv hand.

[straube]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-15, 15:57, said:

The theory is that if you have 5 spades and 4 hearts, you don't want to bid 3C since partner might pass with 4 hearts and a min or 3 spades and a min, in which case you might miss a game because you only have values for it with a major suit fit, therefore you want to use this sequence to solve that problem.

So why not continue with 2D as an artificial invitational + check back?

I've played 1C-1S, 2C -2H as nf because responder has the 2D bid available.

[JLOGIC]

straube, on 2012-April-15, 16:41, said:

So why not continue with 2D as an artificial invitational + check back?

I've played 1C-1S, 2C -2H as nf because responder has the 2D bid available.

You can obviously play artificial methods. In that case, if you bid 2D and partner bids something and you bid 3C is it forcing? It is the same problem. I would say it is 100 % forcing, but then you have issues with 5413 invite that doesn't want to bid 3C over 2C for the reasons I described earlier.

[straube]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-15, 19:22, said:

You can obviously play artificial methods. In that case, if you bid 2D and partner bids something and you bid 3C is it forcing? It is the same problem. I would say it is 100 % forcing, but then you have issues with 5413 invite that doesn't want to bid 3C over 2C for the reasons I described earlier.

Unless you play Reverse Flannery, you need to be able to show 5S/4H in a constructive but nf manner to avoid such embarrassments as 5431 opposite 1435. If you play (and I think many do) that 2D is an artificial inquiry, then the basic question at any subsequent point is " does this bid need to be forcing?".

1C-1S, 2C-2D...

2H-2S. Forcing
2N Not forcing
2N-3C forcing because responder could simply have raised clubs
2H-3H not forcing
2S-3S not forcing
2S-3H forcing
2H-3C forcing because responder could simply have raised clubs

Happy to be corrected on those.

With an invitational 5413, I think one might just raise clubs and let opener check back for a major suit fit. This avoids a nf 2H rebid or a 2D inquiry and later 3C forcing bid.

After 1C-1S, 2C-2H, 2S where 2H is nf and 2S is a simple preference, then I think it's not possible that opener has only 5 clubs (assuming pd raises spades with 3145) such that...

1C-1S, 2C-2H, 2S-3C might be a 5422 or 5512 that has only constructive strength.

[jogs]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-15, 15:26, said:

100 % forcing.

Yes, 100% forcing as played in the USA. Still think the
experts are wrong. Non forcing makes more expected
value sense.
Bid 3D with the forcing hand.
Essentially the two likely games are 3NT and 5C. Sometimes
two opening hands can't make game.
Responder's likely pattern is 5=4=1=3. When in 3NT it is
a race to 9 tricks for us and 5 tricks for them. They are
usually leading diamonds. AKQxxx and 3 side aces is
9 tricks. When our points are not in aces they will often
win the race.
Axxxx, Kxxx, x, Kxx
Qx, Qx, Qxx, AQxxxx
Seems unlikely that there's game anywhere. When the club
top honors are missing, the tricks are greatly reduced.
Axxxx, Kxxx, x, Kxx
QJ, AQ, Kxx, Qxxxxx
Now there may be two club losers.

I like non forcing.

[aguahombre]

I think there is something being overlooked by the posters who believe 3C is NF in this case.

1C-1S
2C-2H
2S-3C.....

Responder must have considered 2H at least one-round forcing, lest he would have passed the 2S preference.

Our side must have a spade fit (5-3), or responder would have not taken the 2H route to this point.

Therefore, responder is not looking to play a club partial instead of a spade partial.

But, just in case you would bid this way as responder with (say) 4-3-2-4, the strength of the hand must certainly be enough for at least game and probably slam, or you wouldn't be torturing opener.

[paulg]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-16, 09:10, said:

I think there is something being overlooked by the posters who believe 3C is NF in this case.

1C-1S
2C-2H
2S-3C.....

Responder must have considered 2H at least one-round forcing, lest he would have passed the 2S preference.

Our side must have a spade fit (5-3), or responder would have not taken the 2H route to this point.

Therefore, responder is not looking to play a club partial instead of a spade partial.

But, just in case you would bid this way as responder with (say) 4-3-2-4, the strength of the hand must certainly be enough for at least game and probably slam, or you wouldn't be torturing opener.

I don't think that opener has promised three spades on this auction, indeed the hand at the table was a minimum 2=2=3=6 and two spades looked the normal call.

[jogs]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-16, 09:10, said:

I think there is something being overlooked by the posters who believe 3C is NF in this case.

1C-1S
2C-2H
2S-3C.....

Responder must have considered 2H at least one-round forcing, lest he would have passed the 2S preference.

Our side must have a spade fit (5-3), or responder would have not taken the 2H route to this point.

Therefore, responder is not looking to play a club partial instead of a spade partial.

But, just in case you would bid this way as responder with (say) 4-3-2-4, the strength of the hand must certainly be enough for at least game and probably slam, or you wouldn't be torturing opener.

If opener has 3 spades, he isn't passing 3C
whether the bid were forcing or non forcing.
Therefore he is likely to be 2=2=3=6 or on
an ugly day 2=2=4=5.