[Yu18772]

Just a quick question - playing with good partner, no particular agreements except 2/1.

1♥-X-XX-2♠
P-P-3♦ -P

is 3♦ forcing?
(1♥-X-2♦ would be non forcing according to both of us).

Yu

[bluecalm]

I had this exact sequence not so long ago.
My view is that it shouldn't be forcing. If we have gf hand we can bid 3NT or 3S. Slam bidding is not a priority here.
I also prefer playing t/o doubles from both hands here, they make those situations easier.

[gnasher]

I voted "forcing", but I really wanted to vote "Play better methods".

[MrAce]

In standart methods it is of course forcing. I am not advocating it, just telling the standart agreements.

Std agreements as far as i know are (assuming redouble implies no fit)

1x-DBL-RDBL = very good defense for at least 2 of the unbid 3 suits OR forcing 1 suited hands that didnt start 2/1 since it is non forcing. Some pairs add hands that has fit into this as well but structure is same unless pair agrees for much better and modern methods such as xfer responses.

1x-DBL-1y (F1)

1x-DBL-2nonjumpY (NF)

So in your given auction, responder had a forcing 1 suited ♦ hand and this is the only way he can bid it ( direct 2♦ would be non forcing) But as Andy said this method has been abondened by a lot of adv and exp pairs already, especially after transfer responses became popular. Still, w/o any xfer responses agreement, if this auction came up while i am playing with you or any other regular forum posters, i would definetely think it to be forcing.

[Cyberyeti]

Is this a case for 2N Lebensohl ? I think it would be for us.

What's the max on 2♦ ? I know it's NF, but is that "up to 8 and I xx all 9+", or "up to 11, any sub GF, I don't redouble with 6 diamonds".

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-11, 03:06, said:

Is this a case for 2N Lebensohl ? I think it would be for us.

What's the max on 2♦ ? I know it's NF, but is that "up to 8 and I xx all 9+", or "up to 11, any sub GF, I don't redouble with 6 diamonds".

Dont take my word for it but i think direct 2♦ is upto 11 and 12+ starts with RDBL (of course shape matters when evaluating the strength of hand) Basically direct 2♦ is at best a very bad invitation hand unless opener has support.

[bluecalm]

I agree with your point about what is standard, however this:

Quote

So in your given auction, responder had a forcing 1 suited ♦ hand and this is the only way he can bid it ( direct 2♦ would be non forcing)

Is not true. You can bid 3NT or 3S with GF hand with diamonds. I mean, 3NT is the game you want to be in anyway (and if you somehow have real powerhouse with S shortness or something you can bid 3S and move after 3N).
On the other hand if you have 10-11hcp with diamonds you have no other way to bid it unless you include those hands in direct 2D but I believe 2D is weak in standard and partner will routinely pass 14-15hcp with say xx of diamonds when facing it.

[the hog]

I would certainly regard 3D as forcing here after the xx. The comment about 3NT with Ds is weird. What do you do with no S stopper, rely on pd for one?

[MrAce]

bluecalm, on 2012-August-11, 03:14, said:

I agree with your point about what is standard, however this:



Is not true. You can bid 3NT or 3S with GF hand with diamonds. I mean, 3NT is the game you want to be in anyway (and if you somehow have real powerhouse with S shortness or something you can bid 3S and move after 3N).
On the other hand if you have 10-11hcp with diamonds you have no other way to bid it unless you include those hands in direct 2D but I believe 2D is weak in standard and partner will routinely pass 14-15hcp with say xx of diamonds when facing it.

'Is not true' is a harsh comment, it is what it is, and don't forget i specifically mentioned that i am not advocating this. If i have xx xx AKJxxx Axx i am bidding my suit after RDBL. Cueing with this hand is very odd imo since i expect pd to bid 3NT with Qx Jxx. When we have a natural bid available which doesnt disable pd from asking stoppers we should bid it and spare the cue for other hands which includes the hands with half stopper that needs help, or shows Hx support for pd's major or whatever else you may want to use it for. Unfortunately it is not as black and white as you see it. Thinking that we should play 3NT if we have a stopper and if not we think about it at 4 level is not a good approach imo, especially when you have a natural bid available. Add another card for example you maybe even tempted to seek more than just game, lets say you hold xxx x AKxxxx AQx, pd is now more likely to hold a stiff spade and some ♦ support, wouldnt it be sad to go down in 3NT when slam or game is laydown in diamonds ?

If you think about it, this may make more sense to you in a world where we see people doubling agressively with perfect shapes over 1♥ (9 hcp amd 4135 etc etc )Again i would prefer to have xfer bids available after X or you may even convince me that this 3♦ can be more efficient if used as 11-12 hcp hands after RDBL, which are all fine for me, but without agreement i am afraid the standart meaning of 3♦ is forcing.

[bluecalm]

I agree that it's more comfortable to have 3D as natural and forcing when you have forcing hand for reasons you mention.
My point is that you gain more having NF bid available here than you gain on forcing hand by having more space for them. If I have say: xx xxx AQJxxx Kx I am in the world of pain if I can't bid 3D here and I am afraid 2D will be passed too often as xx xxx KQTxxx xx is 2D too.

Quote

without agreement i am afraid the standart meaning of 3♦ is forcing.

Yes I agree, no doubt it's forcing in standard.

[JLOGIC]

This is an impossible problem, and is why this 2S bid is the complete nuts and should be bid very aggressively (like any hand with 5 spades).

Playing 1H X 2D NF, 1H X XX with 10+ and diamonds, and 1H X XX 2S Xs are penalty, there is just no answer.

Personally (and I think this is expert standard but many people don't seem to know this), I think doubles become takeout when they jump. You do not really need a penalty X since they have a known fit and partner will then have a t/o X (unless they psyched the jump lol).

Then I think 3D is NF and X then 3D is forcing. This is still not perfect: partner might bid 3H and preempt you out of showing diamonds still, or if you have clubs partner might bid 3D. You also might have a spade void or stiff spade and very long diamonds and not want partner to pass the X.

Your other option is to just play 3m is forcing, to bid 2D with a wider range (as mrace suggested) and hope to survive it, or just be prepared to force if they jump and hope to survive that. That is a reasonable way to play (even with Xs being t/o). There are many auctions where we are forced to just GF with 10+ and a 6 card suit when they preempt. If we have only 5 diamonds we would probably prefer to X for t/o anyways.

One other thing to remember to agree on: Are you in a force if they jump to 2S? You def aren't if they bid 3m (which means Xs must be cards/t/o), but you could play over 2S that you are forced (eg, force is through 2N rather than 2 of your suit).

The real solution is what gnasher said, change your methods. Transfers are perfect for this, you can start by showing your suit.

[Yu18772]

Thank you all, this is extremely educational.
At the table I was not sure, and bid 3NT (I had Axx in ♠), so we missed an ice cold 6♦. When I said sorry I probably should have bid 3♦, my p said he would have passed it......

About better methods - I would really like to learn more about transfer responses - could you please drop a link to a good reference on the subject?
Also I was thinking a bit more about this auction - would it make sense to play X by responder as puppet to 2NT?

Yu

[bluecalm]

Quote

The comment about 3NT with Ds is weird. What do you do with no S stopper, rely on pd for one?

Your reading comprehension deteriorates every month

Quote

and is why this 2S bid is the complete nuts and should be bid very aggressively (like any hand with 5 spades).

If you require 5 spades you would be on the tighter side among people I play with :-)

Quote

Then I think 3D is NF and X then 3D is forcing.

This is natural style to me. I like it.

[the hog]

bluecalm, on 2012-August-11, 15:18, said:

Your reading comprehension deteriorates every month



If you require 5 spades you would be on the tighter side among people I play with :-)

"Is not true. You can bid 3NT or 3S with GF hand with diamonds"

No, but It appears your English skills deteriorate. I suggest you re read what you posted.


"My view is that it shouldn't be forcing."
Then a couple of posts later:
"This is natural style to me. I like it." (3D being forcing).
It also appears you change your opinions as often as you change your underpants.No wonder your posts are meaningless.

[bluecalm]

Quote

No, but It appears your English skills deteriorate. I suggest you re read what you posted.

You quoted only part of the sentence. What about trying to parse the whole thing ?

Quote

"This is natural style to me. I like it." (3D being forcing).

I guess that what's in brackets is your take on:

Quote

Then I think 3D is NF and X then 3D is forcing.