[lamford]

East

---

While teaching the game to some friends recently, this hand caused a problem. Is South's 2S game-forcing? Is North's 3C game-forcing? Should South now bid 3H and is that game-forcing? Making a negative double looks wrong on the South hand, but this does seem to be a problem. Help from some theorists please.

[Stephen Tu]

I would assume:
- responder free bid at 2 level F1, game inv+ but not GF. Free bid at 3 level or higher GF.
- new suit by opener F1, not GF. rebid original suit, 2nt, raise responder NF. Jumps or cue bid GF.
- on next round simple suit rebid/preference by responder NF.

[rmnka447]

As usual, +1 for Stephen Tu's comments.

Indeed, the hand is JUST enough for a 2 ♠ bid. At the 2 level, a free bid shows approximately an opening hand. Here, you have an 11 HCP, 2 QT hand with a decent 6 card ♠ suit. (You can count full value for the ♥ J because partner has bid ♥.) So, this is a hand that's just shy of an "opening 1 bid", but 2 ♠ should be bid.

Make the hand any weaker, say,

♠ A1098xx
♥ Jx
♦ xxx
♣ Ax

and it would be right to make a negative double rather than bid ♠ directly.

So, since you can bid 2 ♠ on a hand that's invitational rather than game forcing, 2 ♠ isn't strictly a game force, but a 1 round force. Responder can clarify on the next round.

[MrAce]

lamford, on 2017-April-22, 10:29, said:

East

---

While teaching the game to some friends recently, this hand caused a problem. Is South's 2S game-forcing? Is North's 3C game-forcing? Should South now bid 3H and is that game-forcing? Making a negative double looks wrong on the South hand, but this does seem to be a problem. Help from some theorists please.

I am not a theorist.

To me neither of these bids are GF.
3♣ at first glance seems like a big call but if we think about the 2♠ response and it being at least F1, opener has to bid something.
Simple preference to 3♥ while 3♦ cue was available should not be forcing either.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 No, 2S is usually only forcing one round, ..., but if you play 2/1, you could
make 2S GF, which would imply, that you will quite often overbid, which is not
the end of the world
#2 even if 2S was only forcing one round, i would say 3C is now GF, a new suit a the
3 level, it is not 100% clear
#3 if 3C is not GF, than 3H does not set up a GF

I would rebid spades with the South hand.

[Stephen Tu]

P_Marlowe, on 2017-April-22, 12:58, said:

#1 No, 2S is usually only forcing one round, ..., but if you play 2/1, you could
make 2S GF, which would imply, that you will quite often overbid, which is not
the end of the world
#2 even if 2S was only forcing one round, i would say 3C is now GF, a new suit a the
3 level, it is not 100% clear

These comments don't really have much logic behind them IMO. I don't see why playing 2/1 GF in an uncontested auction has any logical relationship to playing GF free bids in a contested auction. The main problem with GF free bids is you put too much pressure on the negative double, get into a lot of awkward auctions later esp with further bidding by opps. Whereas the number of times you need to make a forcing call, and cue bid on the second round is just wholly unsuitable is fairly low. Basically the number of slammish hands you have after this start with no major suit fit is fairly low so you don't have a need for a large number of forcing calls on the second round so playing 1RF generally works fine.

As for #2, high reverse at 3 level is often played as GF after a 1rf 2 level call -- such as 1h-2d-3c uncontested, but that's in the context of having a forcing temporizing call with minimums available, usually 2H. So then one can afford to play 3c as GF since mins can bid 2h. On this auction, 2h is unavailable, being insufficient. If you wanted to make 3c GF, then you'd have to bid 2nt on a lot of hands artificially, which can be bad for siding purposes and makes finding the right contract harder if 2nt can be any min any shape rather than suggesting a denomination.

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2017-April-22, 10:29, said:

While teaching the game to some friends recently,

That's the key statement. Invitational, correctly for many reasons and introduce the idea of bidding the opponents suit to create the game force and sort out the when/if and why it promises a fit (or not) later.

That fit part can get pretty squirrely for new players in that it needs to fit in with a number of scenarios, 1 round force, invitational + or just invitational, forcing with/without a fit etc. Many branches to that tree and bidding the opponents suit is the last option newcomers consider in my experience... and when to use it or not comes later.

I used a hand a few times in lessons where north owned a 3 1/2 spade bid over souths 2♠ to show the flexibility and value of the cue.

[steve2005]

Interference often causes difficulties. Bids like 1♥-2♦ or 1♦-2♣ are especially difficult as they almost use up as much space as a preempt.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2017-April-22, 10:29, said:

While teaching the game to some friends recently, this hand caused a problem. Is South's 2S game-forcing? Is North's 3C game-forcing? Should South now bid 3H and is that game-forcing? Making a negative double looks wrong on the South hand, but this does seem to be a problem. Help from some theorists please.

---

IMO...

• South's 2♠ (2 level suit reply in competition) is F1 but not GF.
• North's 3♣ (a new suit at the 3 level) is F1 -- normally GF bit not here where opponents have taken up so much bidding space,
• South's 3♥ (Preference) is NF in principle but rarely passed,