[straube]

1S (2C) 2H (3C) 3D

Is 3D forcing?

[Cyberyeti]

I would say yes, may also depend how you define double

[mikeh]

Most would play that the 2H bid shows values. How much depends on agreements, but usually around 10 hcp or so.

Most would also play that 3D, when pass was presumably an option, shows more than a minimum opening bid, usually a decent 5-5 or a good 5-4.

Strangely, given how long I’ve been playing and given the very complex agreements I have in my main partnership, I don’t recall ever expressly discussing this sequence but logic suggests that it’s extremely unlikely that responder has a hand on which pass makes any sense.

Note that opener can and should pass with an ordinary opening hand with no heart fit. Responder is still there…a point often overlooked by inexperienced players (sometimes justifiably so because their inexperienced partners don’t know what to do with many normal hands). If we have game opposite a 2H bid, with no heart fit of our own and no extra values, then responder needs to have close to opening values (and some kind of a fit or a long heart suit) and, if so, he won’t or shouldn’t pass 3C. What he should do depends on his hand.


With 3+ spades, bid a forcing 3S (why forcing? Because with a genuine spade fit, he shouldn’t bid 2H with merely a competitive hand…he should ‘support with support’.

With a red two suiter, he can bid 3D or double

With 6+ hearts and a decent suit, he should bid 3H…this is not forcing but opener will raise with a decent hand and a couple of hearts.

With most hands, he doubles. These doubles are NOT penalty. When the opps have bid and raised to the 3-level neither defender rates to have a penalty double in the sense of a trump stack. So double, either by opener directly over 3C or by responder, in balancing seat, says ‘I don’t have a fit for your suit, I don’t have the shape to rebid my suit or introduce the fourth suit, but I have more values than I promised. A typical double by opener of 3C might be AKxxx x AQxx Jxx

A typical double by responder might be xx AKJxx QJx Jxx. (Yes, I see the duplication but if opener doubles, responder is exceedingly unlikely to hold Jxx in clubs…but he might be xx AKJxxx Kxx xx)

[helene_t]

I wouldn't be surprised if non-forcing were the best agreement, as most hands that would like to bid a forcing 3♦ can double, or otherwise bid 4♦.

But forcing is clearly standard. New suit at the 3-level by an unlimited partner.

If you play 2♥ as forcing (standard in most places outside Poland), you don't need a lot of extras to force to game, so maybe forcing is the best agreement.

If you play 2♥ as non-forcing narrow range (say 8-11), you don't really need an invitational 3♦ here - 3♦ is either "to play (but correctible)", or GF. Maybe nonforcing has the highest frequency but forcing may be more essential to have when you have the hand for it. There may be a case for playing it as forcing if you primarily play IMPs and non-forcing if you primarily play MP. But having different systems for MP and IMP in the same partnership is overkill, IMO.

If you play 2♥ as non-forcing but wide range, maybe a constructive but nonforcing 3♦ is the most useful agreement.