Forcing or not? Forcing after an overcall
#1
Posted 2007-May-08, 07:34
I am sorry to ask such may be stupid question, but I tried to find a similar example and I did not succeed. Because we (me and my bridge partner) have had a lot of arguments about it I will be very grateful if you help me clarify the issue.
In the sequence:
1S-(2H)-3C (non-passed hand), where 2H is an overcall from the opponent, is 3C a forcing bid or not? Is it a matter of partnership agreement or the system you play?
And for that matter, in the sequence:
1D-(Double)-1S - is 1S a forcing bid or to play and how many cards in spade it promises?
These seem to be 2 principal issues in which I and my partner do not agree and I manage to ruin every tourney by applying just the opposite of what my partner expects from me.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Best regards,
Irina
irincheto@yahoo.com
PS We play SAYC.
#2
Posted 2007-May-08, 07:41
George Carlin
#3
Posted 2007-May-08, 07:54
I agree that 3♣ is forcing - I play it as natural, but I know some people use it as a BergenAfterOppsDouble-thing....
Also, the next is forcing, and constructive. No need to promise more than 4+ ♠ - I don't like bidding 1NT with 4 of a major.
#4
Posted 2007-May-08, 08:35
in the past there were a lot more stupid question asked.
#1 playing no special agreement, 3C is forcing, but
it depends on your agreements
#2 forcing, it is not a good idea to play, that all strong
hands go through XX
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#5
Posted 2007-May-08, 08:42
irincheto, on May 8 2007, 02:34 PM, said:
1S-(2H)-3C (non-passed hand), where 2H is an overcall from the opponent, is 3C a forcing bid or not?
It should certainly be forcing. The interesting question is how many spades it promises.
Quote
Yes!
---
I recommend this book: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ingAtBridge.ZIP
-- Bertrand Russell
#6
Posted 2007-May-08, 08:42
To accomodate these types of good, but non-forcing hands with a nice 6-card suit, responder may make a negative dbl and then bid a new suit at the 2 or 3-level. This shows such a hand. In the subject auction, if responder made a negative dbl intending to bid 3C over opener's 2S rebid, responder will be embarrassed if opener rebids 3D.
A specific convention called "Negative Free Bids" (NFB) allows for 2C through 3D in competition (some play just 2C through 2S) to be non-forcing. But if you play that, it must be on your convention card and you must alert the 3C bid as non-forcing. It also changes the way negative dbls are handled. This convention is out of favor among experts because it makes constructive bidding more complex and clumsy in favor of a narrow range of hands.
#7
Posted 2007-May-08, 08:47
#8
Posted 2007-May-08, 09:01
These definitions are taken directly from the SAYC booklet on the ACBL website at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf
#9
Posted 2007-May-08, 10:03
inquiry, on May 8 2007, 06:47 AM, said:
Most of the people I know that play nfb's play them only as 2/1s, not 3/2s. That is a 1-level and a non-jump 3-level new suit would be forcing, but a non-jump 2-level new suit would be non-forcing. I personally play new suits as forcing, but I'm sure it would be a much bigger divide if one asked whether 1♥ - (1♠) - 2♣ was forcing than the current question.
#10
Posted 2007-May-09, 06:43
P_Marlowe, on May 8 2007, 09:35 AM, said:
hands go through XX
Why?
The XX part, I mean. If 1♠ has an upper limit of 11-12 hcp (or even 9-10), it's still forcing for 1 round.
#11
Posted 2007-May-09, 07:00
jtfanclub, on May 9 2007, 07:43 AM, said:
P_Marlowe, on May 8 2007, 09:35 AM, said:
hands go through XX
Why?
The XX part, I mean. If 1♠ has an upper limit of 11-12 hcp (or even 9-10), it's still forcing for 1 round.
One reason is that is the way SAYC defines it. Over a dbl, 2N is used to show a Limit Raise or better hand, 1-level new suits are 6+ and forcing, 2-level new suits are 6-10 and non-forcing, and XX shows 10+ and denies a fit.
But logically, to force all hands to XX to show 10+, even when just bidding a 4-card major at the 1-level gives the opponents a chance make things difficult for you with interference. 1C (X) XX 3S p (p) and now what do you do about that 4-card heart suit you have. Instead, if you had bid 1H and now X or 3N when 3S rolls around to you, opener is better able to make a good decision.
#12
Posted 2007-May-09, 07:28
#13
Posted 2007-May-09, 08:25
1m-1S-1N-2H: Responder can have five spades, four hearts, and few points. It is logical to play this as non-forcing and most do.
1something-X-2something else eg 1S-X-2D: Everyone I know plays this as non-forcing but I can imagine playing it otherwise.
1something-(1NT overcall)-2something: It makes sense for this to be to play, just contesting the auction. With decent values third hand doubles the NT expecting to set it, and showing good values if fourth hand starts to run.
Weak jumps shifts and second round jumps in a new suit are another matter, but for non-jump bids the auctions listed above are the only ones that I can think of where a new suit by unpassed responder is not forcing. Maybe I am missing something that should be added.
As others have noted, there is such a thing as negative free bids. Whether they are a good idea or not, they are not a standard agreement and there are complications that arise playing them. You need some expert guidance to adopt them.