[irincheto]

Hello,

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.

[gwnn]

According to "standard expert treatment" both are forcing. Moreover, the 1♠-(2♥)-3♣ bid is forcing to game! The second auction is usually treated as if the double has never existed. "systems on" they say. There are "weird people" who will think that's a NF bid, promising 5+. They are, however, maybe 5% of total players (at least on BBO).

[firmit]

Do not be sorry, Irina! That's what the whole idea of the forum - to ask questions which you need an answer too!

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.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

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

[mgoetze]

irincheto, on May 8 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

In the sequence:
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

Is it a matter of partnership agreement or the system you play?

Yes!

---

I recommend this book: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ingAtBridge.ZIP

[SoTired]

The primary rule in SAYC is "A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing." So 3C is 100% forcing and should be game-forcing since it is already at the 3-level. Auctions with good hands get terrible clumsy if new suit bids are not forcing.

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.

[inquiry]

Welcome to the forums. In what I consider normal practice, 3C is forcing as everyone has pointed out. However, what is normal varies a little by location. Some people play "negative free bids". This is outside the scope of general BIL forum question unless some ask specifically about it. But if for you all strong hands strart with a double and all new suits are "negative" then this would not be forcing. I think about 98% of the people I play against, 3C would be 100% forcing and that is good enough for me.

[SoTired]

I forgot to mention the 2nd auction. The 1S bid is also forcing, showing 4+♠. However, if responder had bid 2C, it would be non-forcing (about 6-10). Responder needs to XX (10+ denies primary support) if responder has a stronger hand.

These definitions are taken directly from the SAYC booklet on the ACBL website at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

[Echognome]

inquiry, on May 8 2007, 06:47 AM, said:

Welcome to the forums. In what I consider normal practice, 3C is forcing as everyone has pointed out. However, what is normal varies a little by location. Some people play "negative free bids". This is outside the scope of general BIL forum question unless some ask specifically about it. But if for you all strong hands strart with a double and all new suits are "negative" then this would not be forcing. I think about 98% of the people I play against, 3C would be 100% forcing and that is good enough for me.

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.

[jtfanclub]

P_Marlowe, on May 8 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

#2 forcing, it is not a good idea to play, that all strong
    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.

[SoTired]

jtfanclub, on May 9 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on May 8 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

#2 forcing, it is not a good idea to play, that all strong
     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.

[jtfanclub]

I apologize...I should have specified 2NT (and game) as SAYC specified exceptions- I didn't mean to ask why those don't go through XX!

[kenberg]

The list of times when a non-jump bid in new suit, by an unpassed responder, is clearly not forcing is pretty short.

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.