[P_Marlowe]

West?

Sry - West forced to game, East showed the fit and simply did bid game,
why should East has made an overbid?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikl_plkcc]

Clearly West.

Given this bidding, they are supposedly playing the idiotic constructive raise treatment, which confuses matter by putting both 5-7 and 11-12 3-card supports into forcing 1NT. The responding hand contains 5 HCPs, 4333 and an unsupported jack, and I evaluate it as only 5, which I would pass using standard methods. In this case, responder has 4 ♠s! This shows how silly they are, by agreeing on a method which can't show a 4-card raise directly!

After the 3♣ game forcing rebid, East wants to stop the bidding immediately by bidding 4♠, which shows 5-7 in this case (3♠ would be 11-12 limit raise). I evaluate West hand as 22 (21 HCPs plus 1 length point, the ♠s are a plus but the honours in short suits are minuses). Given East has only 5 to 7 points, the total is only 27 to 29, which is not enough for a 50% slam. (I believe that 29 to 31 is enough) Therefore, West should stop immediately.

In my system, the auction would go:
2♣ (20+)
- 2♥! (2 controls, GF)
2♠
- 3♠
4♠

[cherdano]

HeartA, on 2013-April-10, 14:32, said:

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

If you are this misinformed about basic bidding questions, the least you could do is not to lecture others about them.

[ArtK78]

HeartA, on 2013-April-10, 14:32, said:

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

I play conventional rebids at the 3 level after a forcing 1NT response to one of a major. But even in my methods, 1♠-1NT-3♣ is game forcing (showing either 5-4 or better in spades and an unspecified second suit or a one-suited spade hand).

The next time I see this auction in a purportedly standard system and it turns out that 3♣ is not game forcing will be the first time.

[PhilKing]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-11, 04:07, said:

You self-rate as expert, right? It is not GF playing limited openers, and may not be GF playing artificial follow-ups to the 1NT response, but you must surely be aware that this is a GF in natural methods(?)

I suspect the truth is far worse - op may be a bridge teacher.

[gnasher]

In English Acol, 3♣ used not to be game-forcing. I think that changed sometime in the 1980s.

[Antrax]

mikl_plkcc, on 2013-April-19, 09:52, said:

they are supposedly playing the idiotic constructive raise treatment. This shows how silly they are
-snip-
In my system, the auction would go:
2♣ (20+)
- 2♥! (2 controls, GF)

Welcome back.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 01:37, said:

In English Acol, 3♣ used not to be game-forcing. I think that changed sometime in the 1980s.

In 1983, Reese & Bird were saying it is non-forcing, never mind not game forcing.

But (for the benefit of other readers) it is now universally played as game forcing.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-21, 03:12, said:

In 1983, Reese & Bird were saying it is non-forcing, never mind not game forcing.

In 1974 Crowhurst said that "In traditional Acol, a bid of this sort was forcing to game. The modern practice, however, is to make it forcing for one round only." Maybe they all kept changing their minds.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-April-21, 08:14, said:

In 1974 Crowhurst said that "In traditional Acol, a bid of this sort was forcing to game. The modern practice, however, is to make it forcing for one round only." Maybe they all kept changing their minds.

I think it was partly because people still played some variant Acol Twos, which limited the chances of having a legitimate monster for 3♣.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 01:37, said:

In English Acol, 3♣ used not to be game-forcing. I think that changed sometime in the 1980s.

I played it as 16+ around 1990 under protest, since the alternative my partner of the time would accept was considerably worse. I thought that the blue book from the early 70s had this as a game force although it is so long since I saw it that I am not 100% sure.

mikl_plkcc, on 2013-April-19, 09:52, said:

In my system, the auction would go:

Would West still sign off in 4♠ if East had something like
♠Kxxx
♥Qxx
♦Kxx
♣Qxx
?