[gambolero]

1♣ - (2♥) - Dbl - (P)
3♣ - (P) - 3♦

forcing?
responder has ♠KQxx ♥Jxx ♦AKJxxx ♣void

[wank]

it's possible to play both ways. where i'm from it's standard for this to show 4 spades and 6 diamonds to play in 3D (a strong hand with diamonds would bid 3D and hope to get spades in later), but as i understand it, in America, for example, it's common for this to be forcing with spades and longer diamonds.

on the internet it could be anything.

[Vampyr]

I don't think it is sensible to play this as forcing unless you play Negative Free Bids.

[mikeh]

To wank: it isn't the least bit common in NA amongst decent players, other than the tiny minority who play NFBs.

Admittedly, there are a great many very weak players, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that some of them mistakenly think that this is forcing, but they are wrong in that just as they are wrong in thinking that 4♣ is ALWAYS gerber...we are speaking of the same calibre of player

[ahydra]

 mikeh, on 2014-November-17, 10:33, said:

Admittedly, there are a great many very weak players, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that some of them mistakenly think that this is forcing, but they are wrong in that just as they are wrong in thinking that 4♣ is ALWAYS gerber...we are speaking of the same calibre of player

Huh, I feel quite insulted. I thought this would be forcing (new suit by responder), but as a two-time county champion I am in no way "very weak", and definitely do not play that 4C is always Gerber!

I guess if we had AKJx xx Jxxxx Ax or similar, where we don't really want to bid 3D over 2H, double looks ideal but then you would follow up with 3H rather than 3D. So theoretically this shouldn't be forcing for the reasons people have given above, but I wouldn't be surprised to have my partner (also a perfectly competent player) spring this on me at some point, so am going to discuss it with him before he does so .

ahydra

[mikeh]

 ahydra, on 2014-November-17, 11:33, said:

Huh, I feel quite insulted. I thought this would be forcing (new suit by responder), but as a two-time county champion I am in no way "very weak", and definitely do not play that 4C is always Gerber!



ahydra

Which county are you referring to?

They have counties in the US, but I have never heard of a US bridge event being organized by counties....they are far less significant than counties in the UK (where I grew up until age 13, living in Hampshire). We even have counties in Canada, altho many people aren't even aware of it, since we have no county governments or police or, indeed, anything much that turns upon county lines.

I suspect, then, that your feeling of being insulted was misplaced I was referring to NA players. I express and expressed no opinion on whether people play it as forcing elsewhere. Frankly, I don't see how it is playable to have it forcing...I mean, it would work well when we hold a forcing hand, but it makes bidding the weaker hands impossible. Since we can almost always cope with the forcing hands by making a forcing bid right away, this loss seems unjustifiable. However, I long ago learned that I can be and often am mistaken in thinking I know how the game 'should' be played by players who live in areas of the world where styles and methods are very much different from those with which I am most familiar.

[ahydra]

Sorry for the confusion - I live in the UK. And to be honest I've no idea what the standard meaning of 3D would be over here. I do agree with your reasoning though.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

 ahydra, on 2014-November-17, 11:33, said:

Huh, I feel quite insulted. I thought this would be forcing (new suit by responder), but as a two-time county champion I am in no way "very weak"

 mikeh, on 2014-November-17, 12:45, said:

Which county are you referring to?

It does depend on the county...

[gambolero]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-17, 07:46, said:

I don't think it is sensible to play this as forcing unless you play Negative Free Bids.

We do not play NFBs. Partner and I both do know what they are.

 mikeh, on 2014-November-17, 12:45, said:

...
Frankly, I don't see how it is playable to have it forcing...I mean, it would work well when we hold a forcing hand, but it makes bidding the weaker hands impossible. Since we can almost always cope with the forcing hands by making a forcing bid right away, this loss seems unjustifiable.
...

I can see the value in a non--forcing diamond bid here.

♠KQxx ♥Jxx ♦AKJxxx ♣void
How might the given hand be bid?

I guess responder could forget the spades for now and start with diamonds?
1C - (2H) - 3D
I sort of have this notion that a spade bid on 3 level now would just be values, not necessarily 4 cards and that responder skipping the negative double denies 4 spades. I don't know where I picked up those ideas -- I'm sure they could be completely wrong.

[helene_t]

3d immediately doesn't deny spades and double doesn't promise them. You need double to differentiate between the strengths. This is obviously not ideal and you are probably better off playing transfers.

[mcphee]

The point of the neg dble was we did not want to show our awesome 6 card D because we had 4S? Assume we bid 3D rather than double it means we are not allowed to have 4S so if our partner had 4S now he should not bid them? I fail to see the value in not bidding 3D 100% F and just maybe reaching our cold D slam facing a stiff H, a couple of aces and diamonds. Assume after making this neg dble and partner does bid S, what now?The same sahpe hand with Kxxx Jxx KQxxxx makes a neg dble and has the good sense to bid 3D NF. Partner I hoped you would bid S, I hope your D are bettr than my C.

[ArtK78]

100% agree with mikeh.

3♦ immediately is the way to bid the forcing hand. Negative double followed by 3♦ is not forcing. (Excluding those small number of players who play negative free bids, who are forced to make a negative double on forcing hands).

I am also a North American player and I can't vouch for what the rest of the world might do with these cards.

[Kungsgeten]

 ArtK78, on 2014-November-18, 07:27, said:

(Excluding those small number of players who play negative free bids, who are forced to make a negative double on forcing hands).

Negative free bids are very common in Sweden, where I live, to the point where a lot of people do not know how to play the opposite (positive free bids?). I have not, however, seen anyone play negative free bids at the 3-level. 3♦ would be forcing in this auction. A common agreement when playing NFB is, however, that double followed by a new suit is game forcing, so most players would probably interpret double followed by 3♦ as GF too.

[keylime]

I would say invitational but not forcing.

[rmnka447]

Agree with ArtK78 and mikeh.

3 ♦ directly over 2 ♥ is forcing -- virtually an opening hand.

Double followed by 3 ♦ shows less than enough to force with long ♦, roughly a good 9-11, non forcing invitational.

Pass followed by 3 ♦ if opener reopens with a double, not enough to double, but long ♦ -- could be 6+ ♦ and not much else.