[mgoetze]

---

What does this show? Is it forcing?

[masonbarge]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-29, 15:13, said:

---

What does this show? Is it forcing?

Ten or 11 cards in the black suits. I'd treat it as forcing. If he didn't want to force, why didn't he bid 2♠ instead of confusing you?

[karlson]

I think forcing (I guess I would even play it as game forcing), probably 6 spades but not good enough to insist on them.

[Phil]

0. What is 1♥ - 2♠?
1. 3♠ over 2♦ is invitational with good ODR.
2. X then 2♠ is invitational with bad ODR.
3. X then 3♠ is GF.

[mike777]

I don't know but I will not pass 2s

[cherdano]

Non-forcing and invitational. It obviously shows a hand that was willing to play 2♦X, but also a hand with some flexibility about strain. The prototypical shape is 6=2=1=4 (the same way the prototypical shape for a takeout double is 4441) - could be 6=2=2=3, or 6=1=2=4, etc. I don't think a 7-ard spade suit is possible.

[whereagles]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-29, 15:13, said:

---

What does this show? Is it forcing?

I don't know. But I do know I would never, ever do it with such an intention.

Pard may not be on the same wavelength, and I'd rather win at table than in the post-mortem.

[MrAce]

It is definitely NF to me.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

at the table, I would have said NF, without thinking to much.
On reflection, I do think it is forcing.
Weak with a 6 carder, could have been shown direct, inv. with a
6 carder could have been shown direct as well. Hence forcing is left.

2S has to be a 6 carder, since suppX are in place (my assumption).
On the other hand, if you want to force to game you can bid 3D.

So ..., without discussion the bid is terrible.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mgoetze]

 P_Marlowe, on 2015-February-02, 03:18, said:

So ..., without discussion the bid is terrible.

Do you want to know what else is terrible? Having your fit confirmed at the 4 level and then not being able to probe for slam any more intelligently than just blindly bidding Blackwood. Even worse, with your proposed solution of 3♦, if I have a slam-interested hand with 6 spades, I don't even know whether it is safe to bid 4♠ if partner bids 3NT!

I guess you can argue that when the opponents overcall at the 2 level vulnerable we can't afford to worry too much about missing slam, but I'm not sure I agree.

 Phil, on 2015-January-29, 23:23, said:

0. What is 1♥ - 2♠?

For now it is actually invitational with 6 spades but the plan is to change it to a forcing heart raise at some point in the future.

[P_Marlowe]

 mgoetze, on 2015-February-02, 04:57, said:

Do you want to know what else is terrible? Having your fit confirmed at the 4 level and then not being able to probe for slam any more intelligently than just blindly bidding Blackwood. Even worse, with your proposed solution of 3♦, if I have a slam-interested hand with 6 spades, I don't even know whether it is safe to bid 4♠ if partner bids 3NT!

<snip>

My solution would involve Good-Bad, which would make a direct 3S forcing, showing 6+.

[cherdano]

 karlson, on 2015-January-29, 22:45, said:

I think forcing (I guess I would even play it as game forcing), probably 6 spades but not good enough to insist on them.

Why couldn't such a hand just cuebid 3♦?

[karlson]

 cherdano, on 2015-February-02, 06:39, said:

Why couldn't such a hand just cuebid 3♦?

I guess I think 3♦ should be reserved for hands with clearer direction? I want to leave open the option of defending, and I also (as mgoetze says above) don't really want to guess whether to pull 3n.

But I don't feel that strongly about this, obviously playing it NF would work fine.

[PhilKing]

Being able to double then bid 2♠ non-forcing is an absolutely brilliant idea. The trouble is, that when we doubled, we had no way of knowing that it would go pass-2♥-pass. leading to this convenient position.

For me, this is game forcing. With an invitational hand, we bid an appropriate number of spades earlier.

[aguahombre]

 P_Marlowe, on 2015-February-02, 06:14, said:

My solution would involve Good-Bad, which would make a direct 3S forcing, showing 6+.

At risk of diverting this interesting thread to a side issue, IMO "good-bad" advocates should rethink applying it when the opponents don't necessarily have a fit in the interference suit. There are probably better uses for 2NT in these cases.

We also restrict it to Opener's second call, not responder's.

[cherdano]

 PhilKing, on 2015-February-03, 06:01, said:

Being able to double then bid 2♠ non-forcing is an absolutely brilliant idea. The trouble is, that when we doubled, we had no way of knowing that it would go pass-2♥-pass. leading to this convenient position.

For me, this is game forcing. With an invitational hand, we bid an appropriate number of spades earlier.

For once, I don't understand your point. Of course, I would also play a direct 3♠ as invitational. But if you have, say, 6=2=1=4 with invitational values but a bad spade suit, then you are completely happy with any possible development after double.

[P_Marlowe]

 aguahombre, on 2015-February-03, 11:23, said:

At risk of diverting this interesting thread to a side issue, IMO "good-bad" advocates should rethink applying it when the opponents don't necessarily have a fit in the interference suit. There are probably better uses for 2NT in these cases.

We also restrict it to Opener's second call, not responder's.

For sure we could optimize our 2NT usage, but our rules differentiating
when it is art. / scrambling are fairly simple and still reasonable
effective.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mr1303]

If I wanted to force and to avoid a disaster, I wouldn't bid 2S here. So therefore I'd take it as non-forcing, but this is clearly a lot more encouraging than a direct 2S rather than doubling first.