[francosca]

How do you interpret the following sequence (opps passing)
Playing 11-14 NT
you 1♦
pard 1♠
you 3♦ 15-17 HCP unbalanced invite to 3 NT ? with balanced hand rebid would be 1NT
Pard 3 ♠

[masse24]

Not only forcing, but 100% Game-Forcing.
With a weak misfit, responder just passes.

[gszes]

masse24, on 2015-June-24, 16:52, said:

Not only forcing, but 100% Game-Forcing.
With a weak misfit, responder just passes.

I echo the above and want to throw in some reasoning. The % of hands where stopping in 3s is correct is tiny. It is generally much better to use the 3s bid as forcing to allow for the partnership to explore for the proper contract. This is true even if you have a weak misfit opposite diamonds and really really really prefer to be in spades QJTxxx xxx void Kxxx or some such:)))

[ggwhiz]

I agree.

Although the 3♦ bid is very descriptive it has chewed up a lot of important bidding space. Responder may have long spades, short diamonds and ambitions for the correct game or even slam in spades, diamonds or even notrump and need to find out which.

That as opposed to needing to play in exactly 3♠? As pointed out, you just pass 3♦ with that and still have a decent chance of landing on your feet.

[helene_t]

How universal is the agreement that it is forcing to game? I have seen gib passing a subsequent 4d bid by opener. Makes sense. Responder is captain.

[Jinksy]

I have seen the auction 1♦ 2♣ / P from GiB, so I don't put much weight in what it thinks is forcing

That said, I think there's virtually no such thing as a 100% forcing bid by a limited hand.

[Vampyr]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-27, 04:18, said:

I have seen the auction 1♦ 2♣ / P from GiB, so I don't put much weight in what it thinks is forcing

That said, I think there's virtually no such thing as a 100% forcing bid by a limited hand.

Is responder limited? Really?

[gwnn]

He means that opener is limited so his 4D in 3rd round shouldn't be forcing

[rmnka447]

3 ♠ should show 5+ ♠ and is forward going. With a minimum response, responder can just pass 3 ♦.

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2015-June-27, 11:13, said:

He means that opener is limited so his 4D in 3rd round shouldn't be forcing

The concept of a bid being non-forcing bid after partner has forced to game is a new one for me.

[gszes]

There is a rather huge difference btn forcing and game forcing. Forcing merely means partner cannot pass (unless lho does something other than pass) the forcing bid. A great example 1n p 2d (transfer) p 2h. The 2d bid was forcing but not necessarily game forcing. 2/1 a simple sequence of 1s 2c 2d the 2c bid created a game forcing situation and thus the 2d bid is forcing because of the game force created earlier with 2c. 1h 1s p 2h this cue bid (invitational + raise of spades) is forcing but not game forcing. It is important for partnerships to iron out which sequences are what and starting with the same terminology is a good start:))))))))))))))))))))))))

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-27, 15:53, said:

The concept of a bid being non-forcing bid after partner has forced to game is a new one for me.

Well obviously if our agreement is that the subseqent 4♦ bid is nonforcing, we would call the 3♠ bid a one round force.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-June-29, 06:01, said:

Well obviously if our agreement is that the subseqent 4♦ bid is nonforcing, we would call the 3♠ bid a one round force.

Well, yes. The comment I was responding to was about 4♦ itself being GF -- presumably if 3♠ wasn't, but that was not the context of the comment.

[MrAce]

I think Vampyr has a valid point. I upvoted the post that says 3♠ is GF. Thus 4♦ must also be forcing.

[WellSpyder]

There are a number of occasions after bids that are loosely described as game-forcing where it can be desirable to be able to stop in 4 of a minor, which does, after all, require you to make as many tricks as a number of game contracts, and more than the most common game contract. However, my experience has been that it simply isn't worth the effort of worrying about them and the possible confusion that can arise, so you might as well play "game-forcing" bids as actually forcing to game.

[Cyberyeti]

masse24, on 2015-June-24, 16:52, said:

Not only forcing, but 100% Game-Forcing.
With a weak misfit, responder just passes.

Exactly, and depending on your methods may well have already kicked off with 2♠ with the weak hand

[SteveMoe]

3♠ is at least forcing one more round. If opener rebids 4♦ that can be passed. Not happy, but when we are in a misfit, I fall back on "forcing to 3N or higher". Of course if my ♠ are good, I might consider 4♠.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-27, 15:53, said:

The concept of a bid being non-forcing bid after partner has forced to game is a new one for me.

In my system notes I define the term GF to mean "forcing to 3NT" and UGF is then "unconditionally game forcing", meaning that it is not possible to stop in 4 of a minor. I believe PK also has specific sequences where it is possible to stop in 4m in auctions where an alternative (not stronger) bid would effectively be UGF. It is something of a matter of terminology of course but I do not think it is quite as uncommon as you might think.