[pclayton]

Ordinary 2/1 - opps silent

1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2N - 3♦?

[rogerclee]

I voted for NF too quickly, and I actually think this is forcing.

Probably a hand that would accept a 2N invite but is 4-6 in the minors and is offering 5C/5D as alternative contracts.

[helene_t]

Agree with Roger. It doesn't make too much sense to bid 3♦ NF when responder might not have diamonds. Especially if playing a style in which minimum 45 minors hands usually open 1♦.

[han]

Yes forcing.

[Cascade]

I usually play a general rule that 3minor is NF after 2NT and 3Major is forcing. There are exceptions of course.

Here I think if 3♦ is not forcing then you have no way to offer a choice of games. It seems to me to be much useful to do that than offer a choice of part-scores.

So I think this one is forcing.

[inquiry]

2♣ was not forcing, limited hand
2NT was not forcing, invite to game
3♦, despite the last two not-forcing bids, is now forcing

This might be a sad day, if responder is terribly short in hearts, and weak. But in that case, you just have to pass 2NT. It is impratical to play 3♦ as non-forcing here.

[jdonn]

OBV forcing!

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Feb 4 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

This might be a sad day, if responder is terribly short in hearts, and weak. But in that case, you just have to pass 2NT. It is impratical to play 3♦ as non-forcing here.

I would have interpreted it as 2-1-4-6 and 16 hcp with all points in the minors, or something so close to that as to be indistinguishable. Therefore, it should not be forcing.

Let me give an example: xx x AKxx AKJxxx.

That's a super max...most people would not merely rebid 2♣ with that. But there's a decided possiblity that we don't have game here...we may have three quick losers in the majors and, I dunno, 7 losers off the top in 3NT? Something like that. Sure, that's giving partner four queens and two pointy jacks, but hey, those hands happen.

The thing is, the bid shows _such_ a specific hand that I think making it 'forcing' is nonsense. Sure, it shows a hand where we have a combined 24+ hcp, so we 'ought' to have game somewhere. But to me, there's something wrong with laying your hand out, letting your partner inspect your cards, and then 'forcing' him to do something. It's not that I think that my vision of the hand is different from other people's, it's just my philosophy on bridge in general.

Glad I read this thread!

[gwnn]

JT, is 4 queens and 2 pointy jacks really an invite to you?

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Feb 4 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

JT, is 4 queens and 2 pointy jacks really an invite to you?

Sure, why not? Not only could we have 27 hcp together, but I expect 2NT to score a lot better than 2♣ if partner declines. I'm not embarrassed by quacks when I'm inviting for NT.

If the question was is 3♦ a weak bid, I agree that it cannot be.

[pclayton]

Occasional partner passed this in the Sunday Swiss (not playing with me). He held ♠KTxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx ♣x.

Pard had ♠--♥Axx ♦KJxx ♣AQxxxx.

The other table bid 6 which rolled home. Lose a ton.

[gwnn]

too bad diamonds weren't 4-1 or the Q wasnt offside

[Cascade]

Six is a lot of diamonds. Its not clear which table were in the worst contract.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

pclayton, on Feb 5 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

He held ♠KTxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx ♣x.

He bid 1 ♠ after 1♣?

Wow, he found the best wa to burn any red suit contract.
Oh not really, he found a solution by passing 3 Diamonds...

[pclayton]

Codo, on Feb 4 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 5 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

He held ♠KTxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx ♣x.

He bid 1 ♠ after 1♣?

Wow, he found the best wa to burn any red suit contract.
Oh not really, he found a solution by passing 3 Diamonds...

This is how it was reported to me. I'm pretty sure he bid 1♥ but it has no effect on the problem posted.

[cherdano]

I admit I didn't think this is so clear. The 2♣ bidder is limited and is making a natural bid. While it does obviously show extras and values for game, why shouldn't responder be allowed to guess to pass with no heart stopper and values that don't look right for 5m? S.th. like QJxx Jxx Kxxx KJ?
To me that would be similar to passing a strong jump shift after having responded on a 0-count, so maybe I am just arguing about semantics.

Of course, the actual hand has no business passing 3♦.

[skjaeran]

Forcing to me. Can't see any nearly sane reason for this to be NF.