[jillybean]

I am sure I've asked this before, what is this best way to play these sequences?

1♣:1♦
3♣:3♦ forcing/non forcing?

1♣:1♦
2♣:2♦ forcing/non forcing?

[ArtK78]

jillybean, on 2012-October-16, 09:57, said:

I am sure I've asked this before, what is this best way to play these sequences?

1♣:1♦
3♣:3♦ forcing/non forcing?

1♣:1♦
2♣:2♦ forcing/non forcing?

I would play the first one as forcing, since if responder has a weak hand, 3♣ is likely to be a reasonable spot. Being able to improving the contract by bidding a non-forcing 3♦ here is not nearly as important as setting up the bidding on game and slam hands once opener has shown a strong hand.

I would play the second one as non-forcing, as it is not unlikely that diamonds will play at least as well, and probably better, than clubs if responder has a weak hand with long diamonds. Responder can certainly come up with some call other than 2♦ with a good hand with long diamonds.

[mikeh]

The first one is clearly best played as forcing.

opener has shown a good hand....how good depends on style, but at least a great 15 would be seem as a minimum by just about everyone....and a 6+ card suit. If responder has no interest in game, responder passes.

The cost is when 3♦ is the better contract than 3♣. This will often be the case when responder has a long diamond suit with good internal texture, few values, and mediocre or worse club support. Thus there are undoubtedly hands on which playing nf would work out best.

As against that, the difference will rarely be more an a trick or two, and we are talking about improving a low-scoring partial. And on some of the hands where we'd be tempted to bid a nf 3♦, it would turn out that 3♣ was at least as good a contract.

We have then to see how that undoubted cost/frequency stacks up against the 'forcing' style.

We have the preponderance of hcp...even if we respond light, and we are probably less prone to stretch to respond 1♦ than we are to bid a major, we have at least 20 hcp and silent opps....who almost certainly hold more major suit cards than we do and who both could have bid at the 1 level and chose instead to pass.

This means that there must be a high percentage of hands for responder on which he has gf values opposite the jump rebid: far higher than if you just did a simulation without regard to the opps' hands. On many sims, where opener is given a 3♣ rebid and we allow responder a weak hand with long diamonds, we'd find that we had dealt one or both opps hands on which they would/should be bidding.

If we accept that proposition, then we can see that using 3♦ as forcing helps us with our constructive auctions. Admittedly, on many (most) such hands, responder will be bidding 3N or 3M (the latter to suggest 3N) but 3♦ nevertheless will be useful, indeed necessary, on many hands where the prize is not getting to the right 3m contract but finding the best game or the best slam (or staying out of bad high-level contracts).

As for the second sequence, once again I think it normal to play 2♦ as a one round force, unless you have agreed, for example, that 2♥ is artificial or that 2N is forcing. You need some way to keep the bidding alive without jumping or being overly committal. You can't, for example, simply raise clubs in a forcing way while keeping 3N in play.

And once again, the issue is one of cost/benefit. There will be few hands on which 2♦ will be better than 2♣ (not: no hands). In addition, the inferences from the opps' silence are even stronger on this sequence than they are on the first. Now on hands on which we want 2♦ to be weak, the opps will often/usually hold more hcp and more majors than we, yet they have been passing throughout.

This suggests that we will frequently hold significant values when partner rebids 2♣, increasing the frequency with which we will want 2♦ to be F1.

[ArtK78]

In thinking about the second sequence some more, it may depend on what is the meaning of 2♦ over 1♣. If 2♦ over 1♣ is a weak jump shift, then the weak jump shift hands would include most of the hands where one would want to play diamonds rather than clubs. In that case, responding 1♦ and rebidding 2♦ over 2♣ should show values. Whether it should be forcing or not is another question, as 3♦ over 2♣ is available. Of course, one could play that the 3♦ rebid is natural and invitational, leaving the 2♦ rebid as forcing.

If a 2♦ response is intermediate or strong (or something else with diamonds which is not weak), then there is more of a case for the 2♦ rebid to be weak.

[bluecalm]

Matter of agreements but after 1D partner shouldn't have 4card major, nor 4 diamnods so he has 6+clubs. This means playing it as forcing doesn't lose much in partscore department but maybe very useful in game department.

Basically I want to say I agree with everything Mikeh said.

[jillybean]

Thanks , I was way off track.

[Vampyr]

I like to play all of these ABBA bids as forcing for simplicity's sake (well, would always play first case as forcing). It could be argued that at pairs, the likes of

1♠-2♣
3♣-3♠

should be non-forcing, so that you can play in a better-scoring contract than you would do if you passed 3♣.

[jillybean]

1♠:2♣ is game forcing for me.
3♣:3♠ is a 3 card spade raise, clubs could and probably are, short.

[CarlRitner]

jillybean, on 2012-October-16, 18:48, said:

1♠:2♣ is game forcing for me.
3♣:3♠ is a 3 card spade raise, clubs could and probably are, short.

Why would you say clubs could and probably are short?
3=(1-4)=5, 3=(2-3)=5 are fairly common shapes.

[jillybean]

2♣/1M is game forcing, clubs or balaned. If balanced clubs could be as short as 2. We bid 2♣/1♠ with a 3442 hand (yes, we alert)
2♦/1M promises 5. All other game forcing, balanced hands goe via 2♣

[CarlRitner]

jillybean, on 2012-October-16, 19:01, said:

2♣/1M is game forcing, clubs or balaned. If balanced clubs could be as short as 2. We bid 2♣/1♠ with a 3442 hand (yes, we alert)
2♦/1M promises 5. All other game forcing, balanced hands goe via 2♣

Got it. I've seen that 2C artificial method but never tried it.

[jillybean]

I love it. When we first started playing it there were a few raised eyebrows at the club and comments to the effect that we were off our rockers but now I find more pairs playing it.

[EricK]

It might be an improvement in overall system to play an immediate 3♦ response as the sort of hand which would want to make a NF 3♦ bid in your first sequence. You probably currently play it as a splinter, and you've very possibly never had a suitable hand!

[jillybean]

1M 3♦ is 7-9 4 card support for us

[EricK]

jillybean, on 2012-October-16, 23:12, said:

1M 3♦ is 7-9 4 card support for us

I was specifically referring to the 1♣ 3♦ sequence.

[jillybean]

Oh yes, sorry it was late

I'd say 1♣ 3♦ is 'undefined' in our system.

We do play xyz so 1♣ 1♦ 1x 2♣ is a relay to 2♦ which would seem to cover these hands where we want to stop
in a diamond part score. 3♦ seems like an overly specific target to aim for.

[jillybean]

How about 1m 1M 3m 3M?

Same rationale as above or is this nf and an effort to improve the part score? (MP's)

[Stephen Tu]

Same rationale, choice of games is more valuable than choice of partials, even at MP. If you really want to get to spades on these hands, play wjs (the 5-8 pt European way, not the 0-5 American way which almost never comes up) and prevent opener's 3c rebid.