[jillybean]

Sanity check, and if it changes anything, IMPS, NV

1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♦
P   P   3♠  P

[aguahombre]

This is a partnership choice, not a sanity check, IMO. Either choice is sane. We play it non-forcing, but a bit stronger than:

1m-1S
1N-3S would have been...because in your scenario Opener cannot be expected to have even 2 Spades. So, the ten-counts with six spades won't be rebidding 3S in your OP case.

[jillybean]

 aguahombre, on 2015-January-05, 12:46, said:

This is a partnership choice, not a sanity check, IMO. Either choice is sane. We play it non-forcing, but a bit stronger than:

1m-1S
1N-3S would have been...because in your scenario Opener cannot be expected to have even 2 Spades. So, the ten-counts with six spades won't be rebidding 3S in your OP case.

Why can't we expect 2 spades?

[aguahombre]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-05, 12:51, said:

Why can't we expect 2 spades?

Because Partner didn't get a chance to rebid 1NT. He might have 1-4-2-6 or any number of distributions which would not have rebid 1NT. He might have 2 Spades, but it is not a guarantee, or even close to a guarantee.

[jillybean]

sorry, I still don't understand. '1nt is not available which I think makes it more likely partner has 2 spades. She didn't make a support double or rebid clubs.
edit it is not guaranteed that partner will have 2 spades but its a definite possibility

If this was a question of partnership agreements I wouldn't need forums to make a sanity check, I didn't think I needed to state that this is a casual partnership.

[whereagles]

In stone age SAYC this used to be forcing. I think the definition gradually changed meanwhile to NF, invite.

[nige1]

IMO after
1♣ (1♦) 1♠ (2♦)
_P (_P) ??

• _X = T/O.
• 2♠/2N = NAT. NF.
• 2♥/3♣ = NAT. F1.
• 3♠ = NAT. INV. Good suit.
• 3♦ = ART. FG.

[mgoetze]

Certainly feels like it should be invitational with both X and 3♦ available for stronger hands (not to mention 4♠).

[helene_t]

 whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 13:54, said:

In stone age SAYCGoren this used to be forcing. I think the definition gradually changed meanwhile to NF, invite.

FYP but otherwise I agree.

[biggerclub]

The best way to approach bidding is to ask yourself "will partner think this is forcing" instead of "is this forcing".

Here, as Nige1 points out, there are a couple of unambiguously forcing bids available so I concur that 3S is INV with something like KQxxxx(x) (Holding either the J or T9 if only six deep) plus at least a K outside and not more than KQ outside.

[jillybean]

 biggerclub, on 2015-January-05, 16:54, said:

The best way to approach bidding is to ask yourself "will partner think this is forcing" instead of "is this forcing".

I disagree. Without agreements I think you need to approach it by asking "what is expert standard" otherwise you will be masterminding many of your partners bids, they will never learn to bid correctly, and you will develop bad habits.

[whereagles]

It's not masterminding.. it's thinking ahead. You win IMPs at the table, not in the post-mortem.

[jillybean]

 whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 18:18, said:

It's not masterminding.. it's thinking ahead. You win IMPs at the table, not in the post-mortem.

I would rather play good bridge, the imps will follow.

[whereagles]

In a perfect world, yes. In this world, usually, but not always.

To win consistently, you have to take CHO into account, not just opponents. It took me like 10 years to learn this eheh.

[Mbodell]

I sort of agree with both of you about this. I think Jillybean is right that you should try to make the correct bids and assume your partner will rise to your expectations for the best long run development of both you and your partner. Unless you are playing in some sort of super high stakes temporary thing where you want to mortgage the future for safe bids, make what you think is the "right" bid and then learn from there. The other exception being playing with someone who is a total beginner or has no interest in learning more (or for whom learning more might not be appropriate at this stage of their development - say you've only just taught partners the basics of basic stayman. This is not the best time to bid 1nt-2♣-2♥-3♠ no matter what you hold).

But having said all that, you either know what "expert standard" is. In which case you just follow it. Or you don't know or aren't sure. In which case you ask yourself "will an expert partner who maybe isn't sure of expert standard think this is forcing?". Because if it is forcing or non-forcing in expert standard, and you don't know that, and your partner does - you are at a guess anyways. If both of you are sure, you have no problem. If both of you are unsure, your reasoning out what partner will expect will land you in the right place. Also, in part of reasoning this you might discover what expert standard is. I suspect here it is that it is non-forcing, for the reasons a bunch of folks have said. It just makes sense to me that there are other ways we can bid forcing hands. I can't think of very many problem hands that are solved by this being available as a forcing call, and think invitational and natural (as opposed to a competitive and natural 2♠) seems to fit. Now as always, in addition to worrying about "expert standard" you have to worry about "partnership agreement" about this sequence, but also "partnership agreement" about many other potential sequences. For instance, what would 2nt instead of 3♠ be. If 2nt is artificial and forcing in some way, then you have 2♠, 2nt...3♠, and 3♠ all available for different meanings. Now, maybe you'd define going though 2nt to show a good invite instead of a bad one (or vice versa) or maybe you'd make direct 3♠ forcing and 2nt...3♠ as invitational. Or maybe 2nt is suggesting a second place to play (spades and either partial club support or hearts) and you need 2nt-3♥-3♠ to just be all inv hands that also have secondary club support. But of course X could show that too, but maybe you want X to be more suggestive of penalty and 2nt more suggestive of shape and not strength. Also, need to consider what 2♠ over 1♦ would have been. If that is weak spades then 2 spades over 2 diamonds might have mild invitational tones. If that is an invitational jump, 3♠ now probably should be forcing because you don't have that invitational range in this sequence. If it was a fit showing jump, then it impacts which hands might try an artificial 2nt call here. etc.

But despite all of that, I still think NF inv makes sense by default. But if we knew the rest of your bidding agreements we might reason differently.