[DWM]

1♣ (X) XX (1♥)
2♣ (P) 2♠

Is the 2♠ forcing?

[SoTired]

100% forcing

[ochinko]

First of all, what is the meaning of the redouble? I play it as 10+ HCP, any distribution, but YMMV.

Second, how do you play a new suit after a double, i.e. what would
1♣ (X) 1/2♠
mean? I play it strictly non-forcing, so new suit after a redouble would be forcing.

It's important in a partnership to have an agreement on these two questions.

If you're not sure you should treat it as forcing, because otherwise the bidding doesn't have much sense, just like the bidding of a new suit from a player that made a t/o double.

Edit: Actually, there's a generalized rule that says you should treat any bid you don't understand as forcing. Take it with a grain of salt, but keep it in mind.

[helene_t]

Must be forcing but it's a funny call, unless an immediate 1♠ would have been NF so that all strong hands start with a redouble.

With a five-card or good four-card responder could have bid the suit immediately and I don't think it makes much sense to show a modest four-card now that opener bypassed 1♠. Maybe 2♠ here just shows a concentration of values, probably a good 3-card. Maybe it's a probe for 3NT, emphasizing a leak in diamonds.

[SoTired]

Current common method is a 1-level response after a t/o dbl is forcing, a 2-level response is not forcing, raises are all <10, and 2N shows a LR+.

Older common method was XX made on all 10+ hands.

But XX has always been 10+ and XX followed by a new suit is forcing.

(And NOBODY will even mention transfer responses over the X in the B/I forum, I hope)

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Must be forcing but it's a funny call, unless an immediate 1♠ would have been NF so that all strong hands start with a redouble.

Even if it's forcing, you can still get into trouble.

1♣ X 1♠ P
2♣ P ?

What do you plan to bid with 5 spades, GF strength, but wide open in a red suit? If you bid 2♦ now, will partner take that as new minor forcing, or a long diamond suit? Thing can get confusing fast.

XXer should have a 13 count or more...possibly a lot more. The original XX was 10+, but if he only had a balanced 10-12 he'd probably pass the 2♣. While I suppose it's possible that you don't have game, due to no fit and not enough stoppers, you should certainly have the count!

I would bid my red suit stoppers, if any.

[Chamaco]

In std, the redouble shows invitational+ strength, so 100 % forcing, no masterminding possible.

Only possible signoffs below game are now 2NT or 3 of opener or responder's suit

[Gerben42]

Rule #1: Redouble is forcing until 2NT or something doubled by the opponents. From this, it logically follows that you must have a good hand (10+) for your XX.

Rule #2: A new suit on the 1-level is forcing.

So what does this 2♠ show? First it must be at least 5 cards (no point bidding them with less), and secondly it must not be a good suit as that would start with 1♠. A possible hand:

---

It is best to start with a redouble as you can double 3 of the 5 denominations and your ♠ suit is not great.

[whereagles]

a good rule is "rdbl is forcing through 2NT or dbl of opps"

[skjaeran]

This is obviously forcing, unless you have very non-standard agreements.
1♠ over the double would be forcing for me. This bidding suggest a hand that would double at least two of the unbid suits. Probably a not so great ♠ suit (5-card).

[inquiry]

BIL thread, forcing. No questions about it.

[reisig]

Firing squads were invented for partners that Pass this bid.

[whereagles]

reisig, on May 22 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

Firing squads were invented for partners that Pass this bid.

No, they were invented for deserters.

Oh wait, that's someone who passes 2♠

LOL

[helene_t]

whereagles, on May 22 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

a good rule is "rdbl is forcing through 2NT or dbl of opps"

I don't think so. In standard methods, a direct bid by opener after responder's redouble is weaker than a pass. So
1♥-(x)-xx-(1♠)
2m*

is not forcing.

[redbird97]

Most people would treat 2s as forcing for one round.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on May 23 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

whereagles, on May 22 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

a good rule is "rdbl is forcing through 2NT or dbl of opps"

I don't think so. In standard methods, a direct bid by opener after responder's redouble is weaker than a pass. So
1♥-(x)-xx-(1♠)
2m*

is not forcing.

Touché Let me rephrase the rule then

"bids by responder after rdbl are forcing through 2NT or dbl of opps"

Seems better now.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on May 23 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

whereagles, on May 22 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

a good rule is "rdbl is forcing through 2NT or dbl of opps"

I don't think so. In standard methods, a direct bid by opener after responder's redouble is weaker than a pass. So
1♥-(x)-xx-(1♠)
2m*

is not forcing.

Are you sure ?

I'd think it shows a distributional hand looking for the chance of game even opposite a minimum redouble hand.

To me even this auction is still forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit

The fact that opener does not pass is NOT a statement of being minimumu
The 2m bid has not STRENGTH implication, but rather SHAPE implication, e.g. regardless of being minimum or maximum, opener strongly dislikes the idea of penalizing the opps because our side can do better if we buy the contract.
Typically, a 65/55/64 hand short in opps suit, any hcp range

This can occur indipendently from the fact that we have full values for game or just fall short of the game requirements

I think that opener should be allowed to bid out his shape without this being considered as a "weak bid", for the same reason why 1M-(X)- a responder with 4 trumps and limit+ hand will start with a shapeshowing bid rather than redoubling

In this case it is opener's turn who would be supposed to PASS to show strength, but a shapely hand, even if strong, often gains by showing it ASAP, before opps can bounce and leave us badly placed because we did not clarify or shape earlier

I shall add one more personal opinion: even if "standard" disagree in some cases, I think it is more practical to use a SINGLE rule of thumb, saying that when opener and responder hold an opening hand (1st/2nd seat) vs a limit+ hand, bidding is ALWAYS forcing to 2NT or 3m.

In some cases we'll go overboard (it wd be not the first nor the last time, oh well...), but the less exceptions there are, the less burrden on memory, and the less bidding disasters (e.g. having to "create" forcing bids distorting the hands just in order to keep the GF on ... or sometimes stopping in 2M when we are cold for a vulnerable games...we've seen it happen dozens of times )

[DWM]

---

This was the hand that I held.

Now P has bid spades I assume it is correct to bid 3♠ to show support.

Did bidding 2♣ show extra strength or could it be made on distribution? I bid it because I thought the singleton ♥ plus the 6th ♣ with 3 of the top 5 made this hand worth the free bid.

[whereagles]

Chamaco, on May 23 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

The 2m bid has not STRENGTH implication, but rather SHAPE implication, e.g. regardless of being minimum or maximum, opener strongly dislikes the idea of penalizing the opps because our side can do better if we buy the contract.

Well, the standard meaning of 2m bids like

1♥ (dbl) rdbl (1♠)
2m

is that of 'weakish, distributional offensive hand'. I'm not sure most would remove the 'weakish' from the descrition.

[whereagles]

DWM, on May 24 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

1. Now P has bid spades I assume it is correct to bid 3♠ to show support.

2. Did bidding 2♣ show extra strength or could it be made on distribution?

1. Yes

2. See post above. Most play it as distribution and weakish hand.