forcing?
#1
Posted 2014-August-21, 08:31
p-3♦-p-4♣
Is this forcing?
We had a little misunderstanding with paulg about this while trying the uBid app.
George Carlin
#2
Posted 2014-August-21, 08:38
I can see a case for playing it as forcing, though. Advancer could use the 4♦ bid to look for a 4-3 fit in a major while using the 4♣ bid to show a hand suitable for a club slam. Maybe advancer could bid a 3-card major instead of 4♦, but I am not sure if 3♣ denies a 4-card major. Of course advancer won't usually have a 4-card major.
#3
Posted 2014-August-21, 09:40
Even so I would never assume this was forcing without specific agreement to the contrary.
#4
Posted 2014-August-21, 13:30
If 3♣ didn't show values, it's non-forcing.
#5
Posted 2014-August-21, 20:07
Trust demands integrity, balance and collaboration.
District 11
Unit 124
Steve Moese
#6
Posted 2014-August-22, 02:44
SteveMoe, on 2014-August-21, 20:07, said:
It might just be a matter of terminology but in my system document I use the term GF to mean "forcing to 3NT" with UGF meaning unconditionally forcing to game. The difference is precisely what Andy wrote - the rule about whether it is possible to stop in 4m after trying for 3NT. So 3♦ being GF alone is not enough to say for certain whether 4♣ is forcing - the general rule takes precedence here.
To me, if there is no other agreement in place (pick up partnership) then it should be non-forcing, since 4♦ is available to force with litle cost. But perhaps that is simply a reflection of my personal logic rather than how the rest of the world views things.
#7
Posted 2014-August-22, 03:57
He would have preferred me bidding NT of a major suit, but I could not do that, sorry.
I don't like the concept that GF bidding may end up in 4♣ or 4♦ when 3NT was not biddable.
It makes for awkward slam bidding.
Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul. (Nige1)
#8
Posted 2014-August-22, 04:08
dicklont, on 2014-August-22, 03:57, said:
It makes for awkward slam bidding.
Not if you play a direct raise to Four as forcing (and therefore a slam try). This frees up the cue bid to explore other denominations and still stop in 4m. Even if I cue and remove 3NT to 4m that's nf for me.
But I certainly would not call something GF if I play it as nothing of the kind.
#9
Posted 2014-August-22, 05:33
Zelandakh, on 2014-August-22, 02:44, said:
Was there something wrong with the established usage of "F3NT" for "forcing to 3NT" and "FG" for "forcing to game"?
#11
Posted 2014-August-22, 09:14
barmar, on 2014-August-22, 09:07, said:
"F3N", without saying "FG" naturally implies 4m can be dropped. We don't need anything else to cover it.