[EUVID]

♦In the November ACBL Bridge Bulletin, both hands in The Bidding Box Problem 3 on pg 30, were bid the same way. Using the 2h double negative, the bidding went P-2♣-2♥-3♦-4♦-6♦. The comment was that in both cases, the 3D was forcing for 1 round. I wondered why the bid was forcing. Was it by mutual agreement or was it standard? After the responder shows 0 tricks shouldn't opener be allowed a non-forcing bid at the 3 level? Any thoughts?

Euvid

[mike777]

Meaning of 2H double negative is very vague, many play 2h bidder could have up to 12 small QJ HCPs.

[Robert]

Hello EUVID

Opening 2Cs with a 'main' minor suit often requires a stronger hand than opening a major suit 2C bid.

Edgar Kaplan opened some fairly light 2C bids holding long majors, his 2C bids with a minor suit as the main feature required 10+ tricks.

Many players and systems use methods that allow opening to bid and rebid his major suit and they allow responder to pass a rebid of 3M with zero hopes of a trick. Opener often needed only 9+ tricks to open 2C in a major.

Bidding a minor suit is 'forcing' for one round because it cannot be bid and rebid at the three level.

My agreements are that a first bid in a minor at the three level 2C-2D-3m is 100% forcing on partner. Whether or not I am playing a double negative 2H bid, the 3m would still be forcing.

Regards,
Robert

[HeartA]

Without 2H double negative, 2C opening forces to 3M or 4m (could stop b4 game). With 2H double negative, any non-jump rebid is not 100% forcing, imo.

[EricK]

It depends how much strength is promised by the 2♣ opener.

Many people play that it is one trick short of game (or stronger) and so would be forcing to 2NT, 3M or 4m.

It is not clear to me why playing a double negative should affect this. After all, not playing a double negative doesn't prevent partner from actually holding a zero point hand!

Eric

[luke warm]

this is one reason i don't like the double negative, tho fred and others make a good case for using it... i prefer to play that a 2C opening is 100% game force, which to me means it should ask responder *something*... points, controls, shape, anything that opener can use

[bearmum]

EUVID, on Dec 4 2005, 03:31 PM, said:

♦In the November ACBL Bridge Bulletin, both hands in The Bidding Box Problem 3 on pg 30, were bid the same way.  Using the 2h double negative, the bidding went P-2♣-2♥-3♦-4♦-6♦.  The comment was that in both cases, the 3D was forcing for 1 round.  I wondered why the bid was forcing.  Was it by mutual agreement or was it standard?  After the responder shows 0 tricks shouldn't opener be allowed a non-forcing bid at the 3 level? Any thoughts?

Euvid

Surely even after 2♣ (assuming 2♣GAME force??) 2♥(neg) ANYBID HAS to be forcing for one round or the whole system is flawed

It's up to partnership aggreement WHAT bid constituted a "second" neg bid BUT in the example quoted I would thing that 3♥ WOULD be a bid saying "Partner I REALLY have a complete bust --- and no support for your ♦'s --- proceed at YOUR peril BUT I responded bcause your 3♦ was forcing

IF 2♣ NOT Game force then I would expect that 3♦ COULD be passed with a REALLY weak hand with a tolerence for ♦ ( but I suspect that is NOT what the question was about )

[mikeh]

Playing 2♥ immediate negative logically requires that opener's rebids of 2♠, 3♣/♦/♥ be forcing.

This is true regardless of whether 2♣ announces a gf. It has the effect of rendering a 3♥ rebid by opener as essentially forcing to game, and the same is almost as strongly the case if opener rebids a minor.

Why?

If opener has, for example, A AKQxx AKQxx Ax: we would all open that 2♣.

Partner bids an unsurprising 2♥.

We are virtually cold for slam in either red suit if partner fits one of them. If 3♥ by us is passable, what are we to do? Partner has, for instance, xxxxx xx Jxxx xx.

If 3♥ can be passed, he will pass it! Yet 6♦ is almost laydown and 7 has a play.

The point is that opener may have a complex hand: a hand that needs more than two rounds of bidding and that cannot afford to jump.

This approach requires that the 2♣ bid be a truly strong bid whenever opener is going to rebid a minor or ♥. A recent thread contained a strong hand with a ♠ suit of AKJxxx. The posters were split on whether the hand (I forget the exact details of the rest of the hand) was worth a 2♣ opening. Fred felt that it was, for reasons he set forth. I felt that it was perhaps shy by the ♠10. My guess is that Fred might well have opened 1♥ if the ♠ suit had been changed to ♥'s.

You may lose out once in a while by reaching a poor contract: playin 4♥ when you might have played 3♥ had 3♥ been non-forcing. But you will reach the correct game or slam on other hands, where playing 3♥ non-forcing would have left opener with no practical bidding strategy.

As I have said before, a coherent bidding method must be fully integrated. Thus, if you play 2♥ immediate negative, you should open heavy one bids when your suit is not ♠'s and responder should stretch to respond. This takes the strain off the 2♣ bid, and allows rebids of 3m or 3♥ to be played as forcing without consistently over-reaching.

[Winstonm]

EUVID, on Dec 3 2005, 09:31 PM, said:

♦In the November ACBL Bridge Bulletin, both hands in The Bidding Box Problem 3 on pg 30, were bid the same way.  Using the 2h double negative, the bidding went P-2♣-2♥-3♦-4♦-6♦.  The comment was that in both cases, the 3D was forcing for 1 round.  I wondered why the bid was forcing.  Was it by mutual agreement or was it standard?  After the responder shows 0 tricks shouldn't opener be allowed a non-forcing bid at the 3 level? Any thoughts?

Euvid

If you think about it logically, what kind of hand would open 2C, holding a minor, then bid a minor? Balanced and semi-balanced minor hands would typically be shown as a big NT pattern - so minor bids are unbalaned - and if unbalanced must be quite strong in playing strength: two suited or 1 suited.

It only makes logical sense to play the 3-level minor bids as forcing to allow opener to reveal his hand - forcing to 3N or 4 of the minor.

Winston

[Kalvan14]

Any suit bid by 2♣ opener is forcing one round (even after a double negative).

Maybe people should reconsider their 2♣ bids, if they want to stop below game