[Cromlyn]

The bidding went:


1♥ 2♣ 2NT p

3♦?


My partner opens with 1♥ which is Acol and only shows a 4 card major and I have the awkward bid of 2NT to make, I held four clubs, 4 rags in diamonds, doubleton heart and Qxx in spades. My natural response was going to be 2♣. If I had three card support in hearts or four spades I would have doubled. I don't expect everyone to agree with me for not showing my four rags in diamonds but my question is do you agree with my partner who said her 3♦ bid was not forcing and that I should have passed it?

I thought it was forcing, showing extra values, showing the heart suit was five and I bid 3NT - contract going one down.

Is there any system in which it would not be forcing?

[campboy]

Cromlyn, on 2011-February-22, 05:04, said:

My partner opens with 1♥ which is Acol and only shows a 4 card major and I have the awkward bid of 2NT to make, I held four clubs, 4 rags in diamonds, doubleton heart and Qxx in spades. My natural response was going to be 2♣. If I had three card support in hearts or four spades I would have doubled. I don't expect everyone to agree with me for not showing my four rags in diamonds but my question is do you agree with my partner who said her 3♦ bid was not forcing and that I should have passed it?

I do expect everyone to agree with you for not bidding 2♦! Anyway, it is standard in the Acol-based circles I move in for 3♦ to be forcing. Obviously there will be hands where you wish it wasn't but the hands where you want it to be forcing are both more common and more important.

[helene_t]

It doesn't matter much what system you play here. As long as 2NT is a limit bid.

I can understand that opener, having only promised four hearts, would like 3♦ here to be forcing, giving responder a choice between 3NT, 5♦ and 4♥. Assuming that responder could still have three hearts. I don't understand your comment that you would have doubled if you had three hearts. Surely double promises (or at least strongly suggests) 4+ spades.

But 2NT is a very descriptive bid and opener has to take charge. To offer a choice of game he can just bid 3♣, responder will show a diamond suit or 3-card heart support then.

Especially if playing the popular English style with light openings, 3♦ has to be a contract improvement. 2NT denies four spades and with 5+ clubs you would probably have made a trap pass so with 5-5 in the red suits and ten HCPs, opener calculates that 3♦ or 3♥ will play better than 2NT. With three hearts you take it back and otherwise you pass.

This is similar to the uncontested auction
1♦-2NT
3♣
which is more obviously non-forcing.

[Free]

Basically you have 2 ways of looking at the problem:
- opener wants to be able to continue bidding constructively. He will pass 2NT with any minimum hand, and bidding a new suit is forcing. Jumps are autosplinters.
- opener wants to be able to find the best partscore. He will bid game with pretty much every GF hand, but bidding a new suit without a jump is NF. With a good 2-suiter he'll have to go past 3NT, or start with a cuebid. With a minimum hand and fairly balanced he'll just pass like any other system.

Both approaches have their (dis)advantages. Best is to agree with partner what method you'll both apply in similar cases.

[barmar]

If 3♦ isn't forcing, how would opener show a strong 2-suiter without forcing past 3NT? As Free points out, he could make a cue bid, but then he'll have to bid something on the 4 level to show his second suit.

it's not too bad when the interference is in clubs. When opener cues 3♣, responder can bid a fragment on the 3 level and opener can either support it or return to 3NT. But what if the interference is in spades, i.e.

1♥ (1♠) 2NT (P)
3♠

Is responder really supposed to bid a fragment on the 4 level?

So the usual rule is that unless they've already limited their hand, introducing a new suit on the 3 level is forcing.

[JLOGIC]

Forcing and NF are both fine agreements.