Search MSO Worldwide

Forcing or Non-forcing

A friend of mine came up with this question, which actually comes in two parts.

You are playing matchpointed pairs and it is Game All. You are South and hold:

	K 8 6 5
	Q 5
	K 9 7 6 3 2
	7

West	North	East	South
-	1	Pass	1
2	Pass	3	?

Your partnership's agreed methods are strong no trump and four-card majors. Had partner doubled 2, it would not have been for penalties, rather suggesting an above minimum hand and being for take-out (though that could include a big balanced handtype).

The first part of the question is whether you should take any action in this position. The answer is by no means straightforward. The opposition appear to have found a fit and the theory is that if one side has a fit then probably so does the other. You have nothing wasted in the opponents' suit and your singleton suggests that you should compete if you can find a sensible way of doing so. Partner can be assumed not to hold four spades, six hearts or to be five-four in hearts and diamonds, as he would have bid 2, 2 or 2 over 2 with any of those holdings, even if minimum for his opening bid. He might also have raised to 2 with a reasonable three-card holding. The chances that he holds three diamonds are pretty good and you would therefore like to be able to bid 3, just to compete the partscore.

The question is, can you, or will partner be misled if you bid 3? Firstly, should 3 be forcing? In an uncontested auction, there are only a few specialised situations in which a new suit at the three level is not forcing.
However, when the opposition interfere, we have to give priority to the ability to compete effectively. Hands which would like to bid a non-forcing 3 here, have no other way of doing so than simply bidding 3 now. 3 needs to be non-forcing. A stronger hand which is genuinely two-suited may jump to 4, while a hand such as:

	K J 8 7 5
	A 6
	A K J 4
	8 3

can make a competitive double, following the sound principle that when the opposition bid and raise a suit at a low level doubles are best employed as for take-out.

OK, so perhaps the logic of the situation has convinced us that 3 should be non-forcing. The next problem is that we would find preference back to spades very unwelcome if partner is either two-two or three-three in spades and diamonds. In some situations, partner is even allowed to give false preference back to our first suit despite having greater length in our second suit. Is that the case here? Though I would be a little wary of relying on this with a strange partner, I believe that a 3 bid in this sequence should show at least ten cards in our two suits, and that at least five of them should be in diamonds. In other words, we have either five-five in spades and diamonds, or six diamonds and only four spades. The reasoning again relies on the use of competitive doubles. Hands with five spades and four diamonds which are worth a bid at all, will always make a competitive double. The example already given will double then drive to game, but a lesser hand such as:

	K J 8 6 5
	A 6
	Q 8 7 5
	5 3

will also double. The difference is that this hand will simply pass partner's next bid. And a strong five-five hand that does not wish to risk going beyond 3NT can also start with a double. So, to go back to the original question, I would bid 3 over 3, competitive, non-forcing and showing long diamonds. However, I would strongly recommend that a regular partnership discuss this type of situation. The second part of the problem came after a pass from our hand:

West	North	East	South
-	1	Pass	1
2	Pass	3	Pass
Pass	Dble	Pass	?

Now what? The obvious answer is that we should now bid 3, and that was the answer my friend was hoping I would give. Alas, the obvious answer is not always the correct one.

I stated earlier that most low-level doubles should be for take-out when the opposition have found a fit, yet there is something decidedly odd about the current auction. Partner had the opportunity to make a take-out double of 2 yet passed. How can he possibly have a hand that did not want to compete at the two level, yet, when the opposition bid on and we do no, suddenly justifies competing to the three level? Any hand with a second suit would have just bid it over 2; any hand with spade support would have shown it over 2; any hand with extra values and suitable to compete for that reason could have doubled 2 for take-out. Strange though it may seem, partner's double of 3 should be for penalties. The only good hand that would have passed over 2 is one including club length - remember that he did not have a penalty double available to him. His pass then double sequence suggests a hand such as:

	J 5
	A K 8 5 2
	A 3
	Q J 9 7

or perhaps even stronger. After our failure to support hearts, he has good chances of holding five tricks in his own hand and anything we can add to the defence will be a pleasant bonus - and we did respond, after all. Try as you might, given the agreed methods, you will not come up with a hand which would bid this way for take-out.

If you have a question for Brian, please contact anna@msoworld.com