Is this auction forcing?

[chuck and teril swart]

Suppose the auction goes in KSU:

1d   1H

2c   2H

3d   4d

The 3d bid could be on as few as 14 points with a good 6 card suit.

Is 4d forcing?

[jerome keslin]

According to B14.

2c is strong and forcing.

2h is forcing with ambiguous strength.

So I think 4d is forcing with slam interest.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/CAAuJQmBz-ZWOhf4R92Wm1F%2BaDiH%3DPJROydjBFk5Cb7FRmyLKyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Adam Wildavsky]

3♦ Is non-forcing. It would be reasonable to play 4♦ as forcing but also reasonable to play it as invitational. In the latter case, forcing hands would have to start with 3♠, often leading to awkward followups, or jump to 5♦, giving up on slam.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:22 PM, jerome keslin <jet...@gmail.com> wrote:

According to B14.

2c is strong and forcing.

2h is forcing with ambiguous strength.

So I think 4d is forcing with slam interest.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, 16:13 chuck and teril swart, <chuckterilswart@gmail.com> wrote:

Suppose the auction goes in KSU:

1d   1H

2c   2H

3d   4d

The 3d bid could be on as few as 14 points with a good 6 card suit.

Is 4d forcing?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/CAAuJQmBz-ZWOhf4R92Wm1F%2BaDiH%3DPJROydjBFk5Cb7FRmyLKyw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/CAOz7kNqJxcZabyHh4G5XQGeyn0snSXiAsOxNcSkPwLd%3DLYVP5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ronald Kalf]

IMO playing 4d as forcing is better. Stopping in 4d is possible after 3S, initially asking for a stopper.Then we play in 4D if and only if both don’t have a s-stopper or a s-control and are minimum in context. I play this „quasi-gameforce“ also in other c9mparable situations.

Adam Wildavsky schrieb am Freitag, 26. April 2024 um 18:53:31 UTC+2:

3♦ Is non-forcing. It would be reasonable to play 4♦ as forcing but also reasonable to play it as invitational. In the latter case, forcing hands would have to start with 3♠, often leading to awkward followups, or jump to 5♦, giving up on slam.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:22 PM, jerome keslin <jet...@gmail.com> wrote:

According to B14.

2c is strong and forcing.

2h is forcing with ambiguous strength.

So I think 4d is forcing with slam interest.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, 16:13 chuck and teril swart, <chuckte...@gmail.com> wrote:

Suppose the auction goes in KSU:

1d   1H

2c   2H

3d   4d

The 3d bid could be on as few as 14 points with a good 6 card suit.

Is 4d forcing?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/CAAuJQmBz-ZWOhf4R92Wm1F%2BaDiH%3DPJROydjBFk5Cb7FRmyLKyw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Willner]

I'm coming to this very late, but if neither hand has anything wasted in
spades, shouldn't 5D usually be a good contract? I guess what I'm
suggesting is to reverse the meanings Ronald suggested.

As far as I can tell, either way is playable as long as partners agree.

Steve Willner

[Ronald Kalf]

Steve, I would pass 4d after an initial 3s if and only if both have neither a stopper nor a control in spades and both partners are minimum in context. Not having wasted values is not enough because if we already two quick losers (here) in spades we must be able to take the rest. And of course I do not want to go past 3N as long as it is a possible contract.