[karlson]

kenberg, on 2013-September-17, 07:28, said:

Alertability: I am never the right person to ask about legal matters, but I find it hard to see how there could be damage by a non-alert. West declined to bid over 2♣, it seems highly unlikely that he would come in now if 3♣ were alerted as non-forcing. Further, it seems to me that there are many, many treatments involving minors by responder after a 1NT opening. So none is "standard". Of course it is also hard to see what harm would be done by alerting it if played weak, so probably it is best to do so.

It would be quite normal to want to make a takeout double if 3♣ was weak.

[cherdano]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-15, 10:42, said:

The issue is more interesting in the EBU, where this is the traditional way to show a weak takeout in clubs, and I believe that beginners are still taught this way. The treatment is very rare among non-beginners though, so I am curious about the bid's alertability status.

Some might argue that in that sense, many bidding issues are "more interesting" in the EBU, as beginners are taught different agreements than the treatments advanced or expert players are using. [ducks and runs away hiding...]

[johnu]

PhilG007, on 2013-September-18, 14:55, said:

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. They are tried and tested.

What does it tell you when almost all advanced and expert tournament players discard the old way and go in a different direction.

[sfi]

johnu, on 2013-September-18, 18:26, said:

What does it tell you when almost all advanced and expert tournament players discard the old way and go in a different direction.

Mostly it confirms that people are influenced by trends in bridge, as in other areas in life. The rest of the responding structure is important of course, but the theoretical gains and losses in the different methods being discussed here are fairly small.

As a simple example, why haven't all the top american players adopted polish club? Why haven't all the top polish players adopted 2/1? It's much more to do with familiarity than anything else, IMO.

[johnu]

sfi, on 2013-September-18, 20:47, said:

Mostly it confirms that people are influenced by trends in bridge, as in other areas in life. The rest of the responding structure is important of course, but the theoretical gains and losses in the different methods being discussed here are fairly small.

As a simple example, why haven't all the top american players adopted polish club? Why haven't all the top polish players adopted 2/1? It's much more to do with familiarity than anything else, IMO.

Sure there are some regional favorite systems, but probably because one system hasn't proven to be significantly better than another, not that there's any recognized algorithm to grade them. Within systems, some may be better with minimum balanced hands, others with unbalanced powerhouses, others on minor suit part scores, etc. It depends on what you consider important and how much weight you give for each strong and weak point.

Why would you play 3♣/3♦ as forcing in this sequence? In isolation, weak is ok. I think the turning point was when tournament players started playing some kind of 4 suit transfers. Great, you can pass the transfer with a weak hand, and make another descriptive bid when you are strong if you wanted without partner taking up your bidding space. But if passing the transfer is weak, you don't need the Stayman sequence as weak, so you have another group of hand types you can describe with that sequence. Maybe it's a small theoretical gain (and since just about any type of hand is relatively rare, most bidding gains are going to be small), but these types of gains add up.

And don't think that I blindly believe 3♣/3♦ forcing is the only way to play. I think 4+ card major suit transfers make a lot of sense, so you can handle strong 2 suited hands starting with a major suit transfer. That leaves Stayman and then 3♣/3♦ which can be used as invitational.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilG007, on 2013-September-18, 15:02, said:

Why bother to show a 4 card major when partner's 2♦ response to the
(assumed)stayman bid denied holding one(?!)

Try reading the end of my post, you can't go through Stayman without one if you play this, otherwise partner with 44 in the majors may correct back to spades after 1N-2♣-2♥-3m, so you need a different method (we use 1N-2♠) for signing off without one.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-15, 10:42, said:

The issue is more interesting in the EBU, where this is the traditional way to show a weak takeout in clubs, and I believe that beginners are still taught this way. The treatment is very rare among non-beginners though, so I am curious about the bid's alertability status.

I like to play that it is weak when playing a weak NT, invitational to game when playing a strong NT, and in both cases showing four cards in the unbid major as well as five or more in the minor. I don't find it difficult to show stronger hands by other means, but these ones can't satifactorily be shown otherwise.

[PhilG007]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-16, 15:27, said:

So, a lot of us are wrong. Thank you for establishing what is really is; I was under the false impression we could choose to make it forcing, and that the vast majority of people would consider it to be forcing.

1NT 3♣ is forcing....forcing to at least game with slam interest
in clubs

[PhilG007]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-19, 00:21, said:

Try reading the end of my post, you can't go through Stayman without one if you play this, otherwise partner with 44 in the majors may correct back to spades after 1N-2♣-2♥-3m, so you need a different method (we use 1N-2♠) for signing off without one.

1NT 2♠ can be played in several ways I use the sequence to show 11+ points with no major but it can be
used as a transfer to clubs or as a weak take out in spades(if not using transfers)

[PhilG007]

johnu, on 2013-September-18, 18:26, said:

What does it tell you when almost all advanced and expert tournament players discard the old way and go in a different direction.

We seem to be missing the point here. I am all for experimentation...I didn't like transfers for a long time
now I'm a convert..I hated the short club now I find it's essential when playing SAYC with 5 card majors and a
strong NT.
What I'm driving at is would anybody here be prepared to try a new gadget with a strange or
casual partner? Remember,if you make a bid and partner does not understand it, it's YOUR fault......

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2013-September-18, 15:02, said:

Why bother to show a 4 card major when partner's 2♦ response to the
(assumed)stayman bid denied holding one(?!)

It's not so much that you are "showing" a 4-card major; the point is that for many people they would not have bid Stayman on the way to clubs if they didn't have a major suit.

PhilG007, on 2013-September-19, 04:23, said:

1NT 3♣ is forcing....forcing to at least game with slam interest
in clubs

Again, try to remember to preface such statements with "I like to play it as", or "another possible meaning is" etc. It is likely that for the 3♣ bid, invitational, 5-card Stayman or some sort of 2-suited minor hand are all at least as popular as natural and game-forcing; and there are many other meanings in use as well.

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2013-September-19, 04:43, said:

What I'm driving at is would anybody here be prepared to try a new gadget with a strange or
casual partner? Remember,if you make a bid and partner does not understand it, it's YOUR fault......

Quite. But if you are with a strange or casual partner, and he produces this auction, you are forced to guess. As the responses in this thread make clear, you are going with the odds if you guess that the 3♣ bid following the Stayman sequence is GF.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-19, 05:24, said:

Quite. But if you are with a strange or casual partner, and he produces this auction, you are forced to guess. As the responses in this thread make clear, you are going with the odds if you guess that the 3♣ bid following the Stayman sequence is GF.

Exactly. A few weeks back I was playing on-line pick up and this auction came up.Partner seemed, on the basis of what I had seen, non-eccentric. I guessed forcing, and I guessed right. It could have been wrong. I tell people who play on-line that the most essential trait is a sense of humor.

I learned rubber bridge long before I learned duplicate (yes, pard, I know you think that I never learned wither of them) , and I still have my 1957 edition of Goren. He speaks of "the two club convention" bur he does not discuss this auction. I have notes to myself written in that it is a non-forcing auction. This would be from fifty years or so ago when another couple would come over, we stuff the kids in a play room and tell them to play nicely, and we would play a couple of rubbers.

The OP question was "is 3♣ forcing?". I think the answer is "Thee is no absolutely standard answer, but the odds heavily favor treating it as such if you are playing pick-up". If you want to discuss with partner what it should be, then this requires a larger context of how, in general, you handle minor one-suiters, minor two-suiters and minor major two-suiters.

And, after thinking it over, I agree with Karlson that if 3♣ is weak then it is possible that the opponents may wish to enter the auction with a take-out double. This argues ion favor of alerting assuming that you do indeed have an agreement that it is weak.Assuming that it is possible to transfer to clubs and drop it, then surely the given auction, if played weak, must be on long clubs and a four card major. This should be explained, on request, as part of the alert also.