[bhall]

I agree 300% with skaeren: a 3-card fit, game force. With less, I would bid 2♠ after having redoubled.

[Cascade]

Redouble shows about limit raise values

and the jump shows extras

this must be forcing.

[655321]

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

200% forcing

100% forcing.

[FrancesHinden]

Just out of interest, do all the people who think 3S is forcing play that a new suit by responder immediately over the double is non-forcing?

I play that redouble shows at least some interest in defending, with a distributional good hand I would just make a forcing bid at the 2-level and describe my hand to partner.

So if I had a game forcing spade raise I would not have started with a redouble.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Just out of interest, do all the people who think 3S is forcing play that a new suit by responder immediately over the double is non-forcing?

I play that redouble shows at least some interest in defending, with a distributional good hand I would just make a forcing bid at the 2-level and describe my hand to partner.

I would still redouble on a good balanced hand with 3-card support, like 3442. This is the kind of hand I'm showing. Otherwise, I play 1M (x) 2y as nonforcing. That's not standard?

With regular partners I play transfers after 1M (x). Cannot think of a NF hand that bids 3♠ in this position, sorry. I mean, 2♠ is already invitational and an invitational 3-card raise bids 2NT at this point.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 23 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

Just out of interest, do all the people who think 3S is forcing play that a new suit by responder immediately over the double is non-forcing?

I think standard in Netherlands (and Marty Bergen, I think it was, writes the same) is 1/1 F1 and 2/1 NF. 1/1 NF sounds very old-fashioned to me. But Mike Lawrence considers 2/1 both as F1 and NF to be playable. Hardy says it's NF.

[zasanya]

zasanya, on Jan 22 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

So with a slammish or GF hand with ♠ support it is correct to redouble?
Would it not allow opponents to prempt Say 4NT or something?

Nobody answered my question so i am asking it again.
BTW i play redouble as 10+ intending to penalize whatever ops bid so shortness in openers suit. Always thought that is standard

[helene_t]

zasanya, on Jan 23 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

So with a slammish or GF hand with ♠ support it is correct to redouble?
Would it not allow opponents to prempt Say 4NT or something?

Yes. With a slamish hand, it is premature to set trumps if you have only 3 of them. So you have to start with a redouble. Maybe p bids a second suit which you'd rather support than the opening suit.

If opps preempt, too bad. A 2/1 is NF so you have no other forcing bid than the redouble, unless you have 4-card support or you can bid a suit at the 1-level. For that reason, the mad scientists play transfers.

[slothy]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 22 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

Doesn't sound forcing to me.
That's what comes of living in a limit bidding culture.
Sounds like a limit raise with trhee trumps and poor clubs.

You can always bid 3C to force if you want.

That's what happens when you live in the South Of England Frances

Seems kinda forcing to me

[lexlogan]

zasanya, on Jan 22 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

So with a slammish or GF hand with ♠ support it is correct to redouble?
Would it not allow opponents to prempt Say 4NT or something?

I don't worry too much about preemption with only 3 trumps. I'm willing to defend if they bid to a high level. With 4 trumps I'd be worried if I hadn't shown my support; conversely, bidding 2NT with only 3 trumps can also leave partner guessing over a preempt. I much prefer redoubling with 2 or 3 trumps, and reserving 2NT for four or more trumps.

[han]

Forcing.