Yes, diamonds can sometimes be 4. I play inverted minors off in competition also. Do you play them on or off by a passed hand? Yesterday, we bid P-1D-3D-P. Making seven.
I would bid 1D with your second hand.
Here’s another hand.
I’m holding S:Qxxxx H:Qx D:KQ C:Jxxx
RHO opens a weak 2S, not vulnerable. I pass. LHO passes. Partner doubles. RHO passes. What do you do?
I passed, converting the double to penalties, and partner looked like thunder. She held S:AK H:Axxx D:Axxx C:AQx and we took them for 800.
I’m thinking that that hand is too good for for a mere double, especially with AK of the opponents’ suit. As it happens, all the finesses are wrong: RHO has C:K and LHO has H:KJT9x and 6N fails badly and even 3N can go off.
Oops. I better check with partner. I think I said ‘off’ but am not sure partner remembers. :smack: We usually design our system in the little PlayOK chat-box which isn’t archived.
[2] And bid 3C forcing over partner’s 1S? Maybe you’re good enough to force here, but how about
AJ - xx - Jxxxx - KJxx
Were you vulnerable? If not I think I’d have the same auction and expect a decent score. If you were I’d think more carefully about looking for your game so might bid, but it’s difficult with a balancing double - she could have a shapely 9 hcps for that bid. Preempts often work and usually it’s best to just take the money at matchpoints.
Think such a strong hand has to start with a double, though. What would the alternative be? A 3S cue bid by partner would prob mean bid 3N if you have a stopper and it’s not usually bid with a balanced beast of a hand like this.
I don’t know why anyone’s complaining let alone “looking like thunder.” Who wants to be in slam with a mangy 31 hcp?
Did you have the Eight-spot in spades? If so perfect defense should get Down Five. (Run winners, pitching a heart, ruff their heart winner; get a double uppercut.)
3C is invitational, not forcing. The question on this hand becomes whether a 1S bid guarantees any particular minimum number of clubs. My preference is that it shows 4+ clubs, in which case an invitational 3C bid is fine on both your examples. Yes, the first one is stronger, but it is a long way to 5C. Partner will bid again if we have a game on.
I don’t recall.
We would have got them down 5 if my partner had led her Ace of Diamonds as I could have overruffed declarer or gain a trump promotion.
Just to elaborate, after I cashed my DKQ I led a low heart which she won with the ace and she led back a low diamond, which was ruffed by declarer and over-ruffed by me. I then led a club, won by the Ace and she didn’t try her fourth diamond (the ace).
I play that 3S is Michaels, showing hearts and a minor.
How about a bid of 2NT?
It may be invitational in your system, but I don’t think this is a general truth. (Are you British?) IIRC, circa 1970 most Americans played jump preference in opener’s minor as forcing, though the SAYC Booklet may not take a stand on this matter one way or the other. (If it matters, we play fourth-suit bid as forcing for one round only.)
I don’t remember (or never knew) what effect the use of inverted minor raises should have on the decision whether jump preference is forcing or not.
I am British, as it happens, but have lived in the US for over 20 years and I play 2/1. The jump rebid in partner’s suit is definitely invitational in 2/1. I do not know SAYC, but the ACBL booklet on SAYC states that responder’s second bid “determines whether he wishes to sign off in a part score, invite game, sign off in game, ot force to game to get more information about opener’s hand”. There is then a section for each category, the “invite game” section stating “Bids available for inviting to game: 2NT, 3 of a peviously bid suit”
I play FSF as game forcing.
I think FSF Game-forcing / minor-suit jump preference non-forcing go together.
FSF might be an interesting topic to discuss. I first read of it in an ancient book by Norman Squire! (though I barely remember that now.)
Perhaps we can find common ground: 
You don’t treat the FSF sequence 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S as a game force, do you? I do treat the FSF sequence 1S - 2H - 3D - 4C as a game force! 
I learnt that 1-1-1-1 was natural and the exception to FSF sequences, and play it that way, but the BBO 2/1 Gib standard plays it as GF. As this is a pretty mainstream amalgamation of 2/1 methods, perhaps it is more standard to play it like this nowadays?
I don’t see how FSF could ever be a game force. You only use it to see if you can get to No Trumps and on a misfit you may be glad to stay in 2NT.
1C - 1D - 1H - 1S is natural for me. You bid 2S for FSF. It takes a lot of room, but no big deal if you play FSF as game forcing.
I was playing an EBU tournament on Funbridge yesterday. I have configured it to play 2/1, but it definitely plays some different things from the 2/1 I am used to in the US. I had a 2344 11-count, no spade stop, and the bidding started 1C - 1D - 1H. I checked how it played 3C and sure enough, it plays it as GF. Then I discovered that 1S was FSF, but not forcing to game. So I bid 1S, which the bot helpfully raised to 2S.
Funbridge is based in France, so they obviously have different views of FSF and delayed minor raises from what is most common in the US.
I would also treat 1S - 2H - 3D - 4C as a game force for two reasons:
- 2H is game forcing in 2/1
- if not playing 2/1 (going back to when I played Acol), a new suit at the 4-level is GF
I agree that non-game forcing FSF seems nice, and offers a way out on misfits. Norman Squire used it to send the message “Opener: please use your 3rd bid to describe and limit your hand.”
But of course, far more important than whether you play it as game-force or not, is whether you and partner agree on what it is. 
ETA: I’d never heard of Funbridge. Do you play with a robot?
EETA: Obviously that 4C is a game force – I was being whimsical.
The preeminent teacher in the US (and many time National Champion), Larry Cohen, disagrees with you: Fourth Suit Forcing - Bridge Articles - Bridge with Larry Cohen
Interesting that he says the reason that FSF should be game forcing is “Because jumps by responder in a previously bid suit are NOT forcing.” So this is consistent with septimus’s comment about the jump being GF and FSF not are interlinked.
The best-known teacher of beginners in the US, Audrey Grant, also plays FSF as GF: https://www.betterbridge.com/misc/StandardArticles/Standard200609.pdf
Yes. The other three players at the table are all robots. The Funbridge bot (“Argine”, I think) is better than BBO Gib, if you are familiar with BBO. Argine certainly defends better. You can also choose which system you want to play and configure the conventions to some extent, whereas BBO is 2/1 only. This does lead to some randomization when I play in EBU events. I play 2/1 with 15-17 NT, whereas most play Acol and 12-14. From time to time I will have what seems like a totally boring result, only to find I score 90% or 10% because of system differences.
I think this is incorrect. You may have no interest in NT but want to choose between two of the already-bid suits. You may want to rebid or raise a suit but are too strong for a sign-off and too weak (in either high cards or suit quality) to jump. You may have a two-suiter unsuitable for No Trump. (But if partner then bids NT, he shows some support for your 2nd suit and you may then rebid or jump in that suit.)
@ amarone — To experiment with Funbridge should I download an App or can I just play on-line? How do the robots’ skill compare with humans? GNU Backgammon will tell me when I make a bad move; does Funbridge attempt that?