No wonder it takes so long to learn this game!

Kim and I went over to England for Easter for some family time. The weather was unusually cold and dreary but we had a lot of fun. On our last couple of days, we went up to London to see Les Miserables on the stage (fabulous) and then, on the way to the airport, so to speak, we played bridge at the Andrew Robson Bridge Club close to where I grew up in Fulham. For various reasons, we've wanted to play at that club for quite a long time now. It was a relatively small game (seven tables) and we received sufficient gifts along the way to win our direction. Our own game wasn't exactly error free though. We doubled a part-score and then mis-defended allowing them to make it.

Then this hand came up (rotated) with nobody vulnerable:

I opened 1♥ in fourth seat; Kim responded 1♠ and I rebid 3♣. So far, so good. We are in a "game force" but still need to determine the right strain. At this point, West decided to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings with 3♦. I thought we had pretty good understandings of how to deal with interference – but I was wrong.

Here are the options that I thought Kim had:

• pass (forcing) to await developments [if I double and she then pulls it, that shows extra strength and an interest in slam];
• double (penalty because I jumped at my second turn – see my rules for doubles);
• 3♥ (forcing) which I would take as delayed support with ♥xxx (and about 9+ hcp since she didn't simply raise initially) or ♥Hx (probably 10+ hcp);
• 3♠ (forcing) extra length in spades, nothing about strength;
• 3NT ("to play");
• 4♣ (non-forcing, competitive);
• 4♦ (forcing) though with no pre-discussed meaning;
• 5♣ (fast arrival);
• 4♥ (fast arrival) likely based on ♥Hx and a minimum (6-9) response.

Unfortunately, Kim felt that an immediate 4♣ was forward-going and 100% forcing. I passed, given that my hand lost quite a bit of its lustre as the auction unfolded. I was able to wrap up twelve tricks without breathing hard.

How can two decent players, who have discussed these situations so often, be on such completely different wavelengths?

I decided to put the question to BridgeWinners. However, because I wanted to understand general principles, I created two polls to try and separate what I thought were the two different issues. Here are the links:

• Forcing sequences in competitive situations (part-one);
• Forcing sequences in competitive situations (part-two).

In the first, I tried to get an answer in general terms of direct seat options when an intervening bid was made below a specific "committed" contract. There are of course several different ways to "commit" our partnership to, say, 3 of a major. Another common sequence might be: 1♠ (2♦) 3♦. If the next player doubles or bids 3♥, opener will have choices, including a forcing pass. My understanding of standard "expert" bridge was that 3♠ is the only non-forcing call (other than double/redouble which could be left in if appropriate).

But, so far, the votes (and especially the comments) on BridgeWinners have not been unanimous, although at this point, my scheme is the majority opinion (23/33 votes). How can something so fundamental (and quotidian) have such divergent opinions?

In the second poll, I tried to ascertain what exactly was meant by being in a "game force," especially as it relates to the minor suits. My own understanding was that a jump shift by opener (as in this case) was only forcing to four of the minor. If the responder had bid with a bare minimum and 3NT is missing a stopper, then the partnership can play in four of the minor.

Again, I was somewhat surprised by the votes and comments on the poll. The majority opinion was that this is something that must be agreed in advance by the partnership (although of the others most thought that game meant just that – game).

So, I would be very interested in your comments. But, at the risk of being repetitive, I will reiterate that it amazes me that these are not the subject of clear-cut rules. No wonder it takes so long to learn this game!