Forcing or not

[Chamaco]

I suppose that who uses the 2S rebid as forcing here, will guarantee something decent for a 1/1 bid.

 

E.g. Holding the following hand, it should not be possible to respond 1S, but should pass in misfit, to avoid the problem posted in this thread

Qxxxxx-xxx-void-Jxxx

 

For such hands, those who use very weak JS might be ok, but then again, would you weakjumpshift to 2S with this hand when red vs white ?

[Gerben42]

Not forcing unless playing Weak Jump Shifts. This is your bid on KQxxxx xxx x xxx or similar.

 

To make a reverse promise a rebid gets you in all kinds of trouble, and this is one of them. Another one is where you are scared to make a reverse on some decent 16-counts because you don't have a rebid but you promised one. What's partner to do with a 9-count in auctions like 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦? Well, pass of course! If he doesn't you will just get more painful experience when opener DID have his normal minimum.

[luke warm]

'no specific' agreement ... what would you take 1D---2S? Weak jump shift? If yes, 1D-1S-2H-2S should be absolutely forcing.

not arguing here, trying to understand... why should a 6223 7 count be forcing? or do you think that's a wjs hand?

7 hcp is minimum, responder could have 10. It's the opener who cant afford a pass. As for me, the responder could have 15 hcp. As Winstonn pointed, 2NT is for poor hand. '

 

Regards,

yes, but if that's the case why rebid 2s? as i said, i believe there are many ways to force but only one way to sign off... anyway, thx

[adhoc3]

'no specific' agreement ... what would you take 1D---2S? Weak jump shift? If yes, 1D-1S-2H-2S should be absolutely forcing.

not arguing here, trying to understand... why should a 6223 7 count be forcing? or do you think that's a wjs hand?

7 hcp is minimum, responder could have 10. It's the opener who cant afford a pass. As for me, the responder could have 15 hcp. As Winstonn pointed, 2NT is for poor hand. '

 

Regards,

yes, but if that's the case why rebid 2s? as i said, i believe there are many ways to force but only one way to sign off... anyway, thx

this is a too hard question for me, LUKE :) . There's no way stop once choosed 2S, at least for me.....could you please show us all the actual hand?

[cherdano]

'no specific' agreement ... what would you take 1D---2S? Weak jump shift? If yes, 1D-1S-2H-2S should be absolutely forcing.

not arguing here, trying to understand... why should a 6223 7 count be forcing? or do you think that's a wjs hand?

7 hcp is minimum, responder could have 10. It's the opener who cant afford a pass. As for me, the responder could have 15 hcp. As Winstonn pointed, 2NT is for poor hand. '

 

Regards,

yes, but if that's the case why rebid 2s? as i said, i believe there are many ways to force but only one way to sign off... anyway, thx

The point about playing 2♠ as forcing is that there are many hands where you have 5 spades, but no clear direction and a game force. Forcing the hands to force with some artificial space consuming bid, or a jump to 3♠, forces the bidding too high before opener could describe his hand. If you have a weak hand, you can bid 2♠ and then 3♠, not forcing, or try to sign-off via 2N.

Of course, this comes with other costs.

 

Btw, it's one of the many areas where I believe modern American expert standard to be superior to, say, German expert standard. Not because the American standard agreement is necessarily better, but because at least there is an agreement! I am not sure you guys over there appreciate how great it is that you can sit down, play "expert standard" and be pretty confident about a big range of agreements. Maybe it is partly due to The Bridge World?

 

Arend

[bearmum]

Need a little help. In BBO, with an occasional p and w/o specific agreement, ops always silent, what do you think about...  1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠. It's forcing or not?

OK my 2¢ worth B)

 

Partner has reversed so he has a good hand (16+ I believe) with ♦s and ♥s (♦ longer that ♥)-- and HIS bid is forcing on you :)

 

ALL you have promised with your 1♠ (the way I play SAYC anyway) is 6+ points and FOUR ♠s SO when you are forced to bid again your 2♠ ONLY shows 5♠ and so IMHO the 2♠ bid is NON forcing!!

 

However P still has another bid ;) and because you have indicated a MINIMUM hand ( ie about 6 or 7 points ) with 5♠ [not just 4] HE has the responsibility to decide if the combined hands are worth another forcing bid (maybe 4sf?) or a rebid of ♥( which IMO should show 6/5 in ♦/♥ and ask YOU to choose the suit AND level )

[helene_t]

It depends who is who: if you are opener, assume it's forcing. If you're responder, assume it's not. Just for safety's sake.

 

I voted non-forcing since I think that the majority of those players, who have a blank profile and start bidding before making any agreements, consider it non-forcing. However, if partner has 2/1 on his profile or there is some other indication that he's advanced+, it's probably forcing.

[Al_U_Card]

NF (no agreement, BBO etc.) The 1S response was anything except 6S cards and 0-3(4) hcp. Since the 2S bid says 5+ spades and 5-7 hcp the only sensible bid by reverser might be 3S with a 3 card fragment......but he is not forced to do so as he has a good 16 to a bad 18 and is not balanced (ergo the imperative to open 1NT or rebid NT at the appropriate level with 5-4-2-2 hands.)

 

Responder has so many options to invite or force to game without significant danger or space consumption that it is nice to be able to show this hand with the 2S bid and also be able to play there when it is right.

[LH2650]

The current edition of the the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge states that virtually all experts play this as forcing. This is a stronger statement than appeared in previous editions. Being an ACBL publication, it would represent only North American practice.

[mikeh]

 

Responder has so many options to invite or force to game without significant danger or space consumption that it is nice to be able to show this hand with the 2S bid and also be able to play there when it is right.

Odd: I thought that 2♠ should logically be played as forcing in part because responder needs bidding space with good hands ;)

 

Using 4th suit as a force here is a huge consumption of bidding space.

 

Consider responder holding 5 or 6♠ and 3+♦ and a good (but not overwhelming) hand. He would like to set ♠ as trump if opener has some fit, and show ♦ if opener denies ♠ support and preserve the chances of playing in any of ♠, ♦ or NT at either game or slam.

 

So he begins with 3♣? Opener bids 3♠. What now? Can responder bid 4♦ agreeing ♠ as trump? Can responder in fact involve opener meaningfully in a quest for a ♠ slam or must responder guess whether partner has a good hand (in context) or a minimum?

 

Say opener bids 3N. If responder has a truly good hand, he can afford 4♦, but wouldn't we all be more comfortable if we could have bid 2♠ followed by 3 (forcing)♦ over 2N?

 

(The corollary is that with 5=3 or even 6=3 in the pointeds and a weak hand, sign-off in 3♦ rather than play ♠... opener can still take you back to ♠ with a 3=4=5=1 or so).

 

In my view, anyone who believes that one should use 4th suit as a force in these auctions lacks a proper appreciation of the value of bidding space in constructive sequences.

 

As for other forces: a jump to 3♠ should show a special suit: otherwise it is an abominable waste of an entire level of bidding space.

 

Of course, the approach I espouse makes the most sense when you play strong reverses and ingberman B)

[P_Marlowe]

Of course, the approach I espouse makes the most sense when you play strong reverses and ingberman B)

Hi Mike,

 

I dont think, that playing ingberman is important,

I play it, ... but reveses in my partnership

are probably weaker than revereses in your

partnership.

 

Marlowe

[fred]

The current edition of the the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge states that virtually all experts play this as forcing.  This is a stronger statement than appeared in previous editions.  Being an ACBL publication, it would represent only North American practice.

I would actually go as far as to say that many American experts would consider the concept of using 2♠ as non-forcing to be virtually unplayable. Count me as part of this group B)

 

Many people have correctly pointed out the upside to playing 2♠ as non-forcing: that this allows for a final contract of 2♠

 

The downside of this treatment is that, in the more likely event that responder has enough to at least invite game opposite a reverse, he will often have to convolute the auction in some way.

 

Another important consideration (at IMPs at least): the game and slam hands are more important than the signoff in 2♠ hands. Playing 2♠ as non-forcing will make your game and slam bidding harder (much harder in my view).

 

For example, if 2♠ is non-forcing, what on earth are you supposed to bid with something like the following after 1C-1S-2H-?

 

AJ10xx

Kxx

xxx

xx

 

(The above is intended to be an "invitational hand" - you may have to add or subtract a Jack depending on your standards for a reverse)

 

Suppose we make the hand strong enough to force to game opposite a reverse:

 

AK10xx

Kxx

xxx

xx

 

Now playing 2♠ non-forcing you can bid 3♦ as "4th suit forcing". Can you say with any confidence that you are expect to have a good auction after that start? If you think you will survive with this hand, consider the wide range of other possible hands for a 3♦ rebid. You and your partner will be guessing a lot.

 

Things are so much easier (and better) if you can bid 2♠ with all of these hands and not worry about partner passing.

 

Think about how nice this will be - you have kept the bidding as low as possible and put your partner in the position to further describe his distribution and to limit his hand with his next call (2NT, 3C, and 3S are non-forcing).

 

Usually when I express my views about bidding theory, I try to include "in my view" in deference to how complex these issues can be. I am not going to do so in this case as I am sure I am right about this one ;)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Al_U_Card]

np, the conditions of contest (so to speak) involved individuals that neither of the august gentlemen preceeding this post are likely to play with or against. In an adv+ pair playing vanilla 2/1 etc., 2S forcing is reasonable......for the majority on BBO with no agreement (as stated) get ready for them to pass your 2S bid or to bid 2S when they should take the preference..... B)

[kenberg]

This is an interesting situation. As of this moment the vote is 24-18 in favor of non-forcing. The Encyclopedia is quoted as strongly supporting the forcing interpretation, and Fred weighs in as forcing, and in fact explicitly disavows the usual "imo". Probably if you polled BBO players, the vote for NF would be stronger than the 4-3 we see on the forum. So, in the spirit of the original question, I pose the problem: I am playing an indy, my partner reverses, I wish to rebid my spades without being passed. I should...?

 

 

It would be very useful to collect several of these FAQs in one place. In a recent teaching lesson in the intermediate advanced lounge, the issue arose: 1C-1H-? Simple auction, much disagreement over whether 1S is automatic whenever opener holds four spades (perhaps excepting a 4-3-3-3 pattern), or whether generally balanced hands (eg 4-2-3-4) should rebid 1NT with responder using checkback if he has at least invitational strength. Please, I am NOT trying to revive that discussion. Far and away the most important issue is that each member of the partnership have the same understanding. Similarly, there was lively discussion over whether transfers are on after, say, 1D-(1NT)-pass-?. Sayc says stayman is on, transfers are off.

 

Playing on BBO is enormous fun but sometimes frustrating. When I play an indy, I suggest SAYC. Assuming partner agrees, and assuming he has actually read SAYC so he knows what he is agreeing to, this gets us through many hands. A BBO extension of SAYC (minimal artificial bids, but more agreements) would be useful however. For example it could resolve the current question.

 

Yes I know BBO 2/1 is better than SAYC. The problem is that folks who want to play 2/1 always have their own version of the details so maybe you are playing bergen, maybe bergen is on over a double, maybe drury is on over a double, maybe you don't play bergen and 1S-pass-3C shows an ivitational hand with clubs and so on.

 

An expanded SAYC would, I think, serve us well for pick-ups and indies. Of course more regular partnerships will resolve these issues to suit themselves.

 

Ken

[mike777]

I play 2s non-forcing per Root-Pavlicek. This has not been a problem at the table despite Fred's problem hand type.

 

This may be due to numerous reasons:

1) Active opp bidding make reverses less frequent.

2) Playing 2D 18-19 balanced but often offshape reduces the frequency.

3) Playing reverses promising 17+ reduces the number of non game force reverses.

4) Partner often rebids one of his suits over 2s

5) Partner often rebids 2nt over 2s

6) Partner raises to 3s

7) Partner passes and it is the right spot.

[Double !]

I play 2s non-forcing per Root-Pavlicek. This has not been a problem at the table despite Fred's problem hand type.

 

This may be due to numerous reasons:

1) Active opp bidding make reverses less frequent.

2) Playing 2D 18-19 balanced but often offshape reduces the frequency.

3) Playing reverses promising 17+ reduces the number of non game force reverses.

4) Partner often rebids one of his suits over 2s

5) Partner often rebids 2nt over 2s

6) Partner raises to 3s

7) Partner passes and it is the right spot.

Mike:

 

I am not sure which root-pavlicek you are talking about, but if it "modern Bridge conventions", then I suggest that you revisit page 46 (structured reverses) and the bottom of page 45. Rebid of major and rebid of 2NT simply confirm or deny the presence of a 5-card major, they are the "weakness responses", but they don't guarantee a weak hand, and "These two rebids are forcing". It the group of following rebids that might make that P & R refer to as being non forcing (i.e.: 3 of original minor, 3 of responder's major, and 2NT). If you have more recent info on this, I would appreciate the reference.

 

Best to all:

DHL

[coyot]

I play it strictly NF - a typical "lack of better" bid.

I don't like partner's suits, yet my club holding is not worth mentioning. (5-3-2-3 or 4-3-2-4 with empty clubs).

 

On a side note, I quite like the "Lebensohl-like" structured reverses, where any bid from responder on 3rd level is GF, 2NT is relay to 3♣ (and opener that absolutely refuses to play 3♣ bids otherwise.