1 over 1 over 1 - Forcing or No?

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakj4h3daq94ckq109]133|100|S W N E

1D P 1H P

1S

Should this be forcing?

[/hv]

 

 

Pre-debate: If you play that responder should keep the auction alive in this sequence, you obviously make it easier to bid the bigger hands; however, you also may reach an inferior 1N or higher when responder is very weak. Any reverse or jump shift distorts the hand's shape (unless 1D/3C can be made on 4/4), so there is gain and loss in that approach as well.

 

Is there a concensus approach to this sequence?

[mike777]

Agree that 1H may be on zero hcp if pard is void in D.

Agree with 1S and that it is not forcing.

[hatchett]

I would say it is a matter for agreement. You have laid out some of the pros and cons. If you play it as forcing you can also use 2S as artificial.

[Winstonm]

I would say it is a matter for agreement.  You have laid out some of the pros and cons.  If you play it as forcing you can also use 2S as artificial.

Also, if you play it as forcing, you can play that a 2N rebid denies 4S, allowing another meaning for: 1D-1H-2N-3C-3S. What should this mean if you have denied 4 spades?

[pbleighton]

The standard meaning is that it isn't forcing. I prefer to play it as forcing.

 

Peter

[EricK]

I think that best is to play it as forcing in principle but responder can pass if he is sub-minimum for his previous bid i.e. if he was only trying to improve the contract.

[Winstonm]

I think that best is to play it as forcing in principle but responder can pass if he is sub-minimum for his previous bid i.e. if he was only trying to improve the contract.

Then by definition you are saying it is non-forcing and opener would have to bid differently with AKQx, x, KQxx, AKJx opposite xxx, K9xxx, J10xx, x?

 

My contention is these treatments are mutually exclusive - if you play 1S as non-forcing then light responses are possible; however, if 1S is forcing, then a suitable minimum hand must be held.

[pclayton]

A few years ago a lot of thought 1♠ is normally played as forcing. With lite responses becoming more and more common, 1♠ makes sense as NF.

 

With both of my partners, we don't respond on 4 counts. We would not have a problem with a 2♠ rebid with this hand. Not quite avant-garde I know.

[awm]

My preference is to play that 1♠ is not forcing but could be up to the equivalent of 18-19 balanced. This is quite useful in that we can often play 1♠ instead of 2NT when responder has less than enough for game opposite the strong balanced option. In fact I feel like I pass these 1♠ rebids pretty often.

 

With the example hand I would bid 1♠, since the stiff in partner's suit isn't exactly a feature and this hand is roughly equivalent to 18-19 balanced once partner bids hearts. With 20+ points and a similar pattern, or with some hands in the 18-19 range and longer clubs I would try 2♠.

[Winstonm]

My preference is to play that 1♠ is not forcing but could be up to the equivalent of 18-19 balanced. This is quite useful in that we can often play 1♠ instead of 2NT when responder has less than enough for game opposite the strong balanced option. In fact I feel like I pass these 1♠ rebids pretty often.

 

With the example hand I would bid 1♠, since the stiff in partner's suit isn't exactly a feature and this hand is roughly equivalent to 18-19 balanced once partner bids hearts. With 20+ points and a similar pattern, or with some hands in the 18-19 range and longer clubs I would try 2♠.

Actually, this may be a very good concept - if you don't have enough to accept over a 2N rebid then 1S isn't forcing. This would limit the 1S rebid to about 19 but would still leave problematic the 4441 hands with 20 on up. Oh, well, nothing is perfect.

[han]

We've been through this several times, it must be possible to find the old discussions. I also prefer to play this as non-forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing.

 

One adv. is, that a jump shift

promises 5-4.

I believe, if responder did have

enough power to respond over

1D, he also has the power to respond

over 1S.

 

A important point is, do you play solid

openers, which decreses the necessity,

to improve the contract, the only reason

to respond to 1D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Echognome]

Non forcing. If you're so worried about the 4441 problem hands, then add a gadget (like multi 2♦). I simply don't worry about them as they are rare and you are likely to survive anyway even if partner thinks you are 5-4.

 

I also agree with Adam's sentiment that if you are so strong that you are worried about partner passing, then you must rebid 2♠.

[Stephen Tu]

A few years ago a lot of thought 1♠ is normally played as forcing.

 

Standard has been that 1S is non-forcing, and limited to less than required to make a GF jump-shift, since the days of Goren. I don't think it's ever been "normally played as forcing". Forcing has always been by special agreement, certainly a popular agreement. Maybe it got popular enough in some areas that some people erroneously thought this was "standard", but I doubt it's ever been described that way in any SA reference book.

 

My personal preference is non-forcing opposite a sub-minimum response (e.g. < 5 hcp), but forcing opposite a normal response, to free up 2s for other purposes, limited only to less than a 2c opener (thus if responder passes, probably a reasonable spot). But I consider this a special agreement, not standard.

 

If 1s was standard as forcing, one would think there would be a standard alternative meaning for the 2S jump-shift, but there isn't ... So obviously 1s NF is standard.

If one was play 1S as virtually unlimited & forcing, I don't see why one would want to maintain 2S as still showing GF spades. Promising 4-5 with 2S doesn't seem so great to warrant the space, why not just keep the auction lower & catch up later? It's much more useful to use the freed up 2S bid to show some of your raise types & some of your long minor types (e.g. bridge world death hand), than to have both bids showing spades, IMO.

 

A important point is, do you play solid

openers, which decreses the necessity,

to improve the contract, the only reason

to respond to 1D

Even opposite a solid opener, you get better results in 4-4/4-3 fits than you do in 4-1 fits or 4-0 fits. Just knowing partner will have solid hcp values doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong to make a submin response if you are distributional + misfit, if you think on average you will improve the situation.

[MickyB]

My preference is for 1♠ to be NF, but 2♠ to require a serious hand - frequently it will be a hand worthy of a 2♣ opener that wants to make sure it gets both its suits in.

[EricK]

I think that best is to play it as forcing in principle but responder can pass if he is sub-minimum for his previous bid i.e. if he was only trying to improve the contract.

Then by definition you are saying it is non-forcing and opener would have to bid differently with AKQx, x, KQxx, AKJx opposite xxx, K9xxx, J10xx, x?

 

My contention is these treatments are mutually exclusive - if you play 1S as non-forcing then light responses are possible; however, if 1S is forcing, then a suitable minimum hand must be held.

Well the hand you quote would certainly give preference back to 2♦ I think.

 

But anyway, I have never been happy with arguments like "You can't play it that way because it will go wrong on this hand". For every set of methods one could probably construct hands on which it will miss a good game or get to the wrong slam or go down 1100 against a part score etc.

 

If partner, rather than passing, makes a subminimum repsonse to try to improve the contract and subsequently passes a forcing bid, then why should I be disappointed? If his judgement is correct we are in a better contract than if he had made the alternative call of passing on the first round.

[luke warm]

as han said, we've had this debate before and i don't recall a concensus... i'm pretty adamant about it being non-forcing, on frequency if nothing else... playing walsh style, what else would opener bid with an 11-17/18 4225 hand? this allows responder, who *knows* opener has 4+ spades, is unbalanced, and has fewer than j/s strength, to pass 1s with 3 cards and 4/5-7 or so

[Free]

This debate has been around for years, in several posts,... Why try a new one? It's more like a RE-debate rather than a pre-debate <_< And you will get the usual answer again: some play it forcing, some non-forcing. Choose your and your partner's preference... :)

[Winstonm]

The consensus seems to be to delete this thread. :)

[benlessard]

1s isnt forcing. playing that as forcing put too much pressure on your partner when hes got a weakish hand with no stopper in the 4th suit and 3card support.

 

 

qxx

jxxxx

ax

xxx

 

1d---1h----1s---- ???

 

1s is your only plus score ... opps can make 2h but cant bid it and 2c fail on h ruff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not reverse in the minors instead.

 

open 1c and rebid 2d.

 

something like 1c----1h----2d-----2s-----3s

 

this is the way to show 4144 IMHO.

[P_Marlowe]

1s isnt forcing. playing that as forcing put too much pressure on your partner when hes got a weakish hand with no stopper in the 4th suit and 3card support.

 

 

qxx

jxxxx

ax

xxx

 

1d---1h----1s---- ???

 

1s is your only plus score ... opps can make 2h but cant bid it and 2c fail on h ruff.

 

 

 

<snip>

Well, ... 1NT is still an option,

and that is what I would bid

with your given hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Double !]

Why not reverse in the minors instead.

 

open 1c and rebid 2d.

 

something like 1c----1h----2d-----2s-----3s

 

this is the way to show 4144 IMHO.

because the majority of players that I know (admittedly, a limited sample) just do not bypass a 4-card spade suit at the 1-level. You'll never convince partner later on that you had 4 spades.

 

DHL

[HeartA]

I agree with what Stephen Tu says. I play it as semi-forcing and would rebid 1S with the hand.

[SoTired]

Agree with Stephen Tu also. Semi-forcing. I expect responder to bid again 99%. I play that a 2N rebid does not preclude 4 spades. I reserve the 2S rebid for more distributional 2-suiters, because I don't like opening 2C on 2-suiters.

[kenberg]

One advantage of non-forcing is this: When partner bids, your ability to interpret his action will be greater. If 1S is forcing then when partner bids you must allow for the possibility that he would rather have passed but is bidding only in deference to the agreement. If 1S is non-forcing and he bids, you know that he chose to. I suppose the main reason for making it forcing would be that you might end in 1S when some better contract is available. But this is rare. The rebid of 1S is seldom passed even if it can be, and when it is passed this usually works out fine. Of course hands can be set up, and perhaps even arise on occassion, where this is not true.