Are these sequences forcing in 2/1 or S.A.

[ArcLight]

Are these forcing or passable? If so, then why?

 

1-

1H-1S

2S-3H

 

2-

1D-1S

2S-3D

 

3-

1H-1S

1NT-3H

 

 

 

(The problem I have with SA is I am not sure if some auctions are forcing, such as

1H-2C

2D

 

I've never seen this discussed as formal rules.

Are there any books that list the "rules" of SA bidding?

Not the simple ones involving limiting the hand, but in generating a forcing auction.

[awm]

As I understand it, the following rules are in effect for standard bidding:

 

For responder:

 

(1) A new suit bid is always forcing for the round (unpassed hand).

(2) Bidding a previously-mentioned suit at the lowest available level is NF (unless in a GF auction).

(3) Jumping in a previously-mentioned suit (whether by opener or responder) shows extras; this is usually NF but forcing if responder has made a 2/1 bid (since a little extra is all we need for game).

(4) A 2/1 bid promises a second call unless opener's rebid is at the game level.

 

For opener:

 

(1) Rebidding a previously-mentioned suit at the lowest available level is NF, unless in a GF auction already, or partner has promised a rebid (via a 2/1 call).

(2) Bidding a new suit below the level of the cheapest rebid of opener's first suit is NF.

(3) Bidding a new suit above the cheapest rebid of opener's first suit is forcing. If it's a jump or partner has made a 2/1 bid, then it's game-forcing. Otherwise just a one-round force.

(4) Jumping in a previously named suit shows extras. This is generally not forcing though, unless partner has made a 2/1 bid.

(5) Any bid after a 2/1 by partner (except a game bid) is a one-round force. This is because partner promises a rebid.

 

So in the example auctions:

 

1: 1♥ - 1♠; 2♠ - 3♥ is not forcing (responder rebids opener's suit). It suggests four spades or a weakish five spades along with a heart fit. This should be invitational (with a minimum why not pass 2♠, or raise hearts immediately) but not forcing.

 

2: 1♦ - 1♠; 2♠ - 3♦ is also not forcing invitational, same as above. Strong tendency to hold only four spades on this auction with longer diamonds.

 

3: 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT - 3♥ is a limit raise of hearts. To force, jump in a new suit and then bid hearts.

 

4: 1♥ - 2♣; 2♦ is forcing because partner promises a second call with the 2♣ bid. If responder continues with 2♥, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ that will be invitational, whereas 2♠ would establish a game force (4th suit forcing) as would 3♥ (a jump always shows more than a preference).

 

Of course, some of these auctions will depend on general style and it's perfectly possible (maybe even superior) to have other agreements. In particular the third auction may change if you play new-minor-forcing.

[Guest Jlall]

It is a matter of agreement and style and system, I'm not sure if the official SA (whatever that is) has these sequences defined, but I would say all are forcing. 1 and 2 because if they aren't it hinders your ability to make natural game/slam tries, and the third because if you don't have any sort of checkback, you have no way to force other than to jump. But I really have no idea about standard american, so I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong here :P

[Guest Jlall]

Just read adams post...I see he disagreed with every sequence I said... I would believe him on this one :P

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the easy one first :P

 

3) Non forcing, showing inv. strenght and a 3 card suit.

The forcing raiseof hearts would go through NMF.

 

1) I would take as a trial bid, i.e. forcing, but it is not

100% clear

 

2) Trial bid, i.e. forcing

 

The simple rule covering 1-2 would be, after a mayor suit fit

is found, the partnership plays the mayor.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArcLight]

I got these from Kambites "Slam Bidding for You" and he uses Acol. But I was curious if they applied to 2/1 and SA as well.

 

One of the points he makes is because players don't know how to initiate forcing auctions they may use Blackwood prematurely.

 

Thats one of the things I like about 2/1, its easier for me to figure out whats going on.

 

 

While I agree with Adams replies, they are opposite of those in the book!

Gosh its hard finding a concensus!

 

Justin also has a point in that it may make certain strong hands hard to bid.

 

How do you bid this in 2/1

 

Pard opens 1 Heart, whats youir bididng plan with this hand?

 

S: A J 9 x x

H: K Q x

D: x

C: x x x x

 

Bid 1 Spade, then jump to 4 Hearts?

 

Bid 1 Spade, then 4SF, then end up in hearts?

 

Bid 1NT then jump to 3H, Delayed Limit Raise?

[P_Marlowe]

I got these from Kambites "Slam Bidding for You" and he uses Acol.  But I was curious if they applied to 2/1 and SA as well.

 

One of the points he makes is because players don't know how to initiate forcing auctions they may use Blackwood prematurely.

 

Thats one of the things I like about 2/1, its easier for me to figure out whats going on.

<snip>

Hi,

 

The given seq. have nothing to do with SAYC or 2/1,

but it does matter if you play Acol (4 card mayor, light opening bids)

or a 5 card mayor system with sound opening bids, and

which NT opener you play.

 

I do not "Slam Bidding for You", but have another book

from Kambites, and I like it very much.

 

The usage of Acol, explains auction 3.

 

Playing Acol the 1NT rebid promises 15-16, i.e. playing

the jump to 3H as non forcing aims for hands in 8-9

point range, frequency tells you, that forcing is better.

 

Playing a strong NT, you have wider rage to cover, hence

the introduction of NMF.

And if one does not play NMF, there is the old saying game

before slam, i.e. deciding that game is on is more important.

 

Regarding 1) and 2)

 

I am with Kambites, trial bids can be adv. cue bids.

But there is a style question involved, does opener raise responders

mayor regular with only 3 card support?

If you do the latter, it does make sense to play 1) and 2) as inv.

since you cant be sure, you have found a 8 card fit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

 

How do you bid this in 2/1

 

Pard opens 1 Heart, whats youir bididng plan with this hand?

 

S: A J 9 x x

H: K Q x

D: x

C: x x x x

 

Bid 1 Spade, then jump to 4 Hearts?

 

Bid 1 Spade, then 4SF, then end up in hearts?

 

Bid 1NT then jump to 3H, Delayed Limit Raise?

Hi,

 

playing sound openers, oppossite a 1H

opener, I wanna play game, either 4H

or 4S, and if partner has interest in more,

I have nothing against it.

 

This means, the limit raise is out, and so is the

FSF seq. since this should show a lot more than

I have, which leaves your first seq.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

Are these forcing or passable?  If so, then why?

 

1-

1H-1S

2S-3H

 

2-

1D-1S

2S-3D

 

3-

1H-1S

1NT-3H

 

 

There are almost as many versions of standard as there are experts, and that is just counting the real experts.

 

I haven't played standard since before Justin was born, so my comments should be read in that light. I have read a great deal about standard, and the various flavours it come in, especially from Bridge Worlds covering the past 50 years plus.

 

One of the fundamental rules I learned was that one never runs from a known major suit fit in an effort to improve the partscore. This is a very useful rule.

 

Auction 1: 1♥ 1♠ 2♠ 3♥

 

This is FORCING. Not necessarily forcing to game but certainly not passable. Even if ♥ is a better spot, it will rarely be (efffectively, never be) better than 2♠... we are not worrying about overtricks when we make this analysis: standard is a method that evolved for total point or rubber scoring.

 

Auction 2: 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ 3♦

 

See above. Once again, it is forcing for one round. Responder may well be passing a return to his major, but, if not, he is revealing a slam move.

 

 

Auction 3: 1♥ 1♠ 1N 3♥

 

In the days before new minor forcing and its descendants, this was usually played, in NA, as forcing. The argument was, I think, that opener has narrowly defined his hand and responder should be able to bid the correct game, but that he would need more precise information for slam hands, so 3♥ was the only clear ♥ slam agreement: bidding a new suit and then ♥ raised all kinds of issues. Firstly, a simple change of suit over 1N was non-forcing, and a jump ate up all the space so that the ♥ fit could not be shown (often) below the 4-level, in an auction in whcih responder has completely distorted his hand.

 

One of the frequent topics of discussion in the BW in the 50's and early 60's was the difference between the 'lots of forcing' approach of north american bidding and the 'lots of non-forcing' approach in methods such as Acol. Remember that Goren, in his heyday, taught foring jump raises such as 1♠ 3♠ and 1♦ 3♦.

 

Of course, many of the top experts (and even more of the lesser players) developed methods to allow partner to differentiate between forcing and non-forcing bids... Kaplan wrote a wonderful article in the 1950's decrying the use of Old Black Magic: a loud, fast bid was forcing, a slow, quiet bid was to play and in-between hands were handled by differing tones and tempos.

[inquiry]

1 AND 2 are forcing in stardards as I understnad it, 3 is either forcing or highly iinvitational, depending upon agreement.

 

What I like to play is,

 

1 is forcing, 2 and 3 are invitational and can be passed. I think 2 as invitational and non-forcing (as opposied to invitational in th emajor fit) is markedly non-standard.

[HeartA]

I agree with Ben on this. With an agreed major, there is no point to make a move without game/slam ambition.

[awm]

It's clear that the example auctions are attempts to reach game, not attempts to "improve the partial." The question about them is whether they're strictly invitational, or forcing. What's best here will depend on a lot of stylistic issues, for example:

 

(1) Would you ever raise responder's 1M bid on three-card support? If the answer is never or virtually never, then it makes sense to agree that you'll always play in the major suit game or partial (ignoring slam deals for the moment). So in this case auctions like 1♦-1♠; 2♠-3♦ should be forcing. However, if you would frequently raise on three-card support there's a strong case that the auction be non-forcing. Of course it's still a game try, but you want to give partner the option to play in 3♦ if he has only three-card spades and a minimum opening.

 

(2) Would you ever respond 1♠ to 1♥ when you have a limit raise of hearts? Of course, it's possible to agree that you always bid 3♥ with such a hand, or that (playing 2/1) you have to respond a forcing notrump to make a 3-card limit raise even if you have a spade suit. In this case auctions like 1♥-1♠; 1NT-3♥ and 1♥-1♠-2♠-3♥ should be forcing. Starting with 1♠ when holding a heart fit would promise game values.

 

Obviously the meanings of bids have evolved over time. In the early days of bridge there were very few agreements, and people used "black magic" (basically partner's tempo or tone of voice). Later things got to be more codified, but certain sequences that used to be forcing have become invitational and vice-versa. My answers are based on SAYC, which is a fairly precisely codified system developed in (I think) the late 70s or early 80s. Of course, very few bridge players actually use SAYC! The tendency in North America is for beginners to play some sort of bastardized "standard american" which is based loosely on SAYC but not nearly so tightly defined (and with a lot more NF or nebulous sequences). More experienced players often migrate to 2/1 or strong club methods, with a grab-bag of random conventions and treatments thrown in for good measure. Internationally, many countries have their own standard systems, which may be more or less precisely defined than SAYC.

[ArcLight]

Are there any books that spell this all out?

I just borrowed Moorehead on Bidding (revised 1974) maybe it has something?

 

(How the heck is someone supposed to learn this if its not all explained in one place? Don't say its obvious or common sense because we have disagreement here among good players)

[LH2650]

If you go to

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/toolsSupplies.html

 

you will find, under "Convention Cards", the SAYC card and a booklet describing the system. This will tell you that #3 is invitational and that your final example is forcing. There is some inference that #1 is forcing, and I would certainly vote for #2 being forcing, also.

[helene_t]

1H-1S

2S-3H

Forcing, you have a 4-4 fit in spades so there's no point in suggesting some other place to play (except 3NT or 6NT).

 

1D-1S

2S-3D

Should depend on how likely partner is to raise with 3-card support. I have no idea what is standard.

 

1H-1S

1NT-3H

I know it's forcing in French standard and non-forcing in Dutch, not sure about SA. It could be argued that it should be forcing if you don't play CBS/NMF. In SAYC, the 1NT rebid has a narrow range so you need the invitational 3H less than in some other styles. On the other hand, the general way of creating a force in SA is to fake some minor suit on a 3-card. So you may have to bid 3♣ in the abscence of CBS/NMF.

 

1H-2C

2D

Absolutely forcing in any system except for some stone age versions of Acol and Culbertson.