Age old question

[cherdano]

Sorry I guess I misunderstood your main question. I read it as wanting to discuss this auction in the context of natural, American bidding theories, not what the right bid or just under one theory of natural bidding. As I stated under this theory 2D is not just a simple preference.

Yes it is; as I, myself, have stated already 2 years in this forum, responder's 2♦ bid is a simple preference that can be made with a minimum hand.

[Guest Jlall]

I think the point is, you can make a forcing bid despite making a non-forcing bid earlier in the auction.

I do not think this is literally true. For instance if your partner has psyched or made a tactical bid he can then bail out as you are limited. You can of course make a bid with the expectation that it will not be passed but partner is in a position to do whatever he likes whenever youre limited like that. Like I said, I think there are hands where it is the percentage action to both respond to a 1 bid and then pass a reverse/jump shift. I think I am just splitting hairs though and basically agree with everything you said.

 

In the actual auction, clearly 2S cannot be forcing or even bid with the expectation of being forcing when 2C was not forcing and partner has shown nothing extra in the meantime.

[helene_t]

Agree with Justin. I think this is obvious. I'm surprised there can be discussion about this.

 

I would be more interesting if opener was unlimited, say

1♣-1♠

2♥-2N (Ingberman)

3♦*

 

I think that would be forcing but I may be wrong.

[jdonn]

Agree with Justin. I think this is obvious. I'm surprised there can be discussion about this.

 

I would be more interesting if opener was unlimited, say

1♣-1♠

2♥-2N (Ingberman)

3♦*

 

I think that would be forcing but I may be wrong.

That one is clearly forcing since it bypasses where responder may have been signing off. Anything that can't force to game has to bid 3♣ there.

[Halo]

Unusually narrow range of contributors to this post.

 

Too boring and obvious... too something...?

 

I welcome hearing from the usual suspects and I'm not usually disappointed to this extent. Can't guess what the inhibition is.

[temp3600]

I think an important point is that 2♠, in the original post, is a playable spot. It is possible to construct a sequence where player 1 has made a non-forcing bid, player 2's following bid does not show any extra strength or lenght (typically, a preference), and player 1's next bid is natural, but cannot be a playable spot, and therefore has to be forcing 1 round :

1♥   1NT

2♣   2♥

2♠

Spades are at most 3-3, so responder cannot pass 2♠.

 

So I would say that if player 1 has made a non-forcing bid, player 2 makes a bid that does not convey anything extra, and player 1's next bid is a playable spot, then it is non-forcing. If it is not a playable spot, it is forcing 1 round.

[Flame]

The real question is should this bid be 100% natural.

If its 100% natural the "justin's law" that non GF hand cant make a forcing bid is good here, but if you want this bid to be more flexiable losing the option to play in 2S but winning a better discription of other hands.

You need to weight the pluses and minuses, is it important to be hable to play in 2S on such a sequence ? and How much we win by playing it as forcing.

[Free]

It shows extra's in a natural way while we have clearly shown no game interest. Imo this bid should be NF, so very dangerous to do it with a doubleton.

[Halo]

Forcing or non-forcing just(in) isn't the issue.

 

Is partner desperately trying to improve on the known 52 fit? Why on this Earth would partner do that?

 

So he is strong, but you want to take control and say '.. sigh... I have an excuse for deciding the final contract is 2S'. Well - do it, and then at least apologise when you are wrong, and take credit when you are right. Preferably no philosophy.

[bid_em_up]

Justin,

 

I certainly respect your opinion/belief that it cannot be forcing since opener is somewhat limited. But, if opener didnt want to force, why the heck is he moving off of 2♦? Where is he going? What is point of bidding 2♠ if NOT expecting another bid from partner? He certainly isn't offering 2♠ as an offer to play. After all, he has already shown 9 minor suit cards, and responder has shown no spade cards.

 

Now, if you are claiming that partner must be some 15-17, 3-1-5-4 hand, pass of 2S is ok. But if it doesnt have to be this specific hand pattern, I think it must be forcing.

 

Personally, I think the 2-1-6-4 hand should have bid 3D anyway.

[Guest Jlall]

Forcing or non-forcing just(in) isn't the issue.

The OP said:

 

please accept that both partners know 2♠ was showing shape

 

So the issue of this post is NOT the meaning of 2S. The meaning of 2S was specified. It is not an artificial bid. The OP asked very bluntly, as the last sentence of the post, given it's own paragraph

 

Should 2S be forcing?

 

The context of the problem is set by the OP.

 

I'm really not understanding this line of reasoning:

 

Is partner desperately trying to improve on the known 52 fit? Why on this Earth would partner do that?

 

But, if opener didnt want to force, why the heck is he moving off of 2♦?

 

Responder has anywhere from some 6-9 (including some 5s and some 10s), and a very wide range of shapes with 4+ hearts and 2+ diamonds. Opener is simply trying to find out what strain and level should be played in.

 

The statement "2S is not forcing" is not synonymous to "2S denies any extras and is trying to improve the partscore into an unknown fit."

 

I believe I have said several times, 2S definitely shows extras in the 16-17 range (ie, just below a jump shift), but a hand in the 16-17 range can not have enough to force to game. Since 2S could be a playable spot because it is specified as a shape showing bid, and opener is limited to a hand that can not have enough to force to game in the context of the auction then surely 2S can be passed.

 

What is point of bidding 2♠ if NOT expecting another bid from partner?

 

To describe ones hand and let PARTNER make a decision on where to play.

 

If partner has Axx xxxx Axxx xx all of the sudden slam is in play! If partner has xxx KQTx Kxx Jxx he can bid 3N, while if he has KQx xxxx Kxx Jxx he can angle for 5D. If partner has Kxx Qxxx Jxx xxx he can sign off in 3D. If partner has a 4423 or 4522 minimum why should he not want to play 2S? Where will he be going?

[Halo]

Forcing or non-forcing just(in) isn't the issue.

The OP said:

 

please accept that both partners know 2♠ was showing shape

 

So the issue of this post is NOT the meaning of 2S. The meaning of 2S was specified. It is not an artificial bid. The OP asked very bluntly, as the last sentence of the post, given it's own paragraph

 

Should 2S be forcing?

 

The context of the problem is set by the OP.

What, please accept that it did show 3154 when it was 2164.

 

Odd place to start a discussion.

 

If Jlall and Jdonn want to set all the parameters for the discussion, we needn't waste our time.

[jdonn]

How did I get sucked into your argument! You were right, if I asked a certain question based on certain assumptions, and you didn't like the question or the assumptions, you shouldn't have wasted your time answering.

[Halo]

How did I get sucked into your argument! You were right, if I asked a certain question based on certain assumptions, and you didn't like the question or the assumptions, you shouldn't have wasted your time answering.

OK I accept all your assumptions, and in your place I would not have passed 2S.

 

I think that is much what I said in my original post. If anything I have allowed myself to be sucked into your argument.

[jdonn]

Lol I wasnt even having an argument. You were arguing with Justin, until right now I had almost nothing to do with it but then you went and dropped my name, and then try to turn the tables on me as though anyone can't see what really happened 2 posts earlier. You argue like a 5 year old.

[skjaeran]

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing.

 

Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

[Halo]

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing.

 

Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

Can't resist another attempt.

 

Your partner makes a bid he clearly expects you to respond to (5 year old says 'forcing is not the issue').

 

You initiate a debate as to whether it is theoretically forcing. Let's say your partner agrees with your theory that it is NF (say at the 98th percentile of responding hands), but says 'what excuse did you have for passing - were you just proving a point on your 64th percentile hand.'

 

Is eveything in Bridge abstract logic, or is it closer to statistical analysis?

 

Bring on some more 5 year olds (big glass half full).

[han]

Clear NF for me. Partner can't have this shape (2-1-6-4), that would be a 3D bid.

[skjaeran]

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing.

 

Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

Can't resist another attempt.

 

Your partner makes a bid he clearly expects you to respond to (5 year old says 'forcing is not the issue').

 

You initiate a debate as to whether it is theoretically forcing. Let's say your partner agrees with your theory that it is NF (say at the 98th percentile of responding hands), but says 'what excuse did you have for passing - were you just proving a point on your 64th percentile hand.'

 

Is eveything in Bridge abstract logic, or is it closer to statistical analysis?

 

Bring on some more 5 year olds (big glass half full).

The issue for discussion here was wheter the 2♠ bid should be forcing or not, given the premises that the 2♠-bidder was limited to 16(17) hcp (by the 2♣ rebid) and responder had shown a minimum (5-8 hcp or thereabouts). And that the 2♠ bid was shape showing.

 

Nobody in this thread are using any form of abstract logic or statistical analyses.

 

Simple logic tells you that 2♠ can't be forcing. There's no hand opener can have in this bidding sequence that can make a forcing bid. The 2♠ bid just say that the hand is a maximum wiht 3145 distribution. Responder now is in possesion of information to make an informed decision of the final contract. If he's got a 4522 7 count, obviously he'll pass, since 2♠ rates to be the best spot to play in.