Forcing? (game, 1 round or non)

[Trumpace]

Assume opponents pass all the time:

 

i)

1♦ - 1♠

3♣ - ?

 

game forcing? non-forcing? or just forcing for at least one round?

 

Looks non-forcing to me.

 

 

ii)

1♣ - 1♠

1NT - 2♥

?

 

What about this one? This one seems non-forcing too.

[helene_t]

1: Game forcing in all versions of SA and other standard systems with a wide-ranging 1♦ opening (ACOL, SEF etc.)

 

2: Certainly not forcing. Playing some check-back structure, it's a weak sign-off. Playing pure natural it could be invitational or weaker so that opener can make a game try with extras. I think in SAYC, even though no check-back structure is played, it's a weak sign-off on the basis of the theory that 1N has a narrow range (13-14) so it's not so important for responder to be able to invite.

[cherdano]

i) GF

ii) NF

[P_Marlowe]

#1 3C was game forcing

#2 one round force, unless you play NMF

or something similar, in which case it

is weak, asking for a pref.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

1. Game forcing.

 

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

[bid_em_up]

1. Game forcing.

 

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

What he said.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

Ok, I can agree that it is nonforcing, although I would

even challenge this, but 2H is not a weak sign off.

 

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with

5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?

Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors

and min?

 

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has

to shows forward going values.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[keylime]

1. G/F is most methods unless you play Gazzilli.

2. In expert standard, nonforcing, since you have new minor forcing available to you. Without checkback or nmf, nonforcing, since you can jump to 3H to force.

[ralph23]

1. GF in standard; in the old days a JS by opener promised 20 points, but now that's been lessened and it may be based on shape.

 

2. NF in standard. This is exactly one of the problems that motivated the invention of nmf. If you don't play nmf and have inv+ values with 5♠ and 4♥, you're kind of stuck in standard. Thus nmf.

[jtfanclub]

Huh, I've always played it only as forcing to 4 of a minor:

 

After

1♦ - 1♥

3♣ - 3♥

 

 

4♣

 

4♦

 

4♣ - 4♦

 

were all non-forcing, the theory being that there's plenty of count for game, but neither hand has a spade stopper, and it's a lot tougher to make 11 tricks than 9.

 

Is this an outdated belief, one I made up, or common?

[ralph23]

Huh, I've always played it only as forcing to 4 of a minor:

 

After

1♦ - 1♥

3♣ - 3♥

 

 

4♣

 

4♦

 

4♣ - 4♦

 

were all non-forcing, the theory being that there's plenty of count for game, but neither hand has a spade stopper, and it's a lot tougher to make 11 tricks than 9.

 

Is this an outdated belief, one I made up, or common?

I vote for door #2, at least in Standard, if those are the only 3 doors....

 

It's been GF in standard since I was a wee lad, so the notion of being able to stop in 4-of-a-minor isn't outdated.

 

And it's certainly not common.... if you as the opener/responder use your judgment (gasp! who would ever do such a thing!! :o :) ) to violate system and pass 4♣/♦ then maybe that's the right thing to do in that particular circumstance, but I think that's a different issue.

 

Sometimes of course it is "right" (i.e. you will get a better result) to violate system but that's hard to know, and your partnership esprit de corps is weakened.....

Edited August 8, 2007 by ralph23

[cherdano]

<snip>

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

Ok, I can agree that it is nonforcing, although I would

even challenge this, but 2H is not a weak sign off.

 

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with

5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?

Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors

and min?

 

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has

to shows forward going values.

The logic "bid A has to show hand B because otherwise you can't show hand B" is brought up so often, and so often it is wrong...

If you play 2H as sign-off, you can't bid invitational hands. If you play it as forward-going, you can't bid weak hands with both majors sensibly.

Bidding agreements are always a trade-off, and anyway nobody ever claimed that traditional standard here is optimal.

[ralph23]

Bidding agreements are always a trade-off, and anyway nobody ever claimed that traditional standard here is optimal.

Yes exactly, and it's pretty clear that most of the world thinks tradtional standard isn't optimal in this regard, which accounts for the nearly universal acceptance of nmf or one of its kinfolk.

[Stephen Tu]

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with

5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?

Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors

and min?

 

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has

to shows forward going values.

 

No, this doesn't follow. 1nt is a narrow range rebid. Without conventions, you don't lose a ton simply deciding to force to game or not. There are many more hands that want to sign off & not get to 3 level (5-9(10-) 4+ hearts), than those that want to invite (10+-11 4 hts). If you only have one bid available to show both hands, then it makes sense to use it for the one that will help you most often. Then just underbid/overbid the invitational hand depending on where it lies on the spectrum.

[jdonn]

Huh, I've always played it only as forcing to 4 of a minor:

 

After

1♦ - 1♥

3♣ - 3♥

 

 

4♣

 

4♦

 

4♣ - 4♦

 

were all non-forcing, the theory being that there's plenty of count for game, but neither hand has a spade stopper, and it's a lot tougher to make 11 tricks than 9.

 

Is this an outdated belief, one I made up, or common?

Made up.

[skjaeran]

1. 55+ GF.

 

2. 5-4 NF (sign off, opener passes or gives preference to 2♠). I play xyz here (others play NMF, check-back, gazzilli or whatever). Any adv+ I know play some gadget after 1x-1y-1NT.

[Elianna]

2. 5-4 NF (sign off, opener passes or gives preference to 2♠). I play xyz here (others play NMF, check-back, gazzilli or whatever). Any adv+ I know play some gadget after 1x-1y-1NT.

 

1. G/F is most methods unless you play Gazzilli.

 

Gazilli doesn't apply in either case. It's only when opener opens a major, and responder replies at the one-level. At least, in it's traditional form.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

Ok, I can agree that it is nonforcing, although I would

even challenge this, but 2H is not a weak sign off.

 

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with

5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?

Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors

and min?

 

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has

to shows forward going values.

The logic "bid A has to show hand B because otherwise you can't show hand B" is brought up so often, and so often it is wrong...

If you play 2H as sign-off, you can't bid invitational hands. If you play it as forward-going, you can't bid weak hands with both majors sensibly.

Bidding agreements are always a trade-off, and anyway nobody ever claimed that traditional standard here is optimal.

#1 you are right, the argument "bid A has to show hand B

because otherwise you can't show hand B" is ..., which

can easiliy be shown.

because if 2H shows forward going values, you cant bid

weak 5-4 hands and use the same argument

 

#2 Holding a weak 5-4 hand, I would bid 2S, which is similar

to 1NT opening and transfering to spades ommitting stayman,

which you have to do, if stayman promises inv. values

 

#3 As always the question is, what is standard, but I believe the

simple rule "New suits by responder are forcing" is standard,

one can agree / disagree

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with

5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?

Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors

and min?

 

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has

to shows forward going values.

 

No, this doesn't follow. 1nt is a narrow range rebid. Without conventions, you don't lose a ton simply deciding to force to game or not. There are many more hands that want to sign off & not get to 3 level (5-9(10-) 4+ hearts), than those that want to invite (10+-11 4 hts). If you only have one bid available to show both hands, then it makes sense to use it for the one that will help you most often. Then just underbid/overbid the invitational hand depending on where it lies on the spectrum.

On the other hand reaching game is more valuable than

reaching the correct part score, and you have a reasonable

partscore, 2S - a 5-2 fit.

 

And the difference in frequency between weak hands

with 5-4 in the mayors and inv.+ hand with 5-4 in the

mayors is not that large.

After all responders will hold on average 8-9, assuming

opener showed 12-14.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

There are many exceptions to this "new suit by responder is forcing". This is one of them.

 

You may think 2♥ as forward going is better (I happen to disagree but we don't have to agree), but the orginal question was what it means in SAYC.

[Stephen Tu]

On the other hand reaching game is more valuable than

reaching the correct part score, and you have a reasonable

partscore, 2S - a 5-2 fit.

 

Stylistically, some of us like to rebid 1nt on 13(54), 1444 minimums, although this is up to partnership agreement. This allows us to play 1nt which may be the best spot, and also allows us to play 2H when responder has 4-5 hearts, when 2h NF :). Bidding 2S is not necessarily reasonable in this style.

 

Even if you have agreed never to rebid 1nt with a stiff, there is still considerable danger that you miss a substantially better heart contract when responder has 4 & especially 5 hearts. At MP, this is definitely not any less valuable than reaching games, you'll lose MP every time hearts takes extra trick(s). Even at IMPs, if this is the difference between making & down 1, this costs about the same as NV game bidding mishaps.

 

 

And the difference in frequency between weak hands

with 5-4 in the mayors and inv.+ hand with 5-4 in the

mayors is not that large.

After all responders will hold on average 8-9, assuming

opener showed 12-14.

 

You are going to invite game with 8-9 hcp opposite 12-14?

 

There is no way it's going to be close in overall frequency, the partscore range is like 5 pt range, the invitational range is around 1.5 pt range. Even with that range being more frequent than the lower end of the partscore range, the number of partscore hands are going to be much larger.

[keylime]

Elianna,

 

Check Garozzo's Ambra notes - I think he applies it to this case as well.

[awm]

Garozzo's Ambra notes do use an artificial 2♣ rebid after 1♦-1M. However, this doesn't appear in the various online descriptions of Gazilli and I would consider it a distinct conventional treatment rather than part of the Gazilli structure. Note that this method differs from Gazilli in many ways, including:

 

(1) In Gazilli, virtually all strong hands rebid 2♣ after 1M-1Y. Over 1♦-1M in Ambra, the 2♣ bid is only used with strong hands that are awkward to bid in standard methods, particularly 18+ balanced with a fit and game-forcing one-suiters (and natural club rebids of course).

 

(2) Gazilli is primarily a method for handling "tweener" hands that are awkward in standard because partner could easily pass a wide-ranging simple suit rebid (or would be forced to bid on dubious hands over wide-ranging simple suit rebids to handle the rare "tweener" opener hand). The Ambra notes use 1♦-1M-2♣ as artificial, but the various strong meanings are generally game-forcing (or nearly so) hands which are simply hard to describe in standard methods.

 

(3) In Gazilli, over 1M-1Y-2♣, we have 2♦ as a relay promising GF values opposite the strong option. Over 1♦-1M-2♣ in Ambra, we have 2♦ as a weakness signal and NF opposite the weak option. In fact there is no rebid over 1M-1Y-2♣ which promises more than minimum values without game interest opposite 11-16 with ♦/♣.