GF or merely F ?

[ralph23]

Another recent thread raised this point....

 

Opps silent. Dealer opens 1♦ and it goes .....

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♣

 

Is 2♣ Game Forcing in your system, or just Forcing?

 

Why do you play it the way you do, in any case... yea yea, besides "partner likes it that way..." :lol:

[jtfanclub]

Another recent thread raised this point....

 

Opps silent. Dealer opens 1♦ and it goes .....

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♣

 

Is 2♣ Game Forcing in your system, or just Forcing?

 

Why do you play it the way you do, in any case... yea yea, besides "partner likes it that way..." :lol:

I'm used to it being strong, one round forcing, but not game forcing. I have no idea if

 

1♦ 1♥

1♠ 2♣

2♥

 

is forcing or not. Maybe I should ask those partners I play SAYC with.

 

Of course, my normal system is a Precision where we don't have this problem.

[zasanya]

I prefer it forcing for 1 round.Responder promises 10+ hcp and 1 more bid.After that responder may pass below game.This should allow us to stop at 2NT or 3 level suit contracts with 22-24 combined hcp

All my regular Partners however prefer GF so we play it that way. :lol:

[mikeh]

I appreciate that many play it as merely a one-round force.. I think that is, for example, BWS.

 

I have always (well, ever since I learned 4sf), played it as gf.

 

There are certainly some advantages to the one-round force approach... responder sometimes has hands that are on the border between gf and invitational, and needs to learn a little more about opener's hand before deciding... and responder should be captain. Thus, responder describing his invitational hand to opener conveys information to the wrong player.

 

Those situations do arise, but not often, and sometimes opener makes the winning decision anyway. Or responder makes a mild overbid and forces to game and gets away with it, either because opener has the right hand, or the cards/defence are friendly.

 

OTOH, playing 4sf as absolute gf (by an unpassed hand) allows for a very unstressed auction thereafter, on most hands.

 

So, partly through inertia (gf is the default expert treatment in my part of the world) and partly through having thought about it a little, I am happy with absolute gf.

[mikeh]

 

 

Of course, my normal system is a Precision where we don't have this problem.

I don't get it. How does playing precision alter the meaning of responder's 4SF in this auction?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I play FSF as one round force.

 

Why? Because I learned it that way, i.e. I am used

to it.

 

There are hands out there with inv. values

and no clear direction, and FSF was developed

to handle those, ... if you play FSF as GF than

you have to lie on those hands, and I cant bring

myself to do this.

 

There adv. / disadv. to both styles.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

Of course, my normal system is a Precision where we don't have this problem.

I don't get it. How does playing precision alter the meaning of responder's 4SF in this auction?

We play Game Forcing Through Inquiry. In this case, it's just GoLady: 1♦-2♣ is artificial game forcing, so the auction listed is not only not GF, it's not forcing at all, although it would be extremely rare to pass it (it would have to be an 11-13 count with 0-1 hearts).

 

Nothing about Precision that requires GoLady, and GoLady works great with Standard American. It's just that my normal system is a Precision that uses it.

[jdonn]

I have always played it game forcing for simplicity, and because there is only one unlikely specific hand that has no good bid there otherwise (3523 invitational no club stopper). On the other hand, invitational is not a bad treatment when the 4th suit is 2♣ or 2♦. Sometimes it lets you stop in 2♠ with a fit and minimum opener opposite invitation. So it's up to you.

 

I am not a fan of XYZ where 2♣ here is any invitational hand and 2♦ is any game force. I think it gives up too much, especially if the opening was 1♣.

[BillHiggin]

In my favorite system(s), it is a puppet to 2♦ with a weak diamond hand or some invitational hand (xyz). 2♦ would be artificial and GF. Admit that this is kind of waffling around the actual question, but the ability to "have the cake and eat it too" is nice. In auctions where opener's rebid has been 1♠, there are some invitational sequences (in my preferred version) that have defined meanings yet are probably not wise choices - but my olds-timers addled brain can at least remember the meanings (and on good days choose some other course of action).

[Finch]

I play in two regular partnerships, and one plays 4SF at the 2-level as game forcing, and one plays it as a one round force. I don't feel very strongly which is better, they both work well in different circumstances.

 

The former is a partnership that isn't madly interested in science (though in the last couple of years we've played a lot more serious bridge and added quite a lot of system). We play it as FG for simplicity.

 

The one-round-force partnership has recently changed its methods to make it rather more forcing. But first one principle behind the 1-round-force approach:

 

- While opener's minimum rebid can be passed, if responder bids again after using FSF that is (usually) forcing; with an invitational hand responder would have invited the previous round. [there are a couple of specific auctions that can be passed]

 

Having found that slam bidding gets into trouble when opener has extra values and has to jump, we've changed our methods slightly:

 

- FSF at 2S and above is game forcing

- Opener's rebid over FSF at the two level is passable, but at the 3-level shows extra values and is game forcing.

 

With a minimum distributional hand, opener will sometimes have to warp his rebid slightly over FSF to keep it at the 2-level. For example, after 1H - 1S - 2C - 2D - , if opener is looking at a very minimum 1525 he has to rebid either 2H or 2NT depending on red suit holdings.

 

- A raise of FSF shows extra high card values and no suitable bid; usually 5422 or 5431 with a low tripleton in the fourth suit.

 

[We have an additional couple of agreements about FSF at the 1-level:

1C - 1D - 1H - 1S is treated as FSF but may be natural; opener raises only with a 4144. Like FSF at the 2-level, opener's minimum rebid can be passed.

1C - 1D - 1H - 2S is a 3-card limit raise in clubs; 1C - 1D - 1H - 3C shows 4 clubs. Stops us playing in 3C with a 4414 opposite a 3253.

We open or rebid NT with a balanced hand, so opener can have 4 spades after 1C - 1D - 1H only with specifically a 4414 distribution]

[Guest Jlall]

I play it as GF

[skjaeran]

Previously I always played any FSF except 1♠ as GF.

 

Recently I've been playing xyz in all regular partnerships, and thus play 2♣ as a puppet to 2♦, either to sign off there or to make an invite. 2♦ is an artificial GF.

 

In pick-up partnerships I play xyz if (s)he is used to playing it, else FSF=GF.

[EricK]

I don't mind playing it as GF.

 

If I were playing it as not GF then I would like that the only way to stop short of game would be if opener rebid 2M. Playing 2NT by opener as non-forcing seems wrong as it forces him to jump to 3NT just because he has a little bit extra, and also because 2N on misfitting hands (as these are likely to be) won't be much of a bargain. And playing opener's 3 level rebids as NF seems even more wrong for similar reasons.

 

So after eg 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦!, 2♥ or 2♠ would be NF - the latter often on Hx; everything from 2N upwards would be GF