Is this bid f1 in 2/1, weak NT, 1c promises 2+, MP

[Mbodell]

Prompted by me having something like Kx Qx Jxx AKxxxx tonight and the auction above where I then corrected to 2S which partner then bid 4S and made 5. On the drive home I was going back and forth on what I would have done if you switched my red suits.

[vang]

some play that after 1♣ - 1M - 2♣ ... 2♦ is a forcing relay thus making 2♥ non-forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

nonforcing.

 

Usually one plays NMF in this auction

or soomething more advanced, which

allows you to play 2H as nonforcing.

 

Not playing NMF, I used to believe that 2H

was forcing in SAYC, but according to the booklet

it is not.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

Classically,

 

1♣ 1♠

2♣ 2♥

 

is 6-10 hcp, more or less.

[Guest Jlall]

No, that is not correct. 2H is forcing in standard bidding. The fact that some (many?) may use 2D as completely art freeing up 2H as NF does not mean it is standard.

[P_Marlowe]

No, that is not correct. 2H is forcing in standard bidding. The fact that some (many?) may use 2D as completely art freeing up 2H as NF does not mean it is standard.

thanks, this is / was also my believe, but as

always, what is standard.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Agree with Justin. In SA without NMF it is clearly forcing by an unpassed hand. I believe this is true even in classic Acol but I might be wrong.

 

By a passed hand, I'm not quite sure. Voted NF.

[Finch]

In ancient (1950s) Acol this would have been non-forcing, but nowadays I believe that the vast majority of European players would say that 2H is forcing.

 

By a passed hand it is not forcing, on the basis that any natural bid by a passed hand is non-forcing on principle.

 

By the way, even with your red suits switched (so that you were 2-3-2-6, and even if 2H were non-forcing, the correct call would still be preference to 2S over 2H.

[whereagles]

No, that is not correct. 2H is forcing in standard bidding.

It's forcing in your side of the world. Not in mine.

[paulg]

In ancient (1950s) Acol this would have been non-forcing, but nowadays I believe that the vast majority of European players would say that 2H is forcing.

 

By a passed hand it is not forcing, on the basis that any natural bid by a passed hand is non-forcing on principle.

 

By the way, even with your red suits switched (so that you were 2-3-2-6, and even if 2H were non-forcing, the correct call would still be preference to 2S over 2H.

Crowhurst's Precision Bidding in Acol, first published in 1974 and last reprinted in 1988 (according to my copy), says that it is only constructive.

 

I expect even Eric has changed his mind now.

 

Paul

[skjaeran]

I used to play this as forcing.

But for quite a long time now I've used 2♦ as a conventional call and 2♥ as NF.

[han]

Arend and I use both 1C-2H and 1C-2S as reverse Flannery, so the 1S bidder typically does not have 4+ hearts unless he has gameforcing values. So we play 1C-1S-2C-2H as gameforcing with 5-4 in the majors and we also play 2D as an artificial gameforce but that doesn't seem optimal. Perhaps we should play 2D as nonforcing and 2H as an artificla gameforce in this auction? Any thoughts?

[whereagles]

Crowhurst's Precision Bidding in Acol, first published in 1974 and last reprinted in 1988 (according to my copy), says that it is only constructive.

 

I expect even Eric has changed his mind now.

It depends. In US style, 2♣ shows 6 cards almost all of the time. Thus, you can afford to pass with a 5-4 or 6 spades and 6-9 hcp. That allows for the rebid of 2♥/2♠ with a 54/6 to be stronger than 6-9 and thus forcing to at least 2NT.

 

In other styles (e.g. french), 2♣ can be made on any 5-4 not strong enough to reverse. So responder won't like to pass with 6-10 if he has, say, a sing club. Thus 2♥/2♠ become 6-10 and stronger hands go via an artificial 2♦, which is called "3rd suit forcing".

[johnallen]

Maybe playing Acol in the 60's colours my thinking too much, but to me the sequence 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥ shows no support for clubs and a 6-10 point hand with 5+ spades and 4+ hearts, and asks partner to pass or convert to spades.

[Stephen Tu]

Not playing NMF, I used to believe that 2H

was forcing in SAYC, but according to the booklet

it is not.

 

"NMF" properly only refers to the convention used after a 1nt rebid. Using 2♦ as artificial on this sequence so that 2♥ can be non-forcing uses other names like "Bourke relay", Rubens also coined a term "TSAR" (third suit artificial relay) for his own scheme.

 

As for SA, 2♥ is clearly forcing by an unpassed hand at least, and still forcing if "NMF" is agreed (since again, that only applies to after 1nt rebid). I'd never assume non-forcing without explicit discussion. The default rule in SA is "new suits by an unpassed responder are forcing, except after 1nt rebid". NMF is an "exception to the exception" for the 1nt rebid case. Exceptions to this sequence with the minor rebid would require explicit discussion.

 

But 1♣-1♠-1nt-2♥ is universally non-forcing in all std literature although some previous posters have been confused on the matter.

[keylime]

Han,

 

Since you play xfer responses to 1♣, with a 4M and let's say, 6♦ hand, what do you start with first?

[skjaeran]

Han,

 

Since you play xfer responses to 1♣, with a 4M and let's say, 6♦ hand, what do you start with first?

Depends on strength.

I transfer to the major with non-GH hands and bid 1♠ (3-way) with GF strenght.

Some I know transfer to M with non-inv hands and bid 1♠ (=♦) with inv+.

[BillHiggin]

Arend and I use both 1C-2H and 1C-2S as reverse Flannery, so the 1S bidder typically does not have 4+ hearts unless he has gameforcing values. So we play 1C-1S-2C-2H as gameforcing with 5-4 in the majors and we also play 2D as an artificial gameforce but that doesn't seem optimal. Perhaps we should play 2D as nonforcing and 2H as an artificla gameforce in this auction? Any thoughts?

The jec team system includes this agreement, and I am trying to understand all the ramifications.

 

I like 1m 2H as responder's reverse flannery showing 4(+)♥ and 5♠ with less than invite values (a hand uncomfortable making a 2nd F1 bid). I strongly like full xyz (pick a variant - any variant) and some form of cheapest 3rd suit invite+ agreement. It seems preferable then to use the 1♣ 1♠; 1N/2♣ 2♥ bid as an invite (non-forcing) and 1♣ 2♠ as wjr. Over 1♦, the 2♠ jump as invitational 5♠-4♥ seems needed (partner might rebid 2♦ and we then need our artificial invite+ bid). Is the complication of differing responses to 1m depending on actual suit worthwhile? Maybe yes, maybe no. I do like to make it tough for 4th hand to get in a cheap red suit call after partner opens 1♣.

 

What I really need is a partner willing to consider some of these newer inovations!

[johnallen]

My original post was:

Maybe playing Acol in the 60's colours my thinking too much, but to me the sequence 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥ shows no support for clubs and a 6-10 point hand with 5+ spades and 4+ hearts, and asks partner to pass or convert to spades.

However:

The default rule in SA is "new suits by an unpassed responder are forcing, except after 1nt rebid".

This is confirmed on page 71 of "Standard Bidding with SAYC" by Downey and Pomer: "Unless responder's first call was 1NT, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round."

 

It looks like I have to revise my thinking and confirm with my partner.

[han]

Han,

 

Since you play xfer responses to 1♣, with a 4M and let's say, 6♦ hand, what do you start with first?

Depends on strength.

I transfer to the major with non-GH hands and bid 1♠ (3-way) with GF strenght.

Same for me.