Forcing, or not?

[keylime]

Let's say you're not playing anything exotic in terms of Reverse Flannery, 2D as 3rd suit forcing, or such.

 

You hear this auction:

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♥

 

2♥ forcing, invitational, or drop dead?

[rogerclee]

Forcing. Would be NF if opener had rebid 1NT, would also be NF if you played 2♦ some sort of artificial checkback.

[Apollo81]

If you don't play anything special, a new suit by responder is forcing unless opener's last bid was 1NT.

[Cascade]

Forcing for one round. That is at least invitational values.

[han]

Forcing unless discussed otherwise.

[Guest Jlall]

lots of people play this as NF with 2D as art, but its still standard to play it as F1. Some play it as GF rather than F1.

[Codo]

Do we get the first 100 %? Forcing of course.

 

I like play it as nf myself, but surely this is not standard and not to be done without discussion.

[the hog]

Echo the above posts. Good argument for nf though.

[pclayton]

It's forcing, but a good partnership should either play it as NF, or discuss reverse flannery.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing.

 

But I had a discussion with lots of peoble, who claimed,

that this is nonforcing, even without playing something

like 3rd suit forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Yes, I believe they teach NF to beginners in the Netherlands. Not sure about England, but people at my club play it as forcing. In SAYC it is forcing.

[whereagles]

In SEF this is NF, 6-10 hcp and 5♠-4♥. The forcing bid is an artificial 2♦, the so-called "3rd suit forcing".

[Roupoil]

Well, in the "official" SEF 2♥ is forcing, described as 9-10 HCP, and 2♦ is indeed a third suit forcing, not promising anything but points.

[skjaeran]

Without any gadget this would be forcing IMO. Not absolutely sure, but I don't think I know of anyone playing it as forcing.

[Finch]

Without any gadget this would be forcing IMO. Not absolutely sure, but I don't think I know of anyone playing it as forcing.

me?

 

This auction was discussed at great length in the BIL forum.

[han]

The world's gone crazy. Standard is forcing and nobody here plays it as forcing except for our limit-bidder. :P

[cherdano]

Without any gadget this would be forcing IMO. Not absolutely sure, but I don't think I know of anyone playing it as forcing.

My name is Arend, nice to meet you Harald.

[han]

Oh wait, I guess I also play it as forcing. :P

[skjaeran]

So I learned something about Frances' and Han-Arends methods. :P

[jdonn]

So I learned something about Frances' and Han-Arends methods. :P

I do too with one partner :) but I have learned the hard way to just not bid it otherwise unless I don't care whether partner thinks it's forcing or not.

[keylime]

At the time this hand came up, I was the club bidder. I wasn't quite sure if it was forcing or drop-dead, because this was uncertain territory with my pard (occasional p'ship). I took another call with 1-3-3-6 shape (I bid my AKQ diamond fragment).

 

In an established p'ship, it would be much clearer I feel.

[han]

2NT with your hand seems clear instead of 3D.

[helene_t]

With all those p's with whom I play a natural 1♣ opening, this sequence is forcing for one round.

[gnasher]

The world's gone crazy. Standard is forcing and nobody here plays it as forcing except for our limit-bidder. :P

I play it forcing. But that probably means it's completely barking.

[Rebound]

Old fashioned here... I was taught it was forcing 20-odd years ago... and it hasn't changed with any partner I play with regularly. But then, I know I am very much behind the times in more ways than one.