Forcing or not?

[Gerben42]

Auction:

 

1♠ - 1NT (forcing or not, your pref.)

2NT - 3♣/♦/♥

 

Do you play this as forcing or not? I heard some play it as not forcing if a minor, but 3♥ forcing. What about you? Does your partner agree?

[rogerclee]

Standard is forcing, many people play transfers here.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

never though about it, but according to our systemic

agreement, it should / would be forcing.

 

We play weak jump shifts (4-7) and one suiter which

go via a forcing NT 8-10, hence after a bid which would

show something like 16-18 the bid has to be forcing, ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[MikeRJ]

I would take 3C or 3D as weak, 3H as forcing (normally a 5 card suit offering choice of game).

 

Mike

[Finch]

If 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing (i.e. any hand not strong enough to force to game) I play all suit bids over 2NT as forcing. A bit of an imps-orientated approach, you get to the right games/slams at the cost of playing in the wrong partscore.

 

Because of the rest of my methods 2NT is always balanced, never 5422 or 6322 which helps.

 

In an Acol-style context where 1NT is about 5-9 I play these as non-forcing as any decent 6-card minor / 5-card heart suit would have strained to make a 2/1 on the first round.

[gnasher]

If 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing (i.e. any hand not strong enough to force to game) I play all suit bids over 2NT as forcing. A bit of an imps-orientated approach, you get to the right games/slams at the cost of playing in the wrong partscore.

You ought to play transfers then. The downside of transfers is that you can't play in 3♣, but if everything's forcing you can't do that anyway.

[han]

I also play transfers here, I like them.

[Finch]

If 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing (i.e. any hand not strong enough to force to game) I play all suit bids over 2NT as forcing.  A bit of an imps-orientated approach, you get to the right games/slams at the cost of playing in the wrong partscore.

You ought to play transfers then. The downside of transfers is that you can't play in 3♣, but if everything's forcing you can't do that anyway.

Actually I think the answer is to make 2NT artificial and stick 18-19 balanced in the 2C bid. But that's a different discussion.

 

And we've added so much new system in the last year we're having a temporary embargo while it all beds down.

[CSGibson]

we play all NF there, but we also respond very light with a single suited hand, since we play intermediate JS. I'm not sure it's the best treatment, though.

[fromageGB]

For me the 1NT is forcing, and the 2NT rebid is 15/16 (no stronger) so 3♣/♦ are to play. The 2NT bid does not deny 4 hearts, though, so while 3♥ is also to play it may get raised.

[kenrexford]

Echo, echo, echo.

 

2NT as artificial -- check

2♣ to handle all tweener hands -- check (plus a lot of creative 2NT openings)

 

But, if natural (ugh!)...

 

Transfers -- check (just changed recently)

[awm]

Usually I play these as forcing.

 

While transfers obviously help you on the hands where you want to sign off in a suit (you can't do this if suit bids are forcing) they actually make things more difficult on some slammish hands. Besides 3♣ (where you are most of a level lower than 3♠ transfer to clubs), it is also the case that opener usually has a cheap cuebid and responder often doesn't. So if you want to look for slam in diamonds (say) provided that opener has the right hand, playing transfers you will see:

 

3♣ transfer

3♦ forced

3NT (slam try; else would bid 3NT direct)

four-level cuebid by opener if he likes diamonds; else pass

 

Whereas without transfers:

 

3♦ (natural forcing)

three-level cuebid by opener if he likes diamonds (save many steps!) else 3NT

 

Of course, I do like to play gazzilli also, which nicely removes the NF hands from the equation (strong 2NT rebid hands go via 1M-1N-2♣-2♦-2NT which is already a GF sequence; without enough for game responder breaks the 2♣ puppet).

[cjames]

I think many good players here in Norway play the 2NT bid as GF in a natural system, so then transfer looks good (and of course forcing), even though I think those who use the 2NT bid as GF use 3♣ as responder as an unknown 5card minor etc, I don't know the full scheme.

[twcho]

I think Gazilli has an obvious advantage here over the 2NT response. Strongly recommended.

[cjames]

I think Gazilli has an obvious advantage here over the 2NT response. Strongly recommended.

Yes, I know. I play it myself.

[skjaeran]

I play 2NT as conventional and GF....

 

Then 3♣=a 5-card minor, 3♦=4-card hearts, 3♥=5-card, 3♠=♠Hx, 3NT=55m. With some 3♣ also include 6-card hearts.