Is it Forcing??

[Onedown]

Quite honestly this post may make me look like a putz and I am sure someone has asked the question I am posing before, somewhere out there.

 

Having played and taught for almost 50 years I think I may have a Bridge 101 question that I can find no answer for on any google search on: Responder is a "passed hand", what is forcing here?

 

You hold a fairly flat 7 HCP hand and as dealer with T9x KT986 JTx Kx..the auction proceeds: p-p-1C-p-1H-p-1S...

 

Pard has opened a club and rebid 1S...is 1S forcing..what type of hand can p have that he rebids on the one level, not pushing you! I passed and P ?? and says he tht 1S forcing and I stated..."I am a passed hand"!.nothing more was discussed.

 

The question in my mind was what HCP value can pard have for a simple 1s bid knowing I am a passed hand? Surely he cannot be better than 17 or flat with 15-17. Is he distributional and could not find a jump bid to prod me on? I came up with a flat 0 of answers why I shd bid on...The board was not a disaster, but of course pard had a flat 18 and I mean flat, decided 1S was better than a jump to 2NT especially holding AJX of Hs....

 

We know his bid was wrong---please rate my pass as to wrong or right

[jjbrr]

If he wanted to force, he should have bid 2♠

 

With a flat 18 he should rebid 2NT, and presumably you'd have methods of uncovering the 4-4 ♠ fit.

[hanp]

Most standard is probably NF but some will answer forcing and there are even some who argue that it is right to bid 1S with 18-19 balanced hands.

[hotShot]

In ACOL it is forcing (F1).

I think in SAYC it is NF.

 

So perhaps you should specify the context a little more.

[PhantomSac]

1S is not forcing but you need to bid 1N with your hand. If partner is something like 4315 you have a mountain. AKxx Axx x AJxxx is a 16 count where 4H will be a massive favorite for instance.

 

If partner is 4-6 your hand might also be quite useful, like Axxx A Qx AQxxxx is a very good 3N.

 

etc etc. In general you would only pass 1S with 5-6 and exactly 3 spades.

 

Also partner could have some 18 counts, like 4135, that didn't want to jump shift with a stiff in your suit.

[PhantomSac]

TheHog: 1S is obviously forcing, everyone in Australia plays it this way, how could anyone play it NF, Justin don't say 1S is not forcing everyone in the world doesn't play in that way, it's an international forum!!!!11!!

 

Awm: I prefer to rebid 1S with 18-19 balanced and 4 spades.

 

/thread

[Onedown]

of course some will say it is forcing..that is the problem..:)

[peachy]

I cannot imagine why it would be forcing in any system, given the conditions. If opener wanted to force, he would bid 2S.

 

Given that it was a third seat opener, 1S there shows a full opening hand that is not balanced since the rebid wasn't 1NT. Responder can do with that information what he thinks is best, including Pass. With two kings instead of 7HCP in quacks, and a pretty good five card suit, and one of the kings in partner's suit, I would like to keep the bidding open over 1S. Pass is not a clear error.

[Onedown]

this is turning out to be a real interesting problem/debate..50% are for non forcing so far, others vary from giving hand layouts, to asking sys-its sayc or 2/1..or saying in the land down under it is forcing..

 

My real answer is...there is no real answer--Y'all answer based on what your perception of bridge is here and there is no clear cut rule. It is just one of those bridge "things" akin to "who shot JFK"?

[Onedown]

PhantomSac - you posted 2 comments but both in the same vein...If in Australia you ALL play this as forcing, then of course you are going to bid 1S with a flat 18/19...you KNOW P cannot pass!

 

However, if you had some flat 18-19 and 4S you should also have sufficient gadgets to jump to 2nt and find a 4-4 fit or play in Hs...

 

FYI-- the pard I was playing with was Australian so I was totally screwed without knowing it..:)....

 

The easy solution is you and pard must agree if as a passed hand you can pass openers new suit rebid at the 1 level..regardless of Responders HCP..

[jjbrr]

PhantomSac - you posted 2 comments but both in the same vein...If in Australia you ALL play this as forcing, then of course you are going to bid 1S with a flat 18/19...you KNOW P cannot pass!

 

However, if you had some flat 18-19 and 4S you should also have sufficient gadgets to jump to 2nt and find a 4-4 fit or play in Hs...

 

FYI-- the pard I was playing with was Australian so I was totally screwed without knowing it..:)....

 

The easy solution is you and pard must agree if as a passed hand you can pass openers new suit rebid at the 1 level..regardless of Responders HCP..

Did you catch that the second post of phantomsac's was not serious?

 

Read his first post only.

[nigel_k]

How is it relevant that you have passed? Partner can still have all of the good hands that might want to bid 1♠ forcing and you can still have bad hands that would like to pass 1♠ or better hands that would be worth another bid.

 

You should bid the same way as if you had not passed - for me that would mean that 1♠ is not forcing but I would only pass with a bare minimum and you have a bit extra so can try 1NT. Pass is not terrible though. The only major error here is thinking that being a passed hand could possibly make a difference to whether 1♠ is forcing.

[helene_t]

It doesn't matter whether you are a passed hand or not.

 

I don't think there are any standard systems in which 1♠ is forcing. It just denies a hand that could GF. This means that responder can pass with an absolute minimum but not with more than that.

 

This is true in English Acol, SA, Biedermeijer, DBS and probably all other standard systems with a natural or semi-natural 1♣ opening.

[jdonn]

When I was an intermediate player I thought 1♠ was forcing and wrote this very question to "Dear Billy" in the ACBL bulletin and got published, woot.

[kfay]

Dude, 1♠ isn't forcing even if I'm an unpassed hand.

[gnasher]

Personally I prefer to play 1♠ as forcing, but I can't think of a mainstream system where it's forcing by default.

 

I cannot imagine why it would be forcing in any system, given the conditions.

People who play this sequence as forcing do so for the same reason as people play bids as forcing in other sequences: they want to be able to explore the right contract without consuming a level of bidding and without the risk of partner passing. A secondary benefit is that they can use a jump to 2♠ to show a different hand-type. Whether these benefits justify the disadvantages is another question.

[karlson]

Of course standard is NF, but I actually think that this might be NF only because it has always been so, and I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years it becomes standard to play it as forcing. I suspect that the hands where 1s is a much better partial than 2c or 1n are pretty rare, that auctions that start 1c-1h-2s are not particularly great, and that 2s as a heart raise or something would be fairly useful.

[peachy]

Personally I prefer to play 1♠ as forcing, but I can't think of a mainstream system where it's forcing by default.

 

I cannot imagine why it would be forcing in any system, given the conditions.

People who play this sequence as forcing do so for the same reason as people play bids as forcing in other sequences: they want to be able to explore the right contract without consuming a level of bidding and without the risk of partner passing. A secondary benefit is that they can use a jump to 2♠ to show a different hand-type. Whether these benefits justify the disadvantages is another question.

My note was incomplete = should have included "barring specific agreement for it to be forcing".

[kenberg]

It may be difficult to add much to what has been said but:

 

 

The fact that you are a passed hand means that your 1H bid was not forcing.

 

The fact that you are a passed hand has nothing to do with whether partner's 1S is forcing. Your 1H can be on six points whether you are a passed hand or not, so this has no bearing.

 

Playing in the US, and playing strong no trumps, I have never played with anyone who wanted to play the 1S as forcing. With weak notrumpers there could be more of a point, maybe, since after 1C-1H-1S opener will be strong or shapely or both. But if we restrict to US and strong NT, then it is not anywhere near fifty-fifty as you suggest in one of your posts. NF is the normal interpretation.

 

 

Partner, on this auction, could have a 4=3=1=5 hand with 17 or 18 points. What would you like him to do after 1C-1H? A game forcing 2S without knowing of the heart fit seems extravagant. 2H would be an underbid, 3H really should be on four card support. Of course he could also have crap. Just rebid 1NT and see what happens.

 

It's true that the 1S will not often be passed. Mostly it gets passed when the 1H was a bit of a stretch, responder being short in clubs. Or with a flattish six count. Not often passed but not forcing is pretty playable and really it's standard from everything I have seen.

[awm]

Awm: I prefer to rebid 1S with 18-19 balanced and 4 spades.

Hey I agree with.... me. :P

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

we used to play it as forcing, but opener needs to expect 1S being

passed out, if the response was basically "light".

 

In the end NF caters for the fact, that one may have less than 6HCP

for a response, so if you always have 6HCP for a response it does

not make sense to play 1S as NF.

 

Playing 1S as forcing has the advantage that a jump shift by opener

always showes 5-4, other it could be 4441.

 

Another point: The style, that openers 2nd bid with a bal. hand is a NT

rebid gains supporters, even if the NT rebid means, that one has to

by pass a major suit. We switched to this style.

 

This is also happening in Acol, because "English Standard" recommends

opening to open with the major, if one has a 4 card minor and a 4 card

major, i.e. if opener starts with a minor and his 2nd rebid is a major, than

this would also show a unbal. hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: For whats it worth - I think forcing is best.

[campboy]

In ACOL it is forcing (F1).

Where did you get that from? I have never heard anyone suggest that it is forcing, and certainly in traditional Acol fewer bids are forcing than in most modern systems. The only reference I have to hand is Crowhurst's 1974 book 'Precision Bidding in Acol', which lists this sequence as non-forcing.

[Finch]

Very few bids in Acol are forcing, and this one certainly isn't.

[hotShot]

In ACOL it is forcing (F1).

Where did you get that from? I have never heard anyone suggest that it is forcing, and certainly in traditional Acol fewer bids are forcing than in most modern systems. The only reference I have to hand is Crowhurst's 1974 book 'Precision Bidding in Acol', which lists this sequence as non-forcing.

Well I won't insist on it, my ACOL days are long gone. I'm not even sure I still have that book. It was a modified ACOL with strong NT with suits being bid line up.

[bd71]

When I was an intermediate player I thought 1♠ was forcing...

So that's exactly where I was, two months ago, before this situation came up to burn me, which led to further discussion with my partner.

 

I now know that in SAYC and 2/1, 1S is not forcing (although I still instinctively FEEL that it is), but it's not clear to me WHY it should be non-forcing.

 

It seems to me that BOTH of the following conditions would need to be true on a hand for a non-forcing 1S to leave you in the best place, and thus for the non-forcing to be the right approach:

 

Condition 1. Our combined point holdings have to be pretty minimum. This can happen but seems somewhat rare since we've shown 16-17 minimum (say a rule of 20 opener, and a think 5-point response), and neither opponent has spoken.

 

Condition 2. EITHER (a) Opponents would NOT balance after 1S is passed (seems like this would be very rare), OR (bb) Opponents would balance and we would NOT want to compete to the two level (so hand would have to be a total misfit)

 

Seems like Conditions 1 and 2 are going to be rare individually, and combined even rarer. So doesn't seem like you gain a lot by making 1S non-forcing, and like gnasher said you gain some flexibility to describe your hand at a low level if you define it as forcing.