Forcing?

[helene_t]

Playing English Acol, uncontested:

1♥-2♣

3♣-3♥

[hotShot]

Back in my Acol days this was not forcing, but maybe that was the stone age.

[gnasher]

So far as I know, the first person to discuss this sequence in print was Crowhurst, in Precision Bidding in Acol (1974). He said it was non-forcing, I think.

 

Playing a strong notrump, it should clearly be forcing. You wouldn't want to play a 4-3 fit at the three-level, so with a 4-card suit and a 12-count opener would have to bid. If he has to bid game with his most unsuitable hand, we should be happy for him to bid with more suitable hands.

 

Playing a weak notrump, you could play it as non-forcing and invitational: if opener is munimum, he also has a five-card suit, so it's a playable spot. However, that leaves you with a problem when respnder has a game-force and 3-car support.

[helene_t]

Although we would open 1♥ with 4♥4♣, we both took this sequence as showing five hearts, i.e. opener would rebid 2NT with a balanced 15+ which is a game force. Yeah I know, this would wrongside some 3NT contracts.

 

On that basis I thought it should be forcing since opener's hand is narrowly defined in terms of strength. My p meant it as a contract improvement (it was matchpoints).

 

She had 10 points and found that too strong for an initial 2♥ bid.

[Finch]

No it's not forcing, never has been. Gnasher has given an argument about why it ought to be in some fairly specific circumstances, but the basic principle of Acol is that bids generally aren't forcing.

If you play a style where opener has implied 5 hearts by this sequence, it definitely isn't forcing, it's the way responder shows an invitational hand with 3-card support.

 

p.s. my Acol-style partner and I have recently agreed to play this as forcing (the idea is that once you have a double fit you may as well bid game) but we believe that is nothing like standard.

[helene_t]

Thanks, Frances. I guess I am still (after a good three years) still not quite integrated in the UK.

 

There was also this one (not discussed with this partner but with some of the better Acol players in Lancaster):

 

1♠-2♣

2♥-2NT

3♠

 

which I wasn't sure about but since the auction op to and including 2NT means the same in Acol as in SAYC (ok, 1♠ and 2♣ don´t mean the same but after the second round the situation is the same), and since it is forcing in SAYC, I would think it was forcing in Acol also. But yeah, there seems to be a general principle in Acol that bidding an "old" suit without a jump is never forcing.

 

What do you think? Is 3♠ non-forcing for better Acol players? In Lancaster they didn't think so.

[AlexJonson]

For full disclosure, I voted is and always was forcing.

 

Be interested to see any good quality player, recorded hand where this auction was passed.

 

I've seen people who would pass 3C

(and I had a surprised conversation with them long enough ago to be the stone age).

 

I've not met the hand that passes 3H in this auction, so far (ignoring the usual result needed).

[helene_t]

Well people here would open with almost all 11 counts and many ten counts with 5♥4♣. And respond 2♣ with most 9-counts. So 3♣ could certainly be high enough. As it happened, I wasn´t ashamed of my opening but 4♥ had no play at all and went two off on normal splits.

 

So I wouldn't say that you can always bid game in this sequence. It is just that I thought it was analogous to

 

1♥-1♠

3♥-3♠

where 3♠, although it is an old suit without a jump and although you could hold hands that would like to bid 3♠ NF, it is forcing.

[AlexJonson]

Well people here would open with almost all 11 counts and many ten counts with 5♥4♣. And respond 2♣ with most 9-counts. So 3♣ could certainly be high enough. As it happened, I wasn´t ashamed of my opening but 4♥ had no play at all and went two off on normal splits.

 

So I wouldn't say that you can always bid game in this sequence. It is just that I thought it was analogous to

 

1♥-1♠

3♥-3♠

where 3♠, although it is an old suit without a jump and although you could hold hands that would like to bid 3♠ NF, it is forcing.

 

Not sure, that was the point of my conversation with reasonable players about passing 3C.

 

If 3C says 'I'm minimum, pass with a minimum', these natural limit bid players bid what to move on?

 

Bear in mind that people in the stone age had their thinking influenced by rubber scoring. That doesn't mean serious players didn't understand MP and IMP scoring.

[nigel_k]

So far as I know, the first person to discuss this sequence in print was Crowhurst, in Precision Bidding in Acol (1974). He said it was non-forcing, I think.

According to Squire's Theory of Bidding, the sequence 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠ is not forcing. I have the second (1979) edition so I don't know if this was in the first edition. Anyway I think it should be forcing but would not be 100% confident of this if undiscussed.

[Finch]

Thanks, Frances. I guess I am still (after a good three years) still not quite integrated in the UK.

 

There was also this one (not discussed with this partner but with some of the better Acol players in Lancaster):

 

1♠-2♣

2♥-2NT

3♠

 

which I wasn't sure about but since the auction op to and including 2NT means the same in Acol as in SAYC (ok, 1♠ and 2♣ don´t mean the same but after the second round the situation is the same), and since it is forcing in SAYC, I would think it was forcing in Acol also. But yeah, there seems to be a general principle in Acol that bidding an "old" suit without a jump is never forcing.

 

What do you think? Is 3♠ non-forcing for better Acol players? In Lancaster they didn't think so.

 

That one looks non-forcing to me as well, a weak 6-4. If I had a game force I would bid 3D (fourth suit) over 2NT.

The only slightly odd one is that 1S - 2C - 2D - 2NT - 3S feels forcing now, although similarly it never would have been. With spades and hearts you will always show both suits; with 6 spades and 4 diamonds and a weak hand, you might well not bother to show the diamonds (particularly back in the days when 2D was non-forcing).

[Finch]

Well people here would open with almost all 11 counts and many ten counts with 5♥4♣. And respond 2♣ with most 9-counts. So 3♣ could certainly be high enough. As it happened, I wasn´t ashamed of my opening but 4♥ had no play at all and went two off on normal splits.

 

So I wouldn't say that you can always bid game in this sequence. It is just that I thought it was analogous to

 

1♥-1♠

3♥-3♠

where 3♠, although it is an old suit without a jump and although you could hold hands that would like to bid 3♠ NF, it is forcing.

 

Well, in old-fashioned Acol that one is non-forcing as well (and I've seen people have this sequence and pass 3S).

You are right that most Acol players nowadays have an agreed exception to the general rule and play this as forcing - but this is an exception to Acol principles, rather than a standard.

[Finch]

For full disclosure, I voted is and always was forcing.

 

Be interested to see any good quality player, recorded hand where this auction was passed.

 

I've already said that until very recently I played this sequence as non-forcing. If I tried I could probably find an example from BBO vugraph from the premier league (though I am not going to try).

[helene_t]

That one looks non-forcing to me as well, a weak 6-4. If I had a game force I would bid 3D (fourth suit) over 2NT.

The only slightly odd one is that 1S - 2C - 2D - 2NT - 3S feels forcing now, although similarly it never would have been. With spades and hearts you will always show both suits; with 6 spades and 4 diamonds and a weak hand, you might well not bother to show the diamonds (particularly back in the days when 2D was non-forcing).

Ah right, they use FSF by opener here also. In SA,

1♠-2♣

2♥-2NT

3♦

would be natural 5440 (not sure if it is forcing, LOL).

 

Last week, another partner passed me in

1♠-2♣

2♦-3♦

3♠

which I meant as forcing but presumably I should have bid 3♥ (FSF) here also. I thought 3♠ here should show better spades than 3♥, happy to be raised to 4♠ on a singleton jack or something. But I could have bid 3♥ anyway, if he then bid 4♦ I could bid 4♠.

[helene_t]

By the way, although I don't like Acol, I can see that it is useful to have these discussions in a partnership because even if you play 2/1, you will be playing something Acol-like after responder makes a 2-level freebid in a suit lower ranking than opener's suit:

 

1♠-(2♣)-2♦-(pass)

2♥-a.p.

was a sequence I saw by two GIBs, although the 2♥ bid was explained as unlimited so the final pass might have been anti-system. I was surprised to see this since it would be forcing in modern Acol so surely it should be forcing in any 2/1 system as well! Lawrence wrote that a 2/1 response over an overcall does not promise a second bid but even so I would expect this to be forcing for all 2/1 players. OTOH there are tons of other auctions, such as the ones discussed in this thread, the forcing character of which I would be unsure of if there had been an overcall in between.

[Lurpoa]

Playing English Acol, uncontested:

1♥-2♣

3♣-3♥

 

 

 

 

A limit bid would go through 1♥ 3♥, not worth going through ♣ !!!

[Cyberyeti]

A limit bid would go through 1♥ 3♥, not worth going through ♣ !!!

So you want to make a raise to the 3 level with 3 hearts opposite 4 ?

 

English Acol, this can easily be a 4 card suit for the opener.

[Lurpoa]

So far as I know, the first person to discuss this sequence in print was Crowhurst, in Precision Bidding in Acol (1974). He said it was non-forcing, I think.

 

Playing a strong notrump, it should clearly be forcing. You wouldn't want to play a 4-3 fit at the three-level, so with a 4-card suit and a 12-count opener would have to bid. If he has to bid game with his most unsuitable hand, we should be happy for him to bid with more suitable hands.

 

Playing a weak notrump, you could play it as non-forcing and invitational: if opener is munimum, he also has a five-card suit, so it's a playable spot. However, that leaves you with a problem when respnder has a game-force and 3-car support.

 

 

please, can you verify Crowhurst..... if non forcing, what were his reasons ?

Stong or weak NT: the inviting goes trough 1♥ 3♥: no need to mention ♣

 

 

[Lurpoa]

So you want to make a raise to the 3 level with 3 hearts opposite 4 ?

 

English Acol, this can easily be a 4 card suit for the opener.

 

 

Right !

Indeed, the suggested sequence, is clearly inviting, now that we discovered the 5-3 fit.

[Cascade]

For a while we played these as forcing based on the double fit but we relatively quickly gave up because we open so light and respond at the two level so light that game was not always a reasonable proposition.

 

We do play

 

1♠ 2♥

3♥ 3♠

 

as forcing. In fact it is a cuebid for hearts. We have a general rule after we have found a major suit we don't look for another fit unless we go to slam.

 

After

 

1M 2m

3m ...

 

3M = non force

 

3other = primarily a NT try but can be an advanced cue usually for the minor

 

4m = sets trumps and slammish

 

4om = too good for 4M

 

4M = to play

[Zelandakh]

There was a book written in the Master series (thus 'official') which spent alot of time on sequences with 2 suits being supported and 4th suit forcing, in fact these 2 sets of sequences were almost the whole book! It is a long time ago (early 90s I think) but as I recall the recommended approach was that if the second suit is a minor it is definitely (game) forcing. If the second suit is a major then the author was more circumspect, saying there were advantages to either approach. But in the end he suggested that the positives from making it forcing outweighed the positives from having this available as an invite. That said, it is non-forcing without a special agreement otherwise but, in my experience, almost never passed in practise.

[nige1]

please, can you verify Crowhurst..... if non forcing, what were his reasons ?

Stong or weak NT: the inviting goes trough 1♥ 3♥: no need to mention ♣

On p212 of Precision Bidding in Acol (1974), Eric Crowhurst recommends that 1♥ - 2♦ -; 3♦ - 3♥ be invitational but non-forcing

- 1♥ = Could be four cards

- 2♦ = Usually 9+ HCP. At least four cards. Forcing for one round.

- 3♦ = Limit raise. Minimum opening bid with at least four card support. Implies five hearts. Not forcing.

- 3♥ = Three cards. Invitational but not forcing.

Opener can pass, correct to 4♦, raise to 4♥, bid 3♠ (as a notrump probe), or even bid 3N (all natural).

[Lurpoa]

On p212 of Precision Bidding in Acol (1974), Eric Crowhurst recommends that 1♥ - 2♦ -; 3♦ - 3♥ be invitational but non-forcing

- 1♥ = Could be four cards

- 2♦ = Usually 9+ HCP. At least four cards. Forcing for one round.

- 3♦ = Limit raise. Minimum opening bid with at least four card support. Implies five hearts. Not forcing.

- 3♥ = Three cards. Invitational but not forcing.

Opener can pass, correct to 4♦, raise to 4♥, bid 3♠ (as a notrump probe), or even bid 3N (all natural).

 

 

 

 

As said, yes, I fully agree. I was wrong (too focused on 5card major systems).

Mea Culpa.

[whereagles]

I don't quite agree with

 

1M 2m

3m

 

being non-forcing. Say responder has 10-12. How is he going to find out whether opener has 11 or 14? You might be missing out on cold games and bid to unmakable ones.

 

It's much better to bid

 

1M 2m

2M

 

with a min and 5 cards, rather than 3m. Responder always has the strength to bid 2NT anyway, after which you can show delayed support for the minor and weak hand. Note that in acol opener can't have 4 cards (would open a weak NT or rebid 2NT with 15-17).

[gnasher]

I don't quite agree with

 

1M 2m

3m

 

being non-forcing. Say responder has 10-12. How is he going to find out whether opener has 11 or 14? You might be missing out on cold games and bid to unmakable ones.

 

It's much better to bid

 

1M 2m

2M

 

with a min and 5 cards, rather than 3m. Responder always has the strength to bid 2NT anyway, after which you can show delayed support for the minor and weak hand. Note that in acol opener can't have 4 cards (would open a weak NT or rebid 2NT with 15-17).

Isn't that just another way of saying that you just don't agree with playing Acol?