What is forcing for one round

[markyears]

Hi, everyone, one quick question: What is forcing for one round? I'm not a native speaker, so not sure about the meaning of "one round". I thought it means one making this forcing also promises to bid at least once again. But in some literature, it seems same as forcing.

[kriegel]

"Forcing for one round" means the same thing as "forcing" (that is, it forces partner to bid but does not promise a rebid). The reason you would say "forcing for one round" (or F1) it to clarify and differentiate from "promises a rebid" or "game-forcing."

 

For example, in the auction 1♠ - 2♦, "forcing" is not an adequate description of 2♦. It is obviously forcing, but the relevant information is whether it's game-forcing, forcing and promises a rebid, or simply forcing (aka forcing for one round).

 

Hope this helps.

[markyears]

Thank you! Very helpful.

 

"Forcing for one round" means the same thing as "forcing" (that is, it forces partner to bid but does not promise a rebid). The reason you would say "forcing for one round" (or F1) it to clarify and differentiate from "promises a rebid" or "game-forcing."

 

For example, in the auction 1♠ - 2♦, "forcing" is not an adequate description of 2♦. It is obviously forcing, but the relevant information is whether it's game-forcing, forcing and promises a rebid, or simply forcing (aka forcing for one round).

 

Hope this helps.

[Mbodell]

For instance the "forcing nt" common in 2/1 only forces for one round as you can pass the response.

[aguahombre]

I still think the question is unanswered. A "round", IMO, is four people making calls. If the "round" starts with the bidder, then it doesn't promise another bid by that person. If the "round" starts after the bid in question it promises a rebid.

 

I have always used the term to mean the bidder promises he will bid again if partner doesn't leap to a game contract. That doesn't mean I have been using it the same way as others mean it; but now, I will ask for clarification if needed during system discussion or during an auction of the opponents.

[655321]

I still think the question is unanswered.

 

Seems pretty clearly answered to me (and OP thought so too!).

 

 

I have always used the term to mean the bidder promises he will bid again if partner doesn't leap to a game contract.

 

With a balanced 6 count containing 4 spades, the rest of the world would respond 1♠ (forcing for one round) to partners 1♣ opening, then pass a minimum rebid. How is the (not allowed to be passed) 1♠ bid described in Aqualanguage if not forcing for one round?

[aguahombre]

If you really want to know what I was trying to say (not just jabbing), I consider bids which require partner to make another bid are just that and "one round" doesn't add anything meaningful to that description. We say "forcing" when anouncing our 1NT response to 1M; adding "one round" is unnecessary unless intended to mean the 1NT bidder promises to bid again.

 

Since we never say "one round" when describing what our bids mean, our only concern might be what an opponent means when using the term. If I need to know, I will ask.

[campboy]

Of course "for one round" adds something: a minimum reply can be passed. Perhaps your meaning would be more logical, but the usual meaning is more useful (since it's easy enough to say "promises a rebid" if that is what you mean), and it's what everyone uses it to mean. It's the bridge jargon equivalent of "billion".

[gordontd]

That doesn't mean I have been using it the same way as others mean it;

More, it does mean you use it in a quite different way from others.

[ahydra]

There's also "forcing to X" where X can be game, slam, or a contract. So for example "forcing to 3NT" means that you can't stop bidding until you reach 3NT or higher. You might see this on GIB bid explanations.

 

"Forcing" is often abbreviated to F - F1 = forcing one round, GF or FG = forcing to game, F3NT = forcing to 3NT.

 

I see aqua's point about "one round" being redundant in 99% of cases, but unfortunately that's just the way bridge language evolved I guess. I think I've heard people use "F1.5" for what we would normally describe as "promises a rebid" :)

 

ahydra

[Cthulhu D]

Doesn't it make sense that all bids are one of

 

A) Not forcing

B) Forcing for <time x>

C) Forcing until <level y>

 

It doesn't make sense to describe a bid as 'forcing' unless the default meaning is 'for one round'

[jbaptistec]

I also play some bids as auto-forcing (meaning promising a rebid if not passed), though not forcing.

 

And as a non-native speaker, I agree that I originally thought "Forcing one round" meant forcing and promising a rebid. I would have rather said "Forcing one bid".

[FM75]

The question of forcing, forcing for one round, forcing to a level (game or any other) is clearly ambiguous.

 

Many bridge writers tend to be sloppy with their language, which maybe is ok in a conversation where one could ask for clarification.

 

Who is forced? Partner, or the partnership?

 

One way to begin to clarify the meaning is to distinguish between a bid that forces partner to respond once, or forces partner not to stop bidding before the partnership has reached some level.

 

The term "forcing" used to "promise" a rebid seems awkward. That is two different concepts mixed into one word. If you can accept that conclusion, then forcing for one round is forcing upon partner to make a bid. (The force, under most conditions, expires if the opponents bid, and perhaps even if they double or redouble). Used in that vein, "forcing for one round", distinguished the bid from even more restrictive bids, such as forces that commit the partner to bid up to a certain level, or forces that commit the partnership to reach a certain level.

 

Forces that commit the partnership perhaps should be renamed in the future as "committing bids", to distinguish events in auctions that are forcing on only one person from those that are committing to a partnership.

[blackshoe]

The question of forcing, forcing for one round, forcing to a level (game or any other) is clearly ambiguous.

Not at all. The question is perfectly clear ("what does 'forcing for one round' mean?") It's the answer that's ambiguous. B-)

[mikl_plkcc]

The purpose of a forcing bid is to ensure that the bidder has a chance to bid again (but not necessary actually bid again). Therefore, a forced bid becomes a free bid if the intervening opponent acts.

 

One round means 4 players making call.

 

If one makes a bid is forcing for one round, he ensures that he can bid after one round. A bid which forces to game ensures that the auction may not stop below 3NT, unless the opponents have been doubled. (This name is actually a misnomer because if the final agreed suit is a minor, the auction may stop at 4 of the minor.)

 

If a player makes a bid which forces both himself and his partner to bid, such that his partner may bid after one and a half round, it is "forcing and promises a rebid", or equivalently "forcing for one and a half round" (F1.5).

[gwnn]

If one makes a bid is forcing for one round, he ensures that he can bid after one round. A bid which forces to game ensures that the auction may not stop below 3NT, unless the opponents have been doubled. (This name is actually a misnomer because if the final agreed suit is a minor, the auction may stop at 4 of the minor.)

Most systems do not allow for this. 4m in most situations shows some slam interest in that minor (many systems use 4m as an ace ask actually!).

[Zelandakh]

(This name is actually a misnomer because if the final agreed suit is a minor, the auction may stop at 4 of the minor.)

Just to confuse matters further, I actually use a different terminology for this. Game forcing (GF) = forcing to 3NT and unconditionally game forcing (UGF) = forcing to a game contract. Despite this distinction, the number of auctions where it is actually possible to stop in 4 of a minor are somewhat limited.

[mikl_plkcc]

Most systems do not allow for this. 4m in most situations shows some slam interest in that minor (many systems use 4m as an ace ask actually!).

 

However, in my system, in most cases, 4 of a minor is a non-forcing bid, either a sign-off or an invitation to game.

[gwnn]

However, in my system, in most cases, 4 of a minor is a non-forcing bid, either a sign-off or an invitation to game.

Unfortunately the English language is not very good at describing possibilities, but to me "This name is actually a misnomer because if the final agreed suit is a minor, the auction may stop at 4 of the minor." sounds like you said that game-forcing is a misnomer in all systems, because the auction may stop at 4 of the minor in all systems (but I know that this is slightly open to interpretation). I know that in some systems 4 of a minor is non-forcing but that doesn't mean that "forcing to game" is a misnomer, that just means that "forcing to game" is a misnomer in those systems, for example in your system.

[helene_t]

I would be dissapointed if p passed me in 4m in a GF auction. OK, maybe if my hand was tightly limited. But then again he might pass me in 3M by the same token.

 

Why not use the words correctly? GF means GF and "forcing to 4m" means "forcing to 4m".

[gwnn]

I would be dissapointed if p passed me in 4m in a GF auction. OK, maybe if my hand was tightly limited. But then again he might pass me in 3M by the same token.

 

Why not use the words correctly? GF means GF and "forcing to 4m" means "forcing to 4m".

Because "forcing to 4m" would be a misnomer too :) maybe "forcing to 3NT"? I think best would be "forcing to game or 4 of a minor".

[MickyB]

Edit: Too slow

[mikl_plkcc]

Because "forcing to 4m" would be a misnomer too :) maybe "forcing to 3NT"? I think best would be "forcing to game or 4 of a minor".

 

I think the best term is "forcing to 3NT".

[Cthulhu D]

Because "forcing to 4m" would be a misnomer too :) maybe "forcing to 3NT"? I think best would be "forcing to game or 4 of a minor".

 

Forcing to 3NT makes sense and I find the good out find/replace action in my partnership notes after getting passed in 4m with a new partner. The target window is to small compared to the benefit of letting opener sandbag a bit. I only did some basic sims but I reckon any hand that wants to stop in 4m wants to punt 3NT, especially at IMPs.

[mikestar13]

I would be dissapointed if p passed me in 4m in a GF auction. OK, maybe if my hand was tightly limited. But then again he might pass me in 3M by the same token.

 

Why not use the words correctly? GF means GF and "forcing to 4m" means "forcing to 4m".

 

 

Nobody plays forcing to 4m, which would indicate 4m is passable but 3NT is not (at least to a very fair number of players). When we have a minor suit fit isn't 3NT at least a possible contract? The distinction is between is game forcing and forcing to 3NT (which does indicate 4m is passable). Where a minor suit is not a possible contract (for example partner opens 1NT and you show game values with 5-5 majors) the distinction is meaningless, and as this type of situaton is not uncommon, it contributes to players and writers being careless in their terminology. I do think that it would be great if there were some standardization of terminology.