pclayton Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 1♣ - 1♥1♠ - ? Please don't use terms like 'almost forcing'. Does it make a difference if Responder starts with 1♦? How does playing xyz change this structure? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 My partner's rules, not mine so: My partner will only bid a jump shift with 20 or equal trick taking.He denies a balanced/semi balanced 18-19 or 14-16 or balanced 17. Of course he may only have 10 or less hcp for his 2 bids also. So i guess with 3-4 hcp I can pass. If more, maybe XYZ will help me, since we play that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Can I use the phrase "Forcing, in principle"? Suppose we are playing XYZ (so a 2♣ rebid by responder is a puppet to 2♦), then it is tempting to respond 1♥ to 1♣ with a very weak 4450 hand. If playing Walsh responses and the first bid is 1♦, then I suppose responder could have a very weak 3361 hand, trying to bail out in Moysian 1M or, failing that, 2♦. But if responder had a genuine response initially, then he has to bid. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Since you could jump to show reverse, 1♠ doesn't show extra values. With 4-1-4-4 you would've opened 1♦, so you either have a balanced hand, or a reverse, both without extra strength. Conclusion: 1♠ is passable. After a 1♦ opener, things change. Opener could have a strong hand with 4-1-4-4. If you can see that there's no fit opposite such hand, you can still pass imo. Otherwise just bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 not forcing, tho i realize it's becoming more forcing in the community Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 100% forcing in any sane partnership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 100% forcing.... but in my system noe 1♠ rebid (and one 1♥ rebid is not only not forcing, it promises only 3-card suit. That auction is... specifically, 1♣-1♦1M I play on that specific auction the one of a major can be (but does not have to be), a balanced 11-13. After 1C-1D, my 1NT rebid shows 17-19 balanced. Long story, but misho converted me to this abut 2 years ago and it works great. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriorKnowledge Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 I used to play it non-forcing, but I am convinced the modern practice of 100% forcing is superior. And I agree with Inquiry that it may only be a 3-card suit (fragment bid). And I agree with pclayton that "almost forcing" is nonsense and is the same as non-forcing. A bid is either forcing or not. "Almost forcing" is as useful to bidding as "almost survived" to a patient. There are too many hands where a GF J/S showing a 2-suited hand is not appropriate, but you need to continue the auction. If you wish to respond a 1/1 with 3-4, you must be prepared to play the hand in at least 1N. If that frightens you, I suggest you pass the opening bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 100% forcing in any sane partnership. them's strong words, ron... this is exactly why that great convention flannery is used by so many :) it's also a good reason to play canape openings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 100% forcing by agreement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 OK: let me throw something else into the soup here. My 2♣ opener is made on limited hands: 4-5 losers, at least 5 controls, usually +/- 19-21 HCP, but could be less (a LOT less actually). Hands such as: [hv=s=sakqxxhkxxdaxxxcx]133|100|[/hv][hv=s=sakqxxhkxxdaxxxcx]133|100|[/hv] and even: [hv=s=sakqxxhkxxdaxxxcx]133|100|[/hv] all qualify. By the way, the 3rd hand is a 2♠ rebid after 2♣-2♦ (0-1 control; less than 6 points). Does this treatment make a forcing 1/1/1 less desirable? Isn't hand #3 the main reason for treating the one level rebid as forcing, so opener doesn't have to make a jump shift on hand only worth a one round force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mila85 Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 QxxxJxxxxxxxx1♣-(pas)-? 3HCP->passBut in MP I would bid 1♥ or 1♦.Then I pass 1♠ (forcing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 OK: let me throw something else into the soup here. My 2♣ opener is made on limited hands: 4-5 losers, at least 5 controls, usually +/- 19-21 HCP, but could be less (a LOT less actually). Hands such as: [hv=s=sakqxxhkxxdaxxxcx]133|100|[/hv][hv=s=sakqxxhkxxdaxxxcx]133|100|[/hv] and even: [hv=s=sakqxxhkxxdaxxxcx]133|100|[/hv] all qualify. By the way, the 3rd hand is a 2♠ rebid after 2♣-2♦ (0-1 control; less than 6 points). Does this treatment make a forcing 1/1/1 less desirable? Isn't hand #3 the main reason for treating the one level rebid as forcing, so opener doesn't have to make a jump shift on hand only worth a one round force? I also open the second hand you showed 2♣. The first hand is a not related, as you can't have that hand and open 1♣. The third hand might be one you that I would open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ on. Of course I can have any old nasty minimum hand as well for the 1♠ rebid. I would be somewhat surprised if opening this hand and rebidding 2♠ (presumably natural and non-forcing) is a good strategy. Since you could have a suit very much like your second example or a suit like this (or like the first example), will make it very difficult effectively after your 2♣=2♦ auctions. The only good thing you got going for you is that you know you are high enough, what you don't know is where you belong. BTW, anyone considering this 1♠ as forcing probably needs to adopt xyz convention so that 2♠ raise is just a "you forced me to bid" kind of thing. So you can go through 2♣ with all goodish hands with or without support but not with GF value... you can even define differences between the immediate jump to 3♠ and the 2♣ bid followed by the jump to 3♠. ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 My concern about having a 1/1/1 forcing isn't that I'm trapped into a raise, but its what to do with some hands where you just want to play 1♠. Something like: Kxx, QJxx, xxxx, xx come to mind. Pard opens 1♣; you try 1♥, now 1♠. Seems like a good place to play? I now have to distort with 1N, or 2♠, or break discipline and pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 My concern about having a 1/1/1 forcing isn't that I'm trapped into a raise, but its what to do with some hands where you just want to play 1♠. Something like: Kxx, QJxx, xxxx, xx come to mind. Pard opens 1♣; you try 1♥, now 1♠. Seems like a good place to play? I now have to distort with 1N, or 2♠, or break discipline and pass. If you were playing a 4 card major system and partner opened 1♠, would you pass? Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 My concern about having a 1/1/1 forcing isn't that I'm trapped into a raise, but its what to do with some hands where you just want to play 1♠. Something like: Kxx, QJxx, xxxx, xx come to mind. Pard opens 1♣; you try 1♥, now 1♠. Seems like a good place to play? I now have to distort with 1N, or 2♠, or break discipline and pass. If you were playing a 4 card major system and partner opened 1♠, would you pass? EricNo, I'd probably raise to 2♠. Frankly, I love 4-3's, especially when the short hand is taking ruffs. I also like the idea that the 2♠ raise can be made with three trump. Perhaps with a dog 3433 the best rebid is 1N, not the 2♠ raise. Eric, you got me thinking about another idea. Much like 1 minor - 1 major - 2 major - 2N is sort of an Ogust ask about opener's trump (3 or 4) and strength, maybe: 1x - 1y - 1z - 2z - 2N can be the same thing. 2N asks: 3♣ - Minimum with 3 trump (example hand)3♦ - Maximum with 3 trump: Kxx, AQxx, xxxx, xx3♥ - Minimum with 4 trump: Kxxx, QJxx, xxx, xx3♠ - Maximum, 4 trump and balanced: Kxxx, AQxx, xxx, xx3N - Maximum, 4 trump and 4333: although this doesn't make sense - maybe a void splinter here? 4x - Splinter; 4 trump - Kxxx, AJxx, xxxx, x4y - Picture Jump; Kxxx, AQxxx, xx, xx4z - Another type of picture jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 we play 1 over 1 as forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 1 over 1, forcing ´till 1NT. It doesn´t rhyme in spanish, but we still use it :rolleyes:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 100% forcing in any sane partnership. them's strong words, ron... this is exactly why that great convention flannery is used by so many :) it's also a good reason to play canape openings What does that great convention flannery have to do with the auction 1D-1H-1S? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 I am no expert, butr I thought hand 3 better 1Club opener and a 2Spade rebid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 100% forcing in any sane partnership. them's strong words, ron... this is exactly why that great convention flannery is used by so many :) it's also a good reason to play canape openings What does that great convention flannery have to do with the auction 1D-1H-1S? :P nothin', i was hoping nobody would notice :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 I think it is passable. If you worry pd will pass it, jump shift to 2M. I am not going to argue which way is better. Only that if you are playing with me, be prepare for it:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 we play 1 over 1 as forcing. This is different from 1 over 1. This is rebid 1 over 1 response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daswallow Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 I play that the 1♠ bid here is forcing, unless responder scraped up a bid with a sub-minimum hand in which case it can be passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiBridge Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 I play only responders new suits are forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.