Forcing Rebid in 2/1?

[pclayton]

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

 

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

 

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

[HeartA]

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

 

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

 

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

Reverse is FORCING, Phil. Differences between 2♣ and reverse are as following, imho:

1) 2♣ opening forces to 3M or 4m even if responder has nothing. That is, responder has to respond twice withh minimum of 0 hcp.

2) With a one-level opening, responder can pass. Since responder has something to respond, reverse is forcing one more round. That is, if you can respond (minimum of 5 hcp or so) once, you have to bid again if partner reverses.

 

I orginally voted for forcing. Upon reflection, I changed my mind. (It is very rare to stop at 1M, isn't it?). With dead mimimum, 3=4=5=1 (or 3=4=4=2), I would rather to pass. Well, if opps find their play, so be it. They would not pass my 1NT anyway, if my partner doesn't have a strong hand. I would raise to 2M with 4-card or 3 good support, of course.

[pclayton]

HeartA; In our system, reverse is NOT forcing. Just like in Precision; would anyone treat 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ as forcing?

 

Sigh....I hate to be harsh here, :blink: but there are a lot of comments that tell me that some of the posters just don't grasp the whole idea of a 1/1/1 being forcing. I'm not looking for a primer on Audrey Grant here - I'm looking at the deeper issues about not jumping with a 5-4 18-20 count and raising to 2♠ on total tricks alone. As well as how this interplays with my 2♣ opener.

 

Maybe I should have posted this in a different section of BBF. :P

[HeartA]

HeartA; In our system, reverse is NOT forcing.  Just like in Precision; would anyone treat 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ as forcing?

1♦-1♠-2♥ is forcing, in sayc and 2/1, and most of the natural system, I believe.

 

Precision is different. 1D opening limits the hand to 15hcp (assuming 1♣=16+). Though 1D opening is also limited (to 20 or 21), it has a much broader range. A reverse hand opposite a hand that can respond, game is very close. Even if responder has dead minimum, game is still very possible. I know, if you hold ♠QJxxxx, ♥xx, ♦xx, ♣Jxx, and responded 1S over pd's 1D opening, game is not likely when pd reverses to 2H. But hey, pd may have 3 ♠ and is false-reversing ♥ to wait for your clarification.

[the hog]

AQJx

Kxx

x

AKQxx

 

How are you going to bid this hand sensibly unless

1) 1S is forcing OR

2) You have a 2N gadget?

 

From what I have observed here, very few have a 2N gadget.

 

Someone, I forgot who it was, made a comment about responding on a 3 or 4 point hand? Really?? Unless you play 1C as a 1 round force as some of the Italians do and as in Polish Club, this is warped in my opinion.

[inquiry]

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

 

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

 

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

Phil, I don't want to tell you how to bid, (wait, yes I do) but if your reverse isn't forcing, you should use your jump shift (1C-1H-2S) as a fit for responder's suit and something (splinter, fragment, etc). And use 1♠ rebid as forcing/not forcing as you see fit.

 

Ben

[mike777]

I was the one who made that comment about light replies....

 

Since we play 2c=22 HCP or equivalent p wants me to respond with an Ace or KJ in long hearts or some other nice distributional suits.

 

As I mentioned before with more I can XYZ or maybe even with just that in some cases.

[pclayton]

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

 

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

 

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

Phil, I don't want to tell you how to bid, (wait, yes I do) but if your reverse isn't forcing, you should use your jump shift (1C-1H-2S) as a fit for responder's suit and something (splinter, fragment, etc). And use 1♠ rebid as forcing/not forcing as you see fit.

 

Ben

Ben - as a side issue, I'm thinking about changing the nature of the jump shifts, as I mull through this argument. Back in Montana, we used to play something called Morris Jump Shifts; which showed shape, not strength. Axxxx, x, x, AQxxxx was a 2♠ rebid after 1♣ - 1♥. A mini-spinter makes some sense too; its similar to 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♦.

[Guest Jlall]

NF is standard bridge. I also find NF very useful since i am a believer in responding very light. I could not imagine passing a 1C opener with xxx QJxxx xxx xx. I just couldnt.

[Guest Jlall]

AQJx

Kxx

x

AKQxx

 

How are you going to bid this hand sensibly unless

1) 1S is forcing OR

2) You have a 2N gadget?

1C-1H-2S-something-3H. 4-3-1-5 slightly less than a 2C opener. This is a PERFECT description of the hand. Also illustrates one key reason that responding with xxx QJxxx xxx xx is essential. And dont tell me 2S is preempting your side. You were able to describe your strength and shape perfectly, and are at the 3 level. Even if 1S were forcing and it went 1C-1H-1S-1N or some such, you would have to jump 3H now surely. Youre in the same spot except partner didnt have the opportunity to support clubs on a 3 card support. You are actually worse off. The openers rebid limiting his hand (either the top or bottom) is consistent with all bridge theory. What other rebid can opener ever make that does NOT limit his hand in some way. If you respond 1S and are still 11-20 you have ALOT of ground to cover on your third bid. Too much, and auctions get convoluted. No, even on your example of a "problem" hand, the 2S bid led to a perfect description of your hand. There is no reason 1S should be forcing and many many reasons why it shouldnt.

[EricK]

NF is standard bridge. I also find NF very useful since i am a believer in responding very light. I could not imagine passing a 1C opener with xxx QJxxx xxx xx. I just couldnt.

Exactly what would you bid after 1♣ 1♥ 2♠?

 

Give partner a "GF" 4225 or 4135 and you will surely end up too high.

 

Eric

[inquiry]

Well, the discussion is clearly divided into two camps. The 1♠ is forcing and the 1♠ is not forcing. I have switched to the 1♠ is forcing camp in the past few years... having said that, I have passed this forcing 1♠ bid. The reason I think I can pass a forcing bid, is that my partner will never hide support for my first suit with the 1♠ rebid (we have mulitple artificial raises with good hands) and thus the 1♠ rebid is always assumed to be natural (and forcing). If I busted a gut to respond with a singleton in partners first suit (on say 3 points), I have broken discipline and passed. BTW, my jump shift to 2♠ even with 1♠ forcing shows 6-5 or 7-5 type hand and is absolutely positively forcing. So I guess if phil had not forced us to say 1♠ can't be "almost forcing" I might have gone with that answer.

[Guest Jlall]

Give partner a "GF" 4225 or 4135 and you will surely end up too high.

i agree, when partner jumpshifts and its a misfit deal responding light doesnt work very well. However there are many many other possibilities, most of which are favorable for responding light. As an asides with 4135 partner would need a very good hand to bid 2S since i bid his stiff (at least a prime 19 probably). With 4225 he will sometimes elect to bid 2N, however i concede with a suit oriented hand he would probably bid 2S. Nothing's perfect.

[HeartA]

.... So I guess if phil had not forced us to say 1♠ can't be "almost forcing" I might have gone with that answer.

I am for "almost forcing" as well. Since this is not an option, I have to be on the NF side, though I voted for forcing <_<. Ben, could you change my vote?

[PriorKnowledge]

1C 1H 1S is forcing under modern expert interpretation. That reserves the 1C 1H 2S for distributional monsters or true game-force hands.

 

20 years ago, it was non-forcing, but problem hands kept coming up. The 18-point hands are a problem. If you game force with a jump-shift when partner gives u a courtesy 5-6 response, you end in a hopeless game. If you bid a non-forcing 1S, you may play there when game if available.

 

Take this hand: AKx Qxx x AKQxxx... You open 1C, partner bids 1H. Now what?

 

A forcing 1S is perfect. If partner has S-Qxxx and goodies, 4S may be the best spot or 3N or 5C. Or maybe not even game. You need the bid forcing and you don't want to waste space with a 2S or GF the hand prematurely.

[HeartA]

1C 1H 1S is forcing under modern expert interpretation. That reserves the 1C 1H 2S for distributional monsters or true game-force hands.

 

20 years ago, it was non-forcing, but problem hands kept coming up. The 18-point hands are a problem. If you game force with a jump-shift when partner gives u a courtesy 5-6 response, you end in a hopeless game. If you bid a non-forcing 1S, you may play there when game if available.

 

Take this hand:  AKx Qxx x AKQxxx... You open 1C, partner bids 1H. Now what?

 

A forcing 1S is perfect. If partner has S-Qxxx and goodies, 4S may be the best spot or 3N or 5C. Or maybe not even game. You need the bid forcing and you don't want to waste space with a 2S or GF the hand prematurely.

Holding ♠AKx, ♥Qxx, ♦x, ♣AKQxxx, 2♠ is the correct bid after 1♥ response. 1♠ should guarantee 4-card.

[junyi_zhu]

It's very odd. One most important issue hasn't been mentioned by anybody here.

If you play 1S forcing, you got make your responder's range way more wider than non-forcing treatment, in that case, you would have a tougher time. In standard treatment, responder can pass 1S with good 5 HCP and most 6 HCP and some bad 7 HCP without basic tolerance in opener's first suit. However, if you make 1S forcing, you have to bid something here. So your 1NT range is wider, 2S range is wider, 2 level rebid range is also wider and you may not be able to handle it well, because often would invite 3 level and get passed. For standard treatment, you can pass 1S with this hand:

Sxxx HAJTxx Dxxxx Cx, over 1C 1H 1S, now you just can't. So you have to bid something which would affect your bidding accuracy, which can be a huge negative effect in a long run. a good 7 to normal 10 HCP 1NT rebid is rated to be more accurate than a good 5 to normal 10 HCP 1NT. However, people just neglect that part. Another problem is that opener's range is also wider, 1S rebid can cover from 11 to 20 after 3 bids. I don't call it a bidding success. For example, do you invite to 3S with good 16 if partner raises you to 2S? Partner can be as weak as good 5. or as good as bad 10. Do you really think it's playable?

[the hog]

"Do you really think it's playable? "

 

Well I have played this way for over a year and I certainly think its playable. Mind you we don't respond with the rubbish that some posters to this thread have said they would respond on. Your AJTxx would be an absolute dead minimum.

 

Passing 1S is 2 handed bridge imo. You are giving the opponents a licence to come into the auction, and this is something I don't call a "bidding success".

 

One thing I would definitely do as opener, however , is to rebid 1N on all balanced hands and not 1S on xxxx xx xxx xxxx.

 

Playing this style also means that you can do one of the following

Make the reverse categorically a gf

Or play 1C 1H 2S as a mini splinter.

 

Both of the above treatments have merit and allow far more useful continuations than the 16 or 17+ 2S bid that some others here suggest, which then involve blackout and other complications to ensure you don't end up in the stratosphere.

[inquiry]

It's very odd. One most important issue hasn't been mentioned by anybody here.

If you play 1S forcing, you got make your responder's range way more wider than non-forcing treatment, in that case, you would have a tougher time.

I play this as "forcing" but I have passed it twice that I can remember. One reason I can get away with this pass, is partner will never have a huge balanced hand (more than 19) or a four card fit for my suit, or a strong three card fit with a good first suit, or a temporizing bid with three card fit, or any four card fit for my 1♥, or a strong hand with 6-5 or 5-5 distribution. So while forcing, it is "almost never, ever passed"

 

In standard treatment, responder can pass 1S with good 5 HCP and most 6 HCP and some bad 7 HCP without basic tolerance in opener's first suit.  However, if you make 1S forcing, you have to bid something here. So your 1NT range is wider, 2S range is wider, 2 level rebid range is also wider and you may not be able to handle it well, because often would invite 3 level and get passed. For standard treatment, you can pass 1S with this hand: Sxxx HAJTxx Dxxxx Cx, over 1C 1H 1S, now you just can't.

 

I would never pass the 1♠ rebid with and ACE here. Partner may hold, for instance, S-AKQx H-Kx D-Qx C-Axxxx, for instance. With the hand with five points, I would rebid 2♥.

 

So you have to bid something which would affect your bidding accuracy, which can be a huge negative effect in a long run. a good 7 to normal 10 HCP 1NT rebid is rated to be more accurate than a good 5 to normal 10 HCP 1NT. However, people just neglect that part. Another problem is that opener's range is also wider, 1S rebid can cover from 11 to 20 after 3 bids. I don't call it a bidding success. For example, do you invite to 3S with good 16 if partner raises you to 2S? Partner can be as weak as good 5. or as good as bad 10. Do you really think it's playable?

 

With 16hcp, if my bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-2S, my parnter will pass. Simple as that. I use xyz to show a "sound" raise to 2S, so the 2S raise will never be anywhere near a 10 count, not even 9, and that counts distribution. So the raise is say a modest five to bad 8, and may not include four card support. A 16 count? We aren't going anywhere. SEE the XYZ thread.

[Fluffy]

Jumping to 2♠ with 19 HCP is ok, but 1♠ is also ok, and might be better often.

 

For example I posted a hand long ago where 6♦ was makeable on an impossible hand, I held a 4054 20 HCP, I was one of the few allowed to rebid 1♠ after 1♦-1♥, when partner rebid 3♥ I could easilly count 30 HCP in our line with no fit and stopped at 3NT getting 70% (sadly 6♥ was making due to lucky layout).

[kayser]

I would like to divide the question into two parts:

 

1. Is the rebid forcing in a temorary partnership?

2. What is the most sound treatment for a "natural" system in general?

 

My answer to the first one is that it is forcing. There are drawbacks, but there is less risk that your p will be upset if you end up in a hopless 4♠ after 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♠-4♠, than if you pass down a making game.

 

My opinion on the second one is that I think it is better off as non-forcing, but it heavily depends on what you promise with a 1/1.

 

I am in favour of bidding 1/1 with as little as 0 hcp (especially when using 5-card M) to rescue a vulenerable disaster. However, the probelm with this treatment is that you risk a 2NT respons, showing 18--19 balanced, which is also a disaster. Now, in my current partnership we are evaluating concealing most 18--19 balanced in the 1M (4-card showing) rebids, with the only risk of playing your 5+-card suit (which you always have on a rescue operation like 1m-1x-2NT-3x) on the three level.

[civill]

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.

Not forcing if dont play xyz.

But it will be strange that there is no competitive with weak responder.

[cf_John0]

Agree with Civill.

[WrecksVee]

I feel that in standard bidding without discussion that this is not forcing. Perhaps this is old fashioned but checking Truscott's Bidding Dictionary written in mid 90's lists this as standard meaning and makes no mention of the forcing treatment. I feel the hand limiting arguments are correct and without further discussion the forcing idea will lead to more problems than the traditional meaning.

 

OTOH since I learned Kaplan Sheinwold before standard (yes, I was very confused when exposed to the bulk of American tournament bridge players....but that is another story) I am used to this being a forcing bid. Anyone interested should check out the excellent summary on the Bridge World site. The KS solution is to limit Responder's hand with 1NT which is not natural but just denies more than 8 HCP. All other bids show 9+. This is a detailed system agreement in line with the style of KS.

[junyi_zhu]

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.

Not forcing if dont play xyz.

But it will be strange that there is no competitive with weak responder.

It's no strange at all, that usually means misfit.