Forcing or Not

[Wayne_LV]

Playing SAYC with a new partner with no discussion or partnership agreements:

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥

 

Is 2♥ by the unpassed responder forcing or not?

 

See above Poll

[PhilKing]

Why the poll? This is simply a matter of fact. From the booklet:

 

"After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing."

[Wayne_LV]

Why the poll? This is simply a matter of fact. From the booklet:

 

"After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing."

 

Yes, I realize that, but an "Expert" insisted that it was NOT forcing and implied anyone that thought it was forcing is a moron. No manner of links to references or quotes from real Expert players and teachers would convince him.

 

Sooooooooooooooo, I hope a lot of other "morons" like me will respond to this survey, although I doubt it will change his mind http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

 

Thanks and good bridging

 

Wayne

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Over a minor-rebid, some play "cheapest new suit forcing " ... sooo :

 

1C - 1S

2C - ??

...... 2D! = artificial new suit forcing

...... 2H = non-forcing

[aguahombre]

It is for some pairs, and it is not for others.

 

We like 2D as artificially creating game force and 2H as passable but about 11-12.

 

Anyway, it is your local "expert's" dogmatic approach that is moronic, whether he and other experts play it his way or not.

 

We have found it to be advantageous on the hands where Responder is strong and the 4-4 heart fit is established (at the 3-level) that Opener be the one next to bid.

 

1C-1S

2C-2D

2H-3H...Opener's turn and can bid Spades, NT (pattern), 4C, or dog it with 4H.

 

But if Opener is the one who has established the fit with a 3H raise of 2H, a level of bidding is wasted for the Captain (responder).

 

Of course, all of the above has nothing to do with this thread. Sorry bout that; when SAYC is the given system, you just read the booklet and play what it says. It IS forcing in SAYC.

Edited July 29, 2014 by aguahombre

[whereagles]

This depends on where you come from. In some systems it is, others it is not (2♦ being the forcing bid). In SAYC apparently it is.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I realize that but an "Expert" insisted that it was NOT forcing and inplied anyone that thought it was forcing is a moron. No manner of links to references or quotes from real Expert players and teachers would convince him.

 

Sooooooooooooooo, I hope a lot of other "morons" like me will respond to this survey, although I doubt it will change his mind http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

Is this "expert" your partner? If so, "We agreed to play SAYC. What you are describing is not SAYC. Do you wish to change to a different system?" If not, just ignore him.

[Antrax]

an "Expert" insisted...No manner of links to references or quotes from real Expert players and teachers would convince him.

You were right, he was wrong. You know this, he will never accept it. Just move on, trying to "win" an argument with such people in futile.

[biggerclub]

This was in a recent Bridge World Master Solver's Club problem. The expert view was well over 85% that new suits by Responder are unqualifiedly forcing.

[msjennifer]

Playing SAYC with a new partner with no discussion or partnership agreements:

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥

 

Is 2♥ by the unpassed responder forcing or not?

See above Poll I fully agree with the expert that 2H is 100% non forcing .What is partner holding KJxxx,Kxxxx,xxx and void club supposed to bid? pass ? ridiculous !If P wants to make a forcing bid he would bid Three hearts and not just 2 hearts.Of course I won't call those who say 2 H is forcing as morons.

Edited July 29, 2014 by diana_eva
fixed quotes

[helene_t]

See above Poll I fully agree with the expert that 2H is 100% non forcing .What is partner holding KJxxx' date='Kxxxx,xxx and void club supposed to bid? pass ? ridiculous !If P wants to make a forcing bid he would bid Three hearts and not just 2 hearts.Of course I won't call those who say 2 H is forcing as morons.[/quote']

But the question wasn't whether 2♥ ought to be forcing or not. The question was whether it is forcing or not in SAYC.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes, I realize that but an "Expert" insisted that it was NOT forcing and inplied anyone that thought it was forcing is a moron. No manner of links to references or quotes from real Expert players and teachers would convince him.

 

Sooooooooooooooo, I hope a lot of other "morons" like me will respond to this survey, although I doubt it will change his mind http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

 

Thanks and good bridging

 

Wayne

Well ..., he assumed, that at a given level everyone playes 2H in the given seq. as NF,

and that playing as F implies, that the person, who does, is below this level.

From a certain level a form of NMF is certainly standard, but that anybody who plays

2H as forcing implies, that the person is below a certain level, is certainly wrong, I guess

one can find world champions, who play 2H as forcing.

 

Now is NMF part of SAYC? What actually is meant by SAYC? We had the discussion, in a certain thread,

I provided a link to the booklet, but sometimes the same word is used for different meanings,

(SAYC stands either for ... or for ...), and even if it is clear, what was meant by the word / acronym.

 

At a certain point in time it does not matter, what the letter of the law is saying, if a majority

is ignoring the law, and assumes, that the law tells something complete different.

The effect will be, that either at a given point time in the future the law will change towards

the majority approach, or it will become obscure, and peoble who insist, that the law is the

law will be considered as "Morons".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[aguahombre]

SAYC is a Yellow convention card with an accompanying booklet ---as pointed out by Phil and by Helene among others.

 

Wayne's OP might or might not have been accurate about what system he and his partner employed, and it is very rare for anyone to actually use the YELLOW CARD in FTF bridge. But, that is what we are supposed to be dealing with. BWS is not SAYC.

 

Not withstanding my and others' overlook of that point when we originally responded, Wayne's boorish partner was incorrect. 2H IS clearly forcing (if they had agreed to SAYC).

 

Post fixed, thanks to Gordon below.

Edited July 29, 2014 by aguahombre

[gordontd]

Wayne's boorish partner was correct that 2H IS clearly forcing (if they had agreed to SAYC).

His partner claimed it was not forcing.

[gordontd]

I might have liked to respond to msjennifer, but by putting her reply inside Wayne's quote, not only has she made it look as though he said her words, she has also ensured that clicking on Reply in her post doesn't quote anything.

[blue haze]

I am the obnoxious expert/beginner who said -- 2H is NON FORCING !!! -- and suggested that anyone with as much as 2 digit IQ would understand why.

 

Lets construct a bidding system -- and for sake of simplicity -- we will call it STANDARD AMERICAN YELLOW CARD hereafter known -- SAYC. It will be a basically sound system and a fine guide for those wishing to learn a great game . But bridge is like a house -- it needs a good foundation -- so our bridge house will have easy to understand basic constructs.

 

One of those basic constructs will be new suits by unpassed responder will be FORCING - Notice I didn't say 100% forcing or 90% forcing -- etc because forcing is like pregnant -- You either are or you are not . Simple isn't it? However bridge is a little more complex -- because -- for almost every basic tenet of the game there is at least one exception . There were 2 BIL "mentors" at the table -- including the gentleman who submitted the hand.

 

With no intervening bidding -- 1c 1s - 2c -- 2H --- . This hand did not come up – at the table - but when I left after one hand -- to explain something to partner - WAYNE decided to enlighten me how I was completely wrong when I told my partner this bid was NON FORCING in SAYC . (it came up in acbl pairs game where we won the section )

 

Now back to our basic system construction ie - NEW SUITS BY RESPONDER ARE FORCING . The outline of SAYC is GENERAL out of necessity and I totally agree that it should not be riddled with "exceptions". Personally I would rather say this sequence is an exception -- that is, NON FORCING - and explain WHY it is an exception.

 

If someone wishes to rely on "boxed concepts" rather than logic its fine with me -- 2H forcing for you - and those you TEACH> HOWEVER there is no reason to call this auction forcing -- except for the fact that you can point to a system outline and say THERE YOU GO __ it says forcing in BLACK AND WHITE -- therefore it must be. If as responder you have a forcing to game hand with hearts and spades -- there are sufficient ways to show it. Yes if anyone should ever ask me -- is this sequence FORCING in SAYC -- I will continue to say NO -- and feel sorry -- for the student whose mentor -- says WHY YES IT IS __ it says so -- on page 4 of the system outline.

 

Good luck to all who find thinking a burden and take comfort - in the cookie cutter approach to life and BRIDGE.

[ArtK78]

In old-fashioned Standard American (or, as some might refer to it, Goren), 2♥ was forcing. As stated above, any new suit by responder is forcing.

 

This is also true in SAYC, because the SAYC booklet says it is true. That really ends the discussion.

 

I agree with OP that it should not be forcing. That is why I play Extended Plob (also known as extended new minor forcing). On an auction that begins 1m - 1♠ - 2m, the cheapest bid in the other minor is artificial and forcing. This allows 2♥ to be natural and nonforcing.

 

Others have different ways to arrive at the same result.

[helene_t]

Lets construct a bidding system -- and for sake of simplicityclearness -- we will call it STANDARD AMERICAN YELLOW CARD hereafter known --something easily distinguishable from SAYC.

Hi Blue Haze, welcome to the forum :)

 

I fixed your post.

[Wayne_LV]

Playing SAYC with a new partner with no discussion or partnership agreements:

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥

 

Is 2♥ by the unpassed responder forcing or not?

 

See above Poll

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa752hj74dkt53c64&w=skhk83dqj6cqjt832&n=s983hqt9da92cak75&e=sqjt64ha652d874c9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1sp2cp2hp2nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Above is the actual hand.

 

Since he has revealed his identity: blue haze (Expert) was sitting East, our BIL mentee (Intermediate) was sitting West. North and South shall remain nameless. My partner (maspd) and I jointly mentor intermediates assigned to us by Maureen Hall, the competent and dedicated founder of BIL (Beginner Intemediate Lounge), a public club in BBO. We are unpaid volunteers trying to perform an extremely difficult job to the best of our ability. There are many other BIL mentors doing the same tough job. Few of us are real experts and don't profess to be. Most of us are winning players to one degree or another. The last thing we need is Experts contradicting our teaching of accepted standard methods and confusing our students.

 

EW was playing with no discussion of systems and ACBL speedballs automatically post a SAYC convention card by default. With no other discussion, this becomes the system partners, opponents, and the Director should assume is being used.

 

In a post mortem discussion, which was highly favorable, our mentee was given kudos for her bidding and play except for the last board, shown above. Our mentee was told she should have passed the 2♥ rebid by East. Playing SAYC both of East's responses are forcing for one round. That is what we are teaching her and will continue to teach her. As mentors for BIL we can only teach basic systems that can be used with a variety of pick up partners until such time our mentee forms a regular partnership and they create a convention card with partnership agreements for non SAYC bids. She brought the conflict in information to us and we explained that her bidding was correct as she has been taught.

 

Our goal is not to create (even if we could do so) contenders for the Spingold or the Bermuda Bowl, but to prepare players to be competitive in BBO club games and tournaments with a variety of partners. This, by necessity, means we teach them the basics of bridge, ACBL SAYC, and minimize the use of conventional bids, If we are, in so doing, creating a pack of "morons" in the eyes of self proclaimed experts we apologize, not for our mentees, but for the narrow minded attitude of many self proclaimed "Experts" that have no tolerance for the average player.

[JonnyQuest]

I am the . . . expert who said -- 2H is NON FORCING !!! -- and suggested that anyone with as much as 2 digit IQ would understand why.

 

In our family, we have agreed to speak “Addition” all the time. It is our “Language.” Therefore, when I say the following: 2+2+2+2+2=10, everyone knows what I am talking about. It is our agreed language and is easily understood by all.

 

If I were to lob the following at my family: 5x2=10, expecting others to understand, then expressing my feelings of superiority when they did not, I would only demonstrate my own ignorance.

 

SAYC is a language. A written set of agreements. If you have agreed to play SAYC, well ... that is your language.

 

Regardless of whether your “Multiplication” method is better, to expect others to understand it in an “Addition only” household is the height of folly.

 

 

p.s. To the math nerds on this forum, Although my math examples (above) may have dazzled you, I am not really a mathematician. (Any corrections to my examples are welcome) :P

[diana_eva]

I'm confused. What happened? I thought you played with blue and had a misunderstanding.

 

So you were not his pd, that misunderstanding occurred between blue and one of your mentees?

 

In that case, I feel it's inevitable that your mentee will be exposed to different treatments. No harm in her finding out that some people don't play 2H as forcing, even if ACBL SAYC says it's forcing.

[Trinidad]

Yes, I realize that, but an "Expert" insisted that it was NOT forcing and implied anyone that thought it was forcing is a moron.

It may be moronic to play a system (like SAYC) where 2♥ is forcing. But it is more moronic to agree to play SAYC and then try to bid a non forcing 2♥, because it would be superior to play it as non forcing.

 

Anyone who bids like that is an Unlucky Expert (from S.J. Simon) and fails to understand the fundamentals of bridge: It is a partnership game. The aim of the game is to score as good as possible as a team. Winning the post-mortem is not the aim of the game.

 

Those who win the post-mortem usually lose the game.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

To participate in the post-mortem anyway:

 

It may well be that 2♥ or 2♠ is a better contract than 2♣ (they aren't on the actual deal) but there is no way for responder to know that. So, unless responder holds a genuine major two-suiter (which is so rare that you shouldn't build your system around it), it cannot possibly be right for responder to decide unilaterally to play in 2M. Since responder is not in the position to decide to play in 2M, it is not logical to play 2♥ as a sign-off in the major of opener's preference.

 

Note that this auction is very different from the auction: 1♣-Pass-2♥ (Reverse Flannery, showing 5♠ and 4♥, non forcing but constructive). In that case, opener could hold a variety of hands, including hands with genuine support for either (or even both) major(s). On the actual auction opener has shown a minimum opening with 6(5)+ clubs. He has denied 4 spades and -to a degree depending on partnership style- is less likely to have 3 spades.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

If 2♥ is nonforcing (btw, does that mean "invitational" or does it mean "sign-off"?), you need 2♦ as an artificial force. This is clearly beyond the scope of SAYC.

 

Personally I find it moronic to play natural responses to a 1♣ opening. Actually, the natural 1♣ opening itself is fairly moronic. If forced to play natural responses to a natural 1♣ opening, I would certainly find it moronic to play this 2♥ bid as natural - 2♦ as a transfer to hearts and 2♥ as a transfer to spades is clearly the only sensible way to go.

 

Long time before I started playing duplicate, my father taught me an otherwise natural system in which the 2♣ rebid was an artificial force. Since he and his p won the East-Danish championship playing that system it is probably not more moronic than so many other ridicolous systems played by Danish top players in those years. At least it was more fun.

 

If forced to play natural methods throughout, I wonder if it would be better to play 2♥ as game forcing or whether it should just be a one round force. Probably both are approximately equally moronic, although non-forcing is clearly much worse.

 

But generally I just play whatever method we are less likely to forget and don't worry if it is moronic or not. And if the agreement is SAYC, well, as Rik says, it would be moronic to play anything other than SAYC.

[MrAce]

I'm confused. What happened? I thought you played with blue and had a misunderstanding.

 

So you were not his pd, that misunderstanding occurred between blue and one of your mentees?

 

In that case, I feel it's inevitable that your mentee will be exposed to different treatments. No harm in her finding out that some people don't play 2H as forcing, even if ACBL SAYC says it's forcing.

 

I disagree

 

If Blue said it is better to play 2d as forcing only and suggested to the mentee you would have a point, however this was not the case IMO.

From my subjective experience I believe, whoever has such a strong opinion on a subject like this and express himself so strongly while shuts the door for opposition by using words like "anyone who plays this otherwise is a moron/less than 2 digit IQ" is an expert wanna be intermediate at best because I don't believe an advanced player would do this let alone an expert . Especially in the presence of mentees. So I agree with Wayne.

 

Having said that I also agree with Rik about agreeing to play SAYC and then trying to make a non-forcing bid by making a bid that's announced as forcing upto the system your pd thinks you are playing and then expecting pd to read your mind and when all fails to be frustrated and embarrassing himself was the only moronic act as far as I see it.

 

I admit I play 2d as forcing and 2h non-forcing with only agreement. In 30 something years I played both versions depending on what pd prefers. Non forcing version has the benefit of stopping at 2h, it's a jackpot if you happen to find a 4-4 5-4 fit at MP while others are playing their 5-1 5-2 6-1 fit. But honestly that does not happen a lot, you usually end up playing 4-3 fit or even worse if opener has 6-4 minors.

It usually awards very good when responder has 5-5 majors weak and/or void in opener minor.

 

With the risk of being called a moron or called to have less than 2 digit IQ, I have to say that playing both 2 red suits as forcing is not as bad as it is advertised IMHO.

 

It gives more flexibility for right siding the NT contracts. After all if we are going to make a lot of noise on our way to 3 NT and give road maps to enemy we better play it from the correct hand.

It also has some other benefits but i think I made my point.

 

I confess that I like 2d being the only forcing gate, however I would never see other version as moronic or people who uses other version as IQ poor. And even if I did for a momentarily insanity, I would definitely not go head and seal it in a public bridge forum for the second time.