Non forcing, constructive. (ACBL CC)

[jillybean]

As shown on the ACBL Convention card, you likely have "NF Const" ticked under responses to Simple Overalls.

 

What is your understanding of NF Constructive, have you discussed it with your partner?

[RMB1]

What is your understanding of NF Constructive, ...

Overcaller should bid again with an above average overcall, including one which has been improved by a fit for advancer's suit.

 

... have you discussed it with your partner?

No. When I play NF/constructive advances I just hope our common understanding is close enough.

[mycroft]

I don't in fact have that agreement (except when advancer is a passed hand); but if I did, I would expect it to be "it's forcing, but I've seen some of your overcalls before." Sort of in the way that 1♣-1♥; 1♠ is "Non-forcing" - you can pass it, but you'd better be right.

[Phil]

I've defined NF Constructive as 8-13 or so. Suit quality, stoppers, tolerance are all dependent on context. Better hands make a jump shift or fake a cue

 

I think overcaller should raise with a non-minimum overcall (10 or better).

 

Currently a cue bid is still forcing and not natural.

[TylerE]

What it says on the tin. Constructive (e.g. a bit more than a minimum response, I more or less agree with Phil's 8-13 range), but not forcing. Nothing about suit quality or (non)support implied, although it probably denies the ability to make some sort of more specific raise if fitting - e.g. we have some sort of 4 card invite gadget, it isn't that hand.

[Vampyr]

I think that a CC with tick-boxes is a poor idea, since partners can go through the card and tick things without making sure that their understanding of a treatment is the same.

 

Anyway, although NF, constructive is my preference, I will go along with partners who prefer forcing, so that the cue-bid guarantees support.

[jillybean]

According to ACBL's Conventional Wisdom:

If partner usually expects you to bid again except in

cases where your overcall is a minimum and the hands are misfitting,

check the “NFConst” box.

 

Sounds like forcing to me and a good discussion to have had with my partner.

[MrAce]

I also play cues promise fit. I play NF constructive a little wider than Phil's like 8-15. I really don't like the idea of cueing w/o fit with 14-15 or jumping all over the place to make a forcing bid even if this is natural in your agreements. (to me it is fit showing)

[TylerE]

Sounds like forcing to me and a good discussion to have had with my partner.

 

Forcing bids are like pregnancy. Either they are, or they aren't. Semi-forcing isn't.

[Vampyr]

I also play cues promise fit. I play NF constructive a little wider than Phil's like 8-15. I really don't like the idea of cueing w/o fit with 14-15 or jumping all over the place to make a forcing bid even if this is natural in your agreements. (to me it is fit showing)

 

How do you keep change of suit NF, cue promises fit and jump shift=fit? What do you do with a big non-fitting hand? (I realise that it is somewhat unlikely that you hold one when lefty and partner have both bid, but it happens, so surely one must be able to bid it?)

[MrAce]

How do you keep change of suit NF, cue promises fit and jump shift=fit? What do you do with a big non-fitting hand? (I realise that it is somewhat unlikely that you hold one when lefty and partner have both bid, but it happens, so surely one must be able to bid it?)

 

It indeed rarely happens and when it does

 

a-I may bid the most likely game

b-I may lie about a fit unless I am void or stiff in his suit.

c-I may just bid my suit and take the risk of being passed.

 

I usually apply one of these 3 when I have a huge hand, depending on what I hold. When you take into consideration how rare they are as you stated and that after that rare instance one of these 3 not able to be applied is very tiny range of hands that I don't think anyone should be concerned about them.

[Vampyr]

Does anyone remember when it was popular (well, it may have been a regional thing) to treat IIRC 1/1 or 2/2 advances as forcing but not 2/1? Does anyone still play that?

[helene_t]

Does anyone remember when it was popular (well, it may have been a regional thing) to treat IIRC 1/1 or 2/2 advances as forcing but not 2/1? Does anyone still play that?

Yes I play that with Shogi, it was standard in Biedemeijer (as I understand it, inspired by SEF, maybe some SEF expert here can comment on it).

[Zelandakh]

Forum D has 1/1 forcing and 2/1 NF (8-12, 6+ suit) so I assume this is the same in SEF. The cue here is 11+ without a more descriptive bid available.

[Fluffy]

Forum D has 1/1 forcing and 2/1 NF (8-12, 6+ suit) so I assume this is the same in SEF. The cue here is 11+ without a more descriptive bid available.

 

Yes, we play the same in Spain, although my dad defines 2/1 as "forcing unless you overcalled on crap". And also worth noting that since 2/1 is NF, I play 3/1 forcing, so cuebid is always with fit.

[Vampyr]

Deleted