Is 1-1-1 forcing?

[Liversidge]

In Paul Mendelson's book "121 Tips for Better Bridge' he says that 1♣- 1♦ - 1♠ is 100% forcing and he gives an example of a 19 HCP hand where opener rebids 1♠, without fear of partner passing, thus leaving more space to explore the best contract.

Elsewhere I have read that opener's second bid should show his strength with a reverse, which a 1♠ rebid doesn't do.

 

Paul's advice seems sensible, so long as partner knows he has to bid again, even if he has only 6 points and an unbalanced hand with 6+ cards in his first suit, so has to bid 1NT with no support for my first suit, good three card support for my second suit and a singleton or void in his second suit. I don't want partner to pass my 19 point hand saying he made a preference pass as I had not shown my strength with a reverse or a No Trump rebid, and he suspected a misfit.

[P_Marlowe]

This is an endless area for discussion, on BBF the majority would say NF.

In the end it comes down to

#1 how light you respond

#2 how strong a 1 level opener can be

 

#1 and #2 are related

 

#2 Raising the upper limit for an 1 level opening removes pressure from your

strong 2C opener.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kuhchung]

Not forcing.

 

What is the actual hand in the book? If it is balanced, just rebid 2N. If it is unbalanced, rebid 2S.

[ArtK78]

Not forcing in any standard system that I know. Quite frankly, I can't think of any system in which 1-1-1 would be forcing unless the opening bid was a strong forcing bid and the initial response promised values. For example, if the auction went 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠, with the 1♣ bid being strong, artificial and forcing, and the 1♥ response being a natural game forcing bid, then 1♠ would be forcing. There might be other variations on this theme. But the bottom line is that, in any standard system where the opening bid is natural and non-forcing, a response followed by a one-level rebid is not forcing.

[Liversidge]

The actual hand is as follows:

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj9ha2d32caqj63&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp1s]133|200[/hv]

Paul Mendelson is the Financial Times bridge correspondent and a major author on bridge in the UK.

On this hand he writes:

"Many players would jump in spades but there is no need. All possible games and slams are still available and 1S is 100% forcing. This leaves plenty of room for partner to rebid to describe his hand further, or to use Fourth suit forcing to elicit further information from you. To jump here would simply waste your own side's bidding space and make reaching the correct contract more difficult"

 

I have a lot of books and other resources on bridge but have never heard of this before so thought I'd check it out before raising it with my partner.

[helene_t]

I am not convinced by Mendelson's argument.

 

Partner usually isn't strong enough to use fourth suit when you have such a monster. Suppose he bids 2♣. Now you have to do something forcing again on your third turn. 2♦ is probably what you would bid with a 4045 16-18 count. Partner can pass it. 3♦ is probably a splinter, at least it is forcing but you don't have a singleton diamonds.

 

I am sure Mendelson hasa solution, but for us mortals wouldn't it be easier to show the strength and shape with a 2♠ rebid? That is a game force so you don't have to worry about which subsequent bids would be forcing.

 

Besides: If 2♠ isn't this hand, what is 2♠ then? A splinter in support of hearts? Would it be 5-6?

 

It probably doesn't matter much what you agree with partner, though, as long as you both understand that non-forcing does not mean weak. 1♠ has an upper limit of about 18 points. Partner can pass it with 5-6 points, maybe a bad 7, and exactly three spades. With four spades he will raise even with an absolute minimum.

[Trinidad]

I am one of the very few who plays that a 1-1-1 can be forcing. But before you think that you have found someone: it doesn't apply to this auction. It only applies to two auctions:

1♣-1♦; 1♥

1♦-1♥; 1♠

 

The reason for these exceptions is that I do not want to jump with strong 4441 hands. (And in my style a 4441 hand needs to be very strong before it is opened at the 2 level.) But as I said, very few players will make these exceptions.

 

Other than the exceptions I gave, I cannot come up with a good reason why a 1-1-1 should be forcing. The only thing I can say is that, in practice, I rarely pass.

 

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

Other than the exceptions I gave, I cannot come up with a good reason why a 1-1-1 should be forcing. The only thing I can say is that, in practice, I rarely pass.

 

The main reason one might want to do this is to free up 2♠ for some other meaning(s). Like handling "bridge world death hands" (strong hand, six card minor, 3 cd H support). Or after 1d-1h gaining some ways to splinter raise without forcing to game. Since even when playing 1-1-1 non-forcing, this bid is rarely passed anyway, I think I like the trade-off in theory although my partners have rarely agreed to try it so I haven't really seen how well it works in practice.

[wank]

don't pay too much attention to the article. i'm british and i've never heard of the author, which suggests he doesn't play national or even county events. some of the other newspaper columns are written by people i do know and who are clueless. the same applies to bridge books aimed at beginners. being a good writer and a good bridge player are not very closely correlated.

 

there is a good argument for playing it as forcing - it would free up a 2S rebid for something artifical, for example a strong raise. of course he makes no mention of this advantage. anyway the normal meaning is definitely non-forcing.

 

the example hand one wouldn't want to jump to start a game force with anyway as it's not strong enough. that the author chose a poor example hand is a clue to the validity of the rest of the piece.

 

it's very rare that one would really want to pass here anyway. either responder has 6 cards in his suit so will rebid those, he has 3+ of opener's first suit so he go back there and play an 8+ card fit or he has length in the 4th suit in which case he's happy bidding no trumps.

 

*note for those who object to "he has 3+ of opener's first suit so he go back there and play an 8+ card fit": this style is pretty much universal in the UK.

[mycroft]

I play it (and you can see this in my history) as "not forcing, but if you pass, you'd better be right." So far, my partnerships have been 100% right with their passes (my guess: all 4 of them).

[mikestar13]

I play it (and you can see this in my history) as "not forcing, but if you pass, you'd better be right." So far, my partnerships have been 100% right with their passes (my guess: all 4 of them).

 

This is a fairly common way to play it. Edgar Kaplan called this type of opener's rebid "forcing if you have a real response (six points)".

[Vampyr]

The main reason one might want to do this is to free up 2♠ for some other meaning(s). Like handling "bridge world death hands" (strong hand, six card minor, 3 cd H support).

 

Yes, I use 2♠ for this among other hand types.

[benlessard]

NF or artificial forcing is the way to go. I dislike natural and forcing because the target is too small.

 

I even the 2S jump shift being passed from time to time with a hand that could/should have passed 1C.

 

xxx

Axxxx

xxxx

x

[Vampyr]

NF or artificial forcing is the way to go. I dislike natural and forcing because the target is too small.

 

I even the 2S jump shift being passed from time to time with a hand that could/should have passed 1C.

 

xxx

Axxxx

xxxx

x

 

You would pass a 1♣ bid with this? Seriously?

[GrahamJson]

There was an important misconception in the original question. You need a good hand to reverse, but that doesn't mean that if you have a good hand you must reverse. A reverse should always show your shape, and guarantee at least five cards in your first suit. You should not miss describe your shape just in order to make a reverse.

 

Whether you play 1-1-1 as forcing is a matter of agreement. Normal practice is not to play it forcing, but only pass in extreme cases, such as the xxx Axxxx xxxx x hand mentioned. I would not play a jump to 2S as artificial. Learn to bin naturally before you use too many gadgets. Lots of players on BBO seem to know all the conventions, but have little judgement. Just see how many players leap to 4NT just because they have a good hand, without any idea where they are going.

[echo25]

Not forcing in any standard system that I know. Quite frankly, I can't think of any system in which 1-1-1 would be forcing unless the opening bid was a strong forcing bid and the initial response promised values. For example, if the auction went 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠, with the 1♣ bid being strong, artificial and forcing, and the 1♥ response being a natural game forcing bid, then 1♠ would be forcing. There might be other variations on this theme. But the bottom line is that, in any standard system where the opening bid is natural and non-forcing, a response followed by a one-level rebid is not forcing.

 

1C-1H-1S and 1D-1H-1S are forcing in Polish Club. 1D opening is limited by 17.

[Trinidad]

The main reason one might want to do this is to free up 2♠ for some other meaning(s). Like handling "bridge world death hands" (strong hand, six card minor, 3 cd H support).

That is true, but I don't think that such an agreement would be well suited for novices/beginners.

 

Rik

[fourdad]

As always, all that matters is partnership agreement.

 

Having said that, I would jump shift with this hand and find the author's comment to be weak about 1♠ being forcing. It is the bid that most accurately describes the hand to partner, imo.

 

Having said that, I also agree that a partner who passes the 1♠ bid,better be right. I just would be the 1♠ with a weaker hand than the one shown.

[Fluffy]

1/1 forcing to 1NT is the way I learnt.

 

The big advantage comes from big 3 suiters. Jump reversing on 4441 is very bad.

[Vampyr]

1/1 forcing to 1NT is the way I learnt.

 

The big advantage comes from big 3 suiters. Jump reversing on 4441 is very bad.

 

A jump reverse is normally a splinter; here the alternative bid is a jump shift.

 

There was an important misconception in the original question. You need a good hand to reverse, but that doesn't mean that if you have a good hand you must reverse. A reverse should always show your shape, and guarantee at least five cards in your first suit. You should not miss describe your shape just in order to make a reverse.

 

There was a hand on these forums recently where members were virtually unanimously in favour of doing just that.

[Zelandakh]

I am not convinced by Mendelson's argument.

 

Partner usually isn't strong enough to use fourth suit when you have such a monster. Suppose he bids 2♣. Now you have to do something forcing again on your third turn. 2♦ is probably what you would bid with a 4045 16-18 count. Partner can pass it.

Bid 2NT with the 4045 (with a subsequent 3♦ reply natural) and use 2♦ as a catch-all force. That does not mean I am advocating 1♠ as forcing, just that this seems like a very easy solution to this particular issue.

[aguahombre]

You should not miss describe your shape just in order to make a reverse.

 

There was a hand on these forums recently where members were virtually unanimously in favour of doing just that.

And they would be virtually unanimously wrong. There are canape' styles, but that isn't what we are discussing in this n/b thread. There are responding hand styles where over 1H, holding 4-2-3-4 and g.f. values people choose 2C (although we don't subscribe to that.

 

But for opener to distort pattern to artificially create a reverse is not something we should be advocating to anyone, let alone n/b.

 

A typical error by inexperienced players would be to open 1♣ with Ax x KQJxxx AQxxx so that they can reverse in diamonds later.

[Jinksy]

I think the hand in question (assuming it's the same one I remember) was something along the lines of KQx AKx A QJ9xxx (I'm making up the honours, but roughly that strength and shape), where the bidding began 1♣ 1♠ / ?

 

Rebidding 2♣ has a good chance of getting you passed out, playing in the wrong strain at the wrong level. Even rebidding 3♣ feels too weak, and also wrong on such a suit. Hence 2♥, planning to continue correcting to partner's suit if he keeps trying to raise your suit (since we know if he has 4 hearts, he must have 5 spades)

[GrahamJson]

Reversing into a three card suit I'd quite common practice, and not quite what I was referring to earlier. In fact we often have to bid short suits at times because no other bid is attractive. What I was thinking of were hands like that described by aguahombre, or even worse, opening 1C on Axx x KQJxx AQxx so that you can later reverse into 2D.

[aguahombre]

Reversing into a three card suit I'd quite common practice, and not quite what I was referring to earlier. In fact we often have to bid short suits at times because no other bid is attractive. What I was thinking of were hands like that described by aguahombre, or even worse, opening 1C on Axx x KQJxx AQxx so that you can later reverse into 2D.

Yeh, the hand you show there...and mine are not strong enough to open 1d, then jumpshift to clubs; but a simple 2C bid is fine in it's wide range. Responder will/should often make a false preference 2D rebid with something like 5-3-2-3 and a minimum response -- and then you can choose if you want to then bid 2S. That would suggest extra strength, and your exact shape.

 

I noticed in your opening post some confusion of terms between jump shift and reverse, but that's another story.