Forcing v Nonforcing

[jgillispie]

Consider the following auctions:

 

1♣ 1♠

2N 3♣

 

1♣ 1♠

2N 3♠

 

1♣ 1♠

2N 3♦/♥

 

In which cases are responder's rebids forcing?

[kenrexford]

All. Transfers solve you issue.

[wank]

all of them.

[Vampyr]

All. Transfers solve you issue.

 

You could also distinguish between checking back and bidding directly, ie make the former forcing and the latter non-forcing. This is a very simple approach, but will work most of the time.

[Kungsgeten]

If you do not play any conventions over the 2NT rebid, I think it is standard the only possible partscore is 2NT (3X and 4m are forcing).

[DaveRolyat]

I'm baffled, I would only take the third one as forcing.

 

And how would transfers help?

[wank]

I'm baffled, I would only take the third one as forcing.

 

And how would transfers help?

 

the theory is that the hand's that so weak it wants to avoid game opposite 18-19 is so rare that you don't want to devote bids to it, so the only place to stop is 2NT, leaving all other bids available for slam investigation

[kenberg]

This is more of the same response, possibly with a slightly different flavor.

 

 

I try to get partners to agree that after 1x-1y-2NT all calls are natural and forcing. By "different flavor" I mean that I realize this might not be optimal, might not be what is played at the highest levels.

 

But consider a simple situation. 1D-1S-2NT. Maybe responder has five spades, four diamonds and a good enough hand to be interested in slam. A natural and forcing 3D is a good start. Or maybe responder has long clubs but only four spades. 3C is a good start. If opener now bids 3S, showing three card spade support in case responder has five. responder might now bid 3NT, announcing that he is not tryinig to play in spades, but he does think clubs might be a possibility.

 

Here is one problem with this approach. 1C-1S-2NT. Perhaps responder is under strength for his 1S call, but he has some length there and his clubs are such that passing 1C did not appeal to him. This can happen. If the pair is playing weak jump shifts, it happens less often. Respnder won't have a weak hand and six spades, since with that hand he would have bid 2S rather than 1S on the first round. And, if he has five spades and a weak hand, it is far from certain that correcting 2NT to 3S is a good idea anyway. If not playing weak jump shifts then if responder has six spades and not much in values, maybe he would like to stop in 3S. he can't, as I play. So maybe 4S is making. It can happen. I suppose there is a reason people play Wolff sign-offs, I just don't do it.

 

Generally, I have had good luck with this simple, natural approach. After 1C-1S-2N-3S, I play this as showing five, not six. I expect partner to have two spades for his 2NT call, so now he can raise to 4S if he has a third spade and bid 3NT if he does not. If I, the responder, want to go further we now know if we are playing in spades or NT.

 

So: Maybe, with enough work and enough reading, there is something better. But all bids over 2NT natural and forcing seems to work pretty well.

[Kaitlyn S]

All. Transfers solve you issue.

And create other issues.

 

This probably won't be the last time you see this from me, but I think that the novice does much better working on his standard bidding, play, and defense, and leave the conventions to the bridge addicts.

 

The experts who say that a convention is the solution to your problem may think that you plan to spend as much time studying the game as they have (and if not, their answer is irrelevant.) I am assuming that you're playing bridge to have fun, do not want to make it your second job, and it may not even be your top hobby. If this is true, when someone suggests a convention, smile and nod. and then promptly forget it. You can do just fine with only Stayman and takeout doubles as conventions and everything else natural, and your friends will understand what your bids mean (some may not understand Stayman.)

 

That being said, in standard bidding, I agree with the others, they are all forcing.

 

To the experts: Many times I have heard a beginner ask after learning Stayman, "why isn't 1D P 1NT P 2C Stayman?" Usually somebody will give some snarky answer about looking for the 4-card major partner denied, but ask yourself, if this is where someone's head is at, why are we teaching this person a convention?

[The_Badger]

 

This probably won't be the last time you see this from me, but I think that the novice does much better working on his standard bidding, play, and defense, and leave the conventions to the bridge addicts.

 

Totally agree Kaitlyn S,

 

A good grounding is certainly more important that a plethora of conventions. These can be tacked on later, one by one, as you fine tune your game.

 

As an answer to jgillispie's original question, wank's reply states simply why all sequences are forcing: the theory is that the hand's that so weak it wants to avoid game opposite 18-19 is so rare that you don't want to devote bids to it, so the only place to stop is 2NT, leaving all other bids available for slam investigation.

 

Or alternatively, finding the best game.

[Vampyr]

Totally agree Kaitlyn S,

 

A good grounding is certainly more important that a plethora of conventions. These can be tacked on later, one by one, as you fine tune your game.

 

As an answer to jgillispie's original question, wank's reply states simply why all sequences are forcing: the theory is that the hand's that so weak it wants to avoid game opposite 18-19 is so rare that you don't want to devote bids to it, so the only place to stop is 2NT, leaving all other bids available for slam investigation.

 

Or alternatively, finding the best game.

 

But the OP is looking for some way to stop below game. Are people supposed to say "there are ways, but don't worry about it now"? Mentioning that there are conventions does not mean that the OP will take them up.

 

I have said many times on these forums that players should not take up conventions willy-nilly, because "everyone" plays them or whatever, but should consider them when they identify hand-types that they would like to handle better than or differently to what they do now. This is clearly the case for the OP, and surely it cannot be right to deny her request for information.

[P_Marlowe]

In General the question is, what would a Non forcing hand look like

 

#1 This would be a 5-6HCP hand, with 4+ spades and 4+ clubs.

A hand with 7+ would want to insist on game, those hands exist,

but they are rare.

 

#2 This would be a 5-6 hand with 6+ spades, 5 spades are not enough,

there is no gurantee of a fit, and you also have no idea, if 2NT

plays better than the 5-2 fit.

But if you have a 6-2 fit with 5-6 points, you usually want to be

in 4S.

Ask your self, what you would bit with 18-19 bal. facing a weak 2.

Similar, if 3S hits 3 card support with partner, the strength goes up,

not much, but enough to make it worth while to see, if you can make game.

 

#3 The same consideration as #2 apply here as well, you have no knowledge

about a fit, and this means, you dont know, if 3? in a 7 card fit

plays any better than 2N, the preference by partner wont assure a 8

card fit either.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Vampyr]

In General the question is, what would a Non forcing hand look like

 

#1 This would be a 5-6HCP hand, with 4+ spades and 4+ clubs.

A hand with 7+ would want to insist on game, those hands exist,

but they are rare.

 

#2 This would be a 5-6 hand with 6+ spades, 5 spades are not enough,

there is no gurantee of a fit, and you also have no idea, if 2NT

plays better than the 5-2 fit.

But if you have a 6-2 fit with 5-6 points, you usually want to be

in 4S.

Ask your self, what you would bit with 18-19 bal. facing a weak 2.

Similar, if 3S hits 3 card support with partner, the strength goes up,

not much, but enough to make it worth while to see, if you can make game.

 

#3 The same consideration as #2 apply here as well, you have no knowledge

about a fit, and this means, you dont know, if 3? in a 7 card fit

plays any better than 2N, the preference by partner wont assure a 8

card fit either.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

Do you really require 5-6 points to reply in a 6-card major at the 1-level?

[The_Badger]

I agree Vampyr: the subtle bidding nuances of Acol and even original Wei Precision (which also allowed you to stop below game after a 1♣ opening 16+ HCPs and a positive response 8+HCPs) have been washed away in a tide with 2/1.

 

I'm by no means a 2/1 expert, and personally I find it a bit wham-bam around the edges - game or bust - but there is a great deal of logic in how it is structured. I think, in a strange way, it makes bidding easier for most players as there are (in my view) fewer invitational sequences to contend with.

[The_Badger]

[Duplicated]

[nige1]

.After 1 banana - 1 rasberry -; 2N - ??

• Without discussion, pass is the only non-forcing bid below 3N.
• If you're looking for a conventional way of signing off, you can agree that all 3-level suit bids are transfers. Then you can pass opener's rebid.
• Another alternative convention is to agree that 3♣ is a puppet to 3♦ after which, a rebid of your original suit isn't forcing. This allows you to sign-off in your suit (or 3♦). The puppet also releases other sequences for which you can agree meanings.

[Vampyr]

I'm by no means a 2/1 expert, and personally I find it a bit wham-bam around the edges - game or bust - but there is a great deal of logic in how it is structured. I think, in a strange way, it makes bidding easier for most players as there are (in my view) fewer invitational sequences to contend with.

 

I agree with you about game/bust, and also about it being easier. I don't think it is strange really; it just removes ambiguity about whether bids are forcing or not.

 

I think that Acol is similar in that aspect. What is difficult, IMO, is the middle ground - Standard American and the like. 2/1 forcing to 2NT, or promises another bid etc. It seems that these systems require a lot of agreements about what bids are forcing and which are invitational, how to force to game, how to make a slam try etc.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate

[kenberg]

I want to expand the issue a bit, still keeping the general theme of forcing or non-forcing. I recently played seven Swiss matches of seven boards each. The following auction came up twice:

 

1S-1NT

2NT-3H

 

I was opener, partner's 1NT was not, as we were playing, forcing. I treated this as forcing and bid 4H in one case and 3NT in the other. No hand records so I cannot tell you exactly what the cards were but the 4H was on ice, I am not sure if the 3NT might have been beaten by better defense.

 

Had the NT been forcing then partner's possible hand is spread over a wide range and I think 3H must surely be forcing. Playing a non-forcing NT his hand is more limited but I still think that it should be forcing. I am not positive that everyone agrees with this, I am not even sure partner agrees with this although after two good results he may be a convert. It is true that on some hands 3H might make while neither 2NT nor 4H makes, but as was said earlier about the OP auction this is a very narrow window.

[Added: Thinking about it, the case is even stronger for 3H forcing here than in the case of 1C-1H-2NT. The 1C-1H is sometimes light on points, but 1S-1NT usually has the full 6 count.]

 

I recently spent a little time on the web searching for "Frequent examples of forcing and non-forcing auctions". It is not so easy to find authoritative answers.

 

I will give another example where I think there is wide agreement, but perhaps not universal agreement. This time I have the hands.

 

Red against white, matchpoints, partner deals and opens 1D.

 

I hold:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj653hktdt93c98&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1sp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

Where do we belong? Who knows? I would like to bid 3S but I am by no means certain that this particular partner regards that as forcing. Indeed, he said he would have passed. I think, partly through browbeating and partly through this hand, I have changed his mind.

 

So I guessed 4S. Not the worst final contract, here are both hands.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj653hktdt93c98&n=s9haj72dakj874ckq&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1sp3dp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I had not looked back at this until I decided to post it. I must ask partner why he chose 3D instead of 2H at his second call. But that's not the point I have in mind.

Where would you like to play this? 6D is likely if you can pick up the diamond Q, and cold if AK brings down Qx since you need only to ruff one heart. Similarly, 3NT will outscore 4S if you pick up the diamonds but there could be trouble if the Q does not cooperate. 4S is fairly likely to make, it beats 5D, and it beats either 6D or 3NT if those contracts fail. So 4S is not the worst contract I have ever been in.

 

The point is that 4S was a guess. Not that it is totally clear where this should be played even if you are allowed to see all four hands. But at least you have room to explore, and maybe this helps you choose your best shot. Fwiw, I was +650 but the diamond Q comes down so 6D is the winning spot.

 

 

I think just about everyone plays that

1D 1S

3D 3S

is forcing. The Bridge Encyclopedia agrees, and I think partner now agrees. But there are a lot of such situations and I am not sure it is so easy to find clear cut guidance on some of them.

 

For example, if it had begun 1D-1S-2H, I trust 2S and 3D are both forcing bids, and I think the 3D is game forcing. This assumes Lebensohl is being played over a reverse. I know this is the Novice and beginner Forum so I ask forbearance from those who have no idea what this last sentence refers to. . But you still want to know whether, after the 2H, 2S and 3D are or are not forcing.

 

It would be good if [Fred, maybe BBO has done this somewhere and I just don't know about it?] there was an easily accessible list of common auctions that are classified into f/nf. Players who wish goul still go there own way, but many would just say "Let's do it as listed".

[kiwinacol]

I want to expand the issue a bit, still keeping the general theme of forcing or non-forcing. I recently played seven Swiss matches of seven boards each. The following auction came up twice:

 

1S-1NT

2NT-3H

 

I was opener, partner's 1NT was not, as we were playing, forcing. I treated this as forcing and bid 4H in one case and 3NT in the other. No hand records so I cannot tell you exactly what the cards were but the 4H was on ice, I am not sure if the 3NT might have been beaten by better defense.

 

Had the NT been forcing then partner's possible hand is spread over a wide range and I think 3H must surely be forcing. Playing a non-forcing NT his hand is more limited but I still think that it should be forcing. I am not positive that everyone agrees with this, I am not even sure partner agrees with this although after two good results he may be a convert. It is true that on some hands 3H might make while neither 2NT nor 4H makes, but as was said earlier about the OP auction this is a very narrow window.

 

I recently spent a little time on the web searching for "Frequent examples of forcing and non-forcing auctions". It is not so easy to find authoritative answers.

 

I will give another example where I think there is wide agreement, but perhaps not universal agreement. This time I have the hands.

 

Red against white, matchpoints, partner deals and opens 1D.

 

I hold:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj653hktdt93c98&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1sp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

Where do we belong? Who knows? I would like to bid 3S but I am by no means certain that this particular partner regards that as forcing. Indeed, he said he would have passed. I think, partly through browbeating and partly through this hand, I have changed his mind.

 

So I guessed 4S. Not the worst final contract, here are both hands.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj653hktdt93c98&n=s9haj72dakj874ckq&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1sp3dp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I had not looked back at this until I decided to post it. I must ask partner why he chose 3D instead of 2H at his second call. But that's not the point I have in mind.

Where would you like to play this? 6D is likely if you can pick up the diamond Q, and cold if AK brings down Qx since you need only to ruff one heart. Similarly, 3NT will outscore 4S if you pick up the diamonds but there could be trouble if the Q does not cooperate. 4S is fairly likely to make, it beats 5D, and it beats either 6D or 3NT if those contracts fail. So 4S is not the worst contract I have ever been in.

 

The point is that 4S was a guess. Not that it is totally clear where this should be played even if you are allowed to see all four hands. But at least you have room to explore, and maybe this helps you choose your best shot. Fwiw, I was +650 but the diamond Q comes down so 6D is the winning spot.

 

 

I think just about everyone plays that

1D 1S

3D 3S

is forcing. The Bridge Encyclopedia agrees, and I think partner now agrees. But there are a lot of such situations and I am not sure it is so easy to find clear cut guidance on some of them.

 

For example, if it had begun 1D-1S-2H, I trust 2S and 3D are both forcing bids, and I think the 3D is game forcing. This assumes Lebensohl is being played over a reverse. I know this is the Novice and beginner Forum so I ask forbearance from those who have no idea what this last sentence refers to. . But you still want to know whether, after the 2H, 2S and 3D are or are not forcing.

 

It would be good if [Fred, maybe BBO has done this somewhere and I just don't know about it?] there was an easily accessible list of common auctions that are classified into f/nf. Players who wish goul still go there own way, but many would just say "Let's do it as listed".

 

Great post Ken. I've moved from Acol and Precision to 2/1, by-passing Std Am. The older Ben Cohen style of Acol I played had many sign-offs and invitational bids that 2/1 regards as forcing (and I don't mean just the obvious sequences like 1H - f1nt, and 1H- gf2C). A list of those common auctions would be useful to me and my partners who are recent converts to 5 card majors. Thanks Ash.

[SteveMoe]

Consider a principle: When partner makes a limited rebid at the 3-level or higher that is non-forcing, bidding on is forcing until game is reached.

 

So 1X - 1Y - 2N and 1X - 1Y - 3X are both non-forcing. You have to make your next bid at the 3-level.

 

Best to play in 2N or 3X when responder is weak, instead of trying to play in 3Y. Here by agreement pass is responder's only non-forcing option.

 

Also true: using these bids as forward going maximizes expected value - that is you have more degrees of freedom in auctions where you need to force to game and may have slam. This is also consistent with the idea that we bid strain before game, and game before slam.

[akwoo]

I think all this stuff about principles or lists of forcing or non-forcing auctions is still way too complicated for a beginner. The beginner can't memorize anything more than a line or two. The beginner can't figure out anything at the table.

 

The simple rules are as follows:

 

1) New suits by responder below game are forcing for one round.

2) New suits by opener above 2 of their opening bid suit and below game are forcing for one round.

 

Everything else is nonforcing.

 

Is this optimal? No. Is this standard with anyone not playing Stone Age Acol? No. But I have a partner who insists on this, not wanting to risk any disasters, and we do fine. Not having a better bidding system costs us on average a board a session, and it's well within the realms of possibility that the brain space we're saving lets us win back that board by giving us more brainpower to play the cards better.

[spotlight7]

B.J. Becker won numerous national championships using a grand

 

total of three conventions. Take out doubles, 4NT* and GSF.

 

 

 

For beginners and also many intermediates keeping the bidding reasonably

 

simple is a very good idea. The best is often the enemy of the good.

 

 

 

All three auctions are forcing in standard methods. If you wish to add some additional

 

methods over a 2N rebid, "Washington Standard" by Steve Robinson is a very good approach.

 

 

 

For those of you that respond very light to an opening bid, Wolff sign off is one popular option.

[Zelandakh]

1S-1NT

2NT-3H

In Acol at least this sequence is traditionally not forcing. The stronger your requirement for a 2/1 response, the stronger is the argument against this. The interesting case is probably the "2/1 forcing to 2NT" case, which goes back to the comment made by Vampyr.

 

 

For example, if it had begun 1D-1S-2H, I trust 2S and 3D are both forcing bids, and I think the 3D is game forcing. This assumes Lebensohl is being played over a reverse.

As you are no doubt aware the traditional approach after a reverse, in Acol at least, is for both 2♠ and 3♦ to be non-forcing. Playing Lebensohl does indeed change that so that 3♦ is a clear game force. The 2♠ rebid is less clear - modern standard is for this to be forcing but it is quite possible to play it as non-forcing too, as indeed it is in my system (there are some reasons why this makes more sense in that context).

 

It would be good if [Fred, maybe BBO has done this somewhere and I just don't know about it?] there was an easily accessible list of common auctions that are classified into f/nf. Players who wish goul still go there own way, but many would just say "Let's do it as listed".

For the reverse case there is Mike's stickied thread of course. A more general document is difficult because the rules for the forcing nature of calls are too different between major natural systems (2/1 GF, SA, SAYC, Acol, SEF/Forum D, etc) to be able to draw firm conclusions in boundary cases.