Is this bid roundforcing

[Brandal]

Around here most people play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ non forcing, and 2♦ as anything. But besides that new suits (unless 1NT rebid) are forcing.

I play 4 card openings,and 5 card S,so unless 4S-3-3-3

I open 1C with 4,does that have a bearing on the case?

 

I mean,since 1c-1s-2c-2h can be nonforcing,why not

1d-1s-2d-2h?

 

To my recollection,I've "never" been sitting playing on the

2 level with obvious gamestrong cards,so I must be doing

SOMETHING right.......right?

 

B)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it is forcing for one round, altough it may

not show hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Brandal]

Hi,

 

it is forcing for one round, altough it may

not show hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Opener can have 4 hearts,how do you find heartfit

if responders 2h in this scenario doesn't necessarily

show hearts?

 

And is 1D-1S-1NT-2H any different?

Still not necessarily have hearts,roundforce?

[Brandal]

Despite what some posters have said Brandal, the sequence:

1D 1S 2D 2H is NOT forcing in traditional Acol. To be honest however, I do not know of many people who still play this as nf. (I do know of some). It does seem like trying to stop on the head of a pin. Most Acol players today would play this as forcing, certainly most tournament players would do so.

Back in 77-78 when I learned bridge,we learned Goren,

I then played precision for several years when I had a

regular partner and we played in tournaments here,in

the early 80's.

 

I recall having a book on Acol,but never liked those strong

2 openings,never seemed to get them

 

B)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it is forcing for one round, altough it may

not show hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Opener can have 4 hearts,how do you find heartfit

if responders 2h in this scenario doesn't necessarily

show hearts?

 

And is 1D-1S-1NT-2H any different?

Still not necessarily have hearts,roundforce?

Hi,

 

I play 3rd suit forcing.

 

The scenario A

 

1D - 1S

2D - 2H

 

is slightly different from scenario B

 

1D - 1S

1NT - 2H

 

playing 3rd suit forcing.

 

The meaning of 2H in scenario A, is

similar to the meaning of 2D in the

NMF sequence

 

1C - 1S

2C - 2D

 

i.e. 2H asks for 3 card support in spade,

stopper in hearts, minimum maximum,

and also about a 4 card heart suit,

but only in cases were opener holds a

maximum.

 

Sometimes you will loose a 4-4 fit in hearts,

but only in cases were opener has a mimimum

opening.

 

In scenario B 2H is nonforcing and shows at least

5-4 in the mayors.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

100% Forcing.

 

Suppose you have

♠KQxxx

♥KJxx

♦x

♣xxx

 

Now after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ you might improve your contract by bidding a NF 2♥ but usually you just get overboard. Pass.

[pclayton]

100% Forcing.

 

Suppose you have

♠KQxxx

♥KJxx

♦x

♣xxx

 

Now after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ you might improve your contract by bidding a NF 2♥ but usually you just get overboard. Pass.

And the reason people play it as non-forcing is when Opener has to rebid 2♣ on:

 

x

AQxx

xx

AQxxxx

[HeartA]

And the reason people play it as non-forcing is when Opener has to rebid 2♣ on:

 

x

AQxx

xx

AQxxxx

Yes, on some occasions, you could improve contracts by biddig (non-forcing) 2♥. In most cases, you will find pd has no fit for your majors and you get over-board. Besides, when you pass pd's 2♣/2♦, opps might decide to balance, probably 2♥. :D

 

The principal is, when you don't have strength for game, don't try to improve contracts with a unfit hand. Stop ASAP. Save the (new suit) bidding for stronger hands.

[han]

I have played this both as forcing and non-forcing. Currently I play it as forcing (and potentially artificial), and we play reverse Flannery. When we played it as non-forcing, we played 1m-1S-2m-2NT as forcing, and used it to show GF 5-4 hands. With GF 5-5 we used to bid 3H immediately.

 

Without discussion I would always assume that a new suit by responder is forcing.

[Fluffy]

I mean,since 1c-1s-2c-2h can be nonforcing,why not

1d-1s-2d-2h?

Because 1♠ bidder is unnlimited, and having the cheapest voice as a forcing one keeps the bidding open to exchange more info, while the winning of being able to bid 2♥ to play it is not very good.

 

So what I mena is the ratio of having a strong hand with 3+♥ is much more than having 5♠-4♥ and a weak hand, also the gaining from having the bid you need is higher for the forcing one.

 

 

With one partner I play 1m-2♥ as 4♥+5♠ 6-9 so it has even less sense to me :rolleyes:.

[joker_gib]

With a pick up partner I woud consider it F1 round as this is a new suit !

 

In my system :

 

F1 round !

 

Same as 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦ F1 round

 

NF bids are :

 

1♣ - 2♦ = 5♥+4♦+ NF

1♦ - 2♥ = 5♠ + 4♥+ NF

 

Alain

[Guest Jlall]

I like playing 1C-1S-2C-2H as NF (use 2D as artificial force) but 1D-1S-2D-2H must be forcing otherwise you have to use a bulky 3C as an artificial force losing vital room.

[Winstonm]

I wonder if there is any value in playing canape' responses in this one precise sequence? That would allow both forcing and non-forcing rebids without introducing an artificial aspect to the bidding.

 

WinstonM

[adf]

My regular partner and I play nonforcing here, but I would expect forcing with an unknown partner. However, it rarely comes up. I'm not worried about getting too high with a GF hand, even after 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣. After opener's third bid, I should be able to place the contract. Also, even if a 5=4=1=3 might not improve the contact with a 2♥ bid, I expect that a 5=5=1=2 would. Anyone care to run a simulation?

[Brandal]

My regular partner and I play nonforcing here, but I would expect forcing with an unknown partner.

This was my point,the opps who did this,clearly was

if not unknown,then didn't have enough playing together

to iron out all aspects of a system.

 

So even if a couple of people replying laugh at us for

considering it nonforcing,it can also be a matter of

agreement within a regular partnership.

 

I agree with those saying with pickup partner it needs

to be roundforce.

 

Everything in bridge has its pros and cons,what matters

is finding a way for MY partnership(s) that works ok.

 

I think the main issue is frequency,how often would I like

to bid a NF 2H,how often do I wish 2H was RF....

[Fluffy]

I think the main issue is frequency,how often would I like

to bid a NF 2H,how often do I wish 2H was RF....

I sure am not the first to say it, not will be the last, but the real main issue is that you and your partner play the same :)

[Brandal]

I think the main issue is frequency,how often would I like

to bid a NF 2H,how often do I wish 2H was RF....

I sure am not the first to say it, not will be the last, but the real main issue is that you and your partner play the same :lol:

Actually....you ARE the first heheh

 

:)

[pigpenz]

I would tend to play it as non-forcing.

Now if the original question was at imps I would pass 2♦ but at matchpoints I would bid 2♥ non forcing....doesnt Meckwell have a 2♥ bid to show something like 5-4 in the majors over 1♦