Is there an expert consensus/standard on forcing advances?

[Jinksy]

Assuming you're not playing transfer advances or anything similar and advancer is bidding a new suit naturally, which if any of the following have a consensus/standard, and what is it:

 

1/1 advances

2/1 advances

2/2 advances

 

What if the bidding had started (1x) P (1y), and the overcall had been fourth seat?

 

Any other key cases I missed? (I'm assuming no-one would play anything as forcing by a hand that couldn't make an opening bid)

[Stephen Tu]

There's probably country to country variation. In U.S. the default is constructive but NF advances at all levels. But forcing advances if partner overcalled opponent's weak preempt.

[awm]

There's probably country to country variation. In U.S. the default is constructive but NF advances at all levels. But forcing advances if partner overcalled opponent's weak preempt.

 

Hmm, when I played in the US, very few pairs seemed to play 1/1 as NF. I think I saw it once or twice in over a decade of duplicate play. I'm not convinced there's really a consensus.

[helene_t]

French standard is nf art the 2-level but forcing at 1 and 3-level. This used to be the default in the Netherlands also. I don't know to what extent it is still the case.

 

After a 4th seat overcall, hardly anything can be forcing as advancer already failed to make an overcall. But then again, maybe an advance of sandwich overcall should always be a fitbid.

[Stephen Tu]

Hmm, when I played in the US, very few pairs seemed to play 1/1 as NF. I think I saw it once or twice in over a decade of duplicate play. I'm not convinced there's really a consensus.

Really?

• BWS 2017 - NF
• BWS 2001 - NF
• Washington Standard (Robinson) -NF
• Complete book of Overcalls (Lawrence) - NF

Maybe just in your circle 1/1 F was common, or maybe some geographic areas.

 

 

Or maybe people just often scraped up 2nd bids after a 1/1 even though they played as NF and you didn't confirm whether it was NF or not?

[Vampyr]

French standard is nf art the 2-level but forcing at 1 and 3-level. This used to be the default in the Netherlands also. I don't know to what extent it is still the case.

 

After a 4th seat overcall, hardly anything can be forcing as advancer already failed to make an overcall. But then again, maybe an advance of sandwich overcall should always be a fitbid.

 

We play fit non-jumps after any overcall, not just sandwich. (By passed hand obviously)

[sfi]

There's probably country to country variation. In U.S. the default is constructive but NF advances at all levels. But forcing advances if partner overcalled opponent's weak preempt.

There's definitely variation between countries. Non-forcing responses to an overcall are very rare in Australia.

[broze]

I think the "standard" in the UK is forcing at all levels with the exception of competition for 2/2 - e.g. (1H) 2C (2H) 2S. I believe expert standard here would be NF.

[rmnka447]

First, understand the implications between forcing and non-forcing new suit advances of overcalls.

 

If you play non-forcing advances, then the only way to keep the overcall bidder bidding is with a cue bid. Then, with a good suit and opening values, you have to cue bid first then try to get your suit in on subsequent rounds of the bidding. The other side of that is that with a constructive hand, you can show a good suit and not force partner to bid again.

 

If you play forcing advances, a new suit bid forces the overcall bidder to bid again. Cue bids are usually reserved for good hands fitting with partner, but you don't get to show your suit with hands where a force of partner may cause you to get too high.

 

 

In my corner of the US bridge world, the choice between the 2 methods is about equal with non-forcing constructive probably a tad more prevalent.

[SixOfWands]

In the UK all minimum suit advances are non-forcing and jump advances are game forcing. This makes sense to me since you can change suit and rescue a misfit without having extra values. Playing forcing advances you have to pass and play in a horrible misfit.

[Stephen Tu]

If you play non-forcing advances, then the only way to keep the overcall bidder bidding is with a cue bid. Then, with a good suit and opening values, you have to cue bid first then try to get your suit in on subsequent rounds of the bidding. The other side of that is that with a constructive hand, you can show a good suit and not force partner to bid again.

 

Given the standards for overcalling are usually a lot lower than opening the bidding, you need way more than just opening values to want to force. If I have like 14 pts I am happy bidding a NF 1S over my partner's 1H overcall, if we have game he should be able to bid again, I am not particularly worried about missing game opposite a pass.

 

Personally I like to play transfer advances and for suits in which a transfer is not available, jumps as forcing. This gives up on fit jumps and weak jumps in some of the suits, but avoids overloading the one-under good raise (or cue bid if not playing transfer advances) with any non-fit hands.

[mikeh]

Hmm, when I played in the US, very few pairs seemed to play 1/1 as NF. I think I saw it once or twice in over a decade of duplicate play. I'm not convinced there's really a consensus.

While my experience is not identical, my impression is the same.

 

I do think that, as with many other aspects of 'standard' bidding, there has been a gradual evolution.

 

I generally play transfer advances, which have a lot of merit, not least being that it renders much of this discussion moot: we can often advance an overcall not caring whether we are 'forcing' or not: by bidding the transfer, we guarantee another chance to bid, should we have the big hand that wants to force. Meanwhile, with the weaker hand, we have got into the auction.

 

However, this is not a panacea. For example, (1D) 1H (P) 1S....is 1S forcing?

 

I generally play it as forcing, just as I learned more than 40 years ago, but I do it now more out of laziness than because I see it as optimal.

 

I think the better view is to play it as constructive but nf.

 

When I first heard of that treatment, my reaction was 'but what if I have a big hand? Do I have to cuebid to force?'

 

However, we would need to have a really big hand to be worried that we will miss a game when we make the constructive but nf call, since partner is expected to bid again unless he has a minimum, and even then he should raise with a good fit. So we can 'get away' with a nf call on surprisingly strong hands... the only time we need to 'force' is when our hand is so good that we expect to have a play for a game opposite a minimum with no great fit.

 

Note that playing transfer advances does come at a cost here, since we don't actually have a 'cuebid' available.

 

(1D) 1H (P) 2D isn't a strength-showing cuebid...it is a good raise to 2H. Now, that good raise may be a huge hand, intending to bid again, but we can't fake it without a heart fit...say we held AKJxxx x Axx Kxx....clearly we want to establish a force but if we bid 2D, we can never disabuse partner of the notion that we are raising hearts. Here, we have to bid 1S and hope.

 

 

I did, years ago, play that a jumpshift here, to 2S as an example, was natural and forcing, and still think there is some merit in the idea, but in my serious partnerships jumpshifts into a new suit are defined as fit-showing.

 

Getting back to the OP, I think the consensus is not really a consensus at all, in terms of 1/1. I think there are two schools, but that the constructive nf school has the better argument, even if I don't play it :rolleyes:

[miamijd]

The modern trend is definitely for all advances of an overcall of a one-level bid to NF, except for a cue-bid.

[Vampyr]

In the UK all minimum suit advances are non-forcing and jump advances are game forcing. This makes sense to me since you can change suit and rescue a misfit without having extra values. Playing forcing advances you have to pass and play in a horrible misfit.

 

You mention that jump advances are forcing, but neglected to add that they are also fit.

[helene_t]

If it's the only way to force it makes sense not to play it as fitted.

 

But the primary purpose of nf advances is to be able to make a constructive move while still being able to stop low opposite a minimum.

 

Opposite a modern wide ranging overcall (6-16 hcp) I think you have to play nf. You could play transfer advances from the cuebid and up.