Forcing terms

[Wainfleet]

Is my understanding of these terms correct?

 

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

 

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

 

3. A bid that promises a rebid. Self explanatory. This is what I used to think was meant by Forcing for One Round If it's not the same as 2, is there a short way of describing it?

 

4. Game forcing. GF for short. 3NT, 4H/S or 5C/D. Not the same as 5.

 

5. Forcing to 3NT. the auction can stop at 4C/4D. Not the same as 4.

 

Thanks

[pescetom]

Is my understanding of these terms correct?

 

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

 

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

 

3. A bid that promises a rebid. Self explanatory. This is what I used to think was meant by Forcing for One Round If it's not the same as 2, is there a short way of describing it?

 

 

 

More or less, and you are right, bridge terminology is often confusing (attacking the opponent's contract is called defending, cue-bid can mean almost anything, a Puppet is the guy pulling the strings, and so on).

 

My understanding of mainstream (US) terminology is that a bid that does not promise a rebid is called 'forcing for one round' and a bid that does is called 'forcing and promises a rebid'. Some Italian theoreticians call them F1 and F2 which is certainly shorter but not self-explanatory or unambiguous; others use F and F1 to mean the same things. Italian players usually call them 'forzante' (forcing) and 'autoforzante' (self-forcing) which is much better.

[Cyberyeti]

One of the important corollaries to the F3N type situations (and we have auctions that are forcing to plenty of other places) is that they set up forcing passes below that level.

 

So for example 1♠-P-2N(forcing to 3♠, not game forcing for us, limit or better)-3♣-P is forcing

[nige1]

Agree with Wainfleet that we can usefully distinguish ...

1. F/1 or F = "Forcing" Partner must not pass unless his RHO doubles or bids.
2. F/A or F/R = "Auto-forcing" Forcing and promises a rebid (below game).
3. F/G = "Game-forcing" We must not stop short of game unless we double opponents for penalty.
4. F/2NT = "Forcing to level" We must not pass below 2NT (or whatever).
5. F/SA = "Forcing to suit agreement" Some have this agreement about a cue-reply to a T/O double. e.g. (1♥) X (P) 2♥.
6. F/P = "Forcing-pass" Creates forcing-pass context. (We must not pass out opponents undoubled).

Edited to Include suggestions by Helene-T, Pesceton, Mycroft, and others.

[helene_t]

Almost perfect! Just a few things:

 

1. Forcing: If partner's RHO passes, partner must not pass (i.e. partner must assure we get one more turn). May or may not promise a rebid, i.e. it is forcing for at least one round.

 

The short term for promising a rebid is auto-forcing, but that is mostly used in France. It doesn't literally promise a rebid: if partner jumps to game (or doubles opps, or redoubles), you can pass.

 

F1 means forcing I think, not necessarily auto-forcing.

[apollo1201]

Almost perfect! Just a few things:

 

1. Forcing: If partner's RHO passes, partner must not pass (i.e. partner must assure we get one more turn). May or may not promise a rebid, i.e. it is forcing for at least one round.

 

The short term for promising a rebid is auto-forcing, but that is mostly used in France. It doesn't literally promise a rebid: if partner jumps to game (or doubles opps, or redoubles), you can pass.

 

F1 means forcing I think, not necessarily auto-forcing.

I was too puzzled by the forcing « 1 round » if it is jute forcing « 1 bid » and therefore only half a round of the table...and that « forcing » already existed.

I like the « auto forcing » term. You actually promise another bid unless partner bids game.

 

For instance (reverses are auto forcing for me)

1D - 1S

2H - 3NT

pass

 

is an ok sequence

[DavidKok]

To the best of my knowledge the original term for number 2 was "One round forcing" (or maybe this is only the case in Dutch?), and indeed this promised another bid. This is a very interesting (and, if it comes up, useful) agreement to have because it makes all low bids by partner forcing! It basically says "partner, go ahead and describe your hand as much as you want, I will bid again anyway". Over time the term was replaced with "forcing for one round", and then reinterpreted as "forcing for one bid", which is just forcing (i.e. your term number 1). Maybe not entirely coincidentally, along with the term the entire agreement seems to also have fallen out of style. With a previous partner of mine I used to play redoubles as one round forcing (in the original meaning), so for example on 1♠-(X)-XX-P; ? any new bid by partner would be forcing (including 1NT!) because I already promised sufficient strength to play at the 2-level and probably 3-level.

 

However, between "Forcing up to such-and-such level" and forcing, you rarely need this agreement.

[gordontd]

1 is a generic term that encompasses 2 - 5.

[pescetom]

1 is a generic term that encompasses 2 - 5.

 

Fair enough, but in that case #2 needs a better name. Perhaps 'Simple force' or 'Non-committal force'.

[pescetom]

 

 

The short term for promising a rebid is auto-forcing, but that is mostly used in France. It doesn't literally promise a rebid: if partner jumps to game (or doubles opps, or redoubles), you can pass.

Used in Italy too, between players.

[gordontd]

Fair enough, but in that case #2 needs a better name. Perhaps 'Simple force' or 'Non-committal force'.

 

I'm surprised by this. To my mind "forcing for one round" is completely clear and accurate at it is.

[mycroft]

I've heard:

• Forcing 1 round: partner, you must give me another chance to bid.
  
• Pseudo-game: Game, but can pass 4m *if 3NT was looked for and rejected*. Therefore: Pseudo-game forcing is like the OP's F3NT, but where 4m is also forcing in non-obvious situations.
  
• Promises a rebid: what people are calling "auto-forcing"; I must bid again unless you make a final decision (game, usually), but I can override the "final" with sufficient strength. Most commonly to me, a 2/1 response in a Standard American, non 2/1GF context.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that whatever meanings you decide to adopt for yourself, your opponents, and more importantly your partner, will think whatever term you use means something else.

[Zelandakh]

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

 

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

Yes, these are the same. You can use F1 if you like but F1R is more common from my experience. The "1 round" is a reference to partner; they have to keep the bidding open for one round but on the second round they are allowed to pass absent a further force being introduced. Notice that the "must not pass" only applies if RHO passes, not generally.

 

4. Game forcing. GF for short. 3NT, 4H/S or 5C/D. Not the same as 5.

 

5. Forcing to 3NT. the auction can stop at 4C/4D. Not the same as 4.

In my bidding notes I use GF as a synonym for 5 and UGF for 4. There are several different terminologies used in this area so best to check exactly what is meant for any given source.

[pescetom]

I'm surprised by this. To my mind "forcing for one round" is completely clear and accurate at it is.

 

That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer.

 

I think both these interpretations of 'forcing for one round' have some merit and obviously they are in complete contradiction. Hence my suggestion for a new term.

[smerriman]

For me forcing and forcing one round are technically identical, but I don't consider them redundant - it's all about context.

 

For example, if partner opens 1♦, then if I had to describe a 1♠ response, it would simply be a forcing bid. It would also be true to describe it as forcing one round, but there's simply no reason for me to do so.

 

On the other hand, after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥, I would describe 3♦ as game forcing, and 2♠ as 'forcing one round', even though forcing is also accurate. This is to convey the idea that 2♠ might be weak or strong, and we can stop short of game in the former case.

[apollo1201]

 

On the other hand, after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥, I would describe 3♦ as game forcing, and 2♠ as 'forcing one round', even though forcing is also accurate. This is to convey the idea that 2♠ might be weak or strong, and we can stop short of game in the former case.

Technically, 2S is forcing because 2H was auto-forcing🤣🤣🤣

[Zelandakh]

Technically, 2S is forcing because 2H was auto-forcing🤣🤣🤣

This is N/B so I feel obliged to point out that this is correct only because smerriman plays a system where 2♠ is forcing and 2NT is a weakness advance (also forcing), with all other calls being GF. It is not true in the general case, so if Responder has any non-forcing calls, and the vast majority of N/B players do have non-forcing calls here, then 2♥ is not auto-forcing.

[apollo1201]

This is N/B so I feel obliged to point out that this is correct only because smerriman plays a system where 2♠ is forcing and 2NT is a weakness advance (also forcing), with all other calls being GF. It is not true in the general case, so if Responder has any non-forcing calls, and the vast majority of N/B players do have non-forcing calls here, then 2♥ is not auto-forcing.

It was more to use the terms than to elaborate. But you are correct to point out that it is system-dependent. And as always, N/B or higher, you’d better play the same thing as partner! For forcing or not, or forcing till where, it illustrates pretty well the need to be on the same wavelength as partner.

[blackshoe]

Forcing: If the next opponent to call passes, the next player of our side must bid. The player of our side who made the forcing bid might or might not bid again.

Forcing to <level>: both players must keep the bidding open until <level> is reached. Once <level> is reached, subsequent bids are not forcing. If an opponent bids or doubles below <level>, pass is forcing. "level" means something like "3♠" or whatever.

Forcing to game: Any bid that is not game is forcing. This includes 4m.

Forcing to 3NT: This is a "forcing to <level>" situation (see above). Bids above 3NT are not forcing, so we can stop in 4m, that bid not being forcing.

 

Given the above, I honestly can't think of a situation that would require a "forcing one round" bid, particularly given that if I wanted to say that I would mean "you must ensure the bidding is kept open partner; I am going to bid again".

[pescetom]

Given the above, I honestly can't think of a situation that would require a "forcing one round" bid

If by "forcing one round" you mean auto-forcing :) then an example might be (1♥) X (p) 2♥ which as we play it obliges partner to bid and promises to bid again.

 

particularly given that if I wanted to say that I would mean "you must ensure the bidding is kept open partner; I am going to bid again".

IF that was all you wanted to say then "you must bid" would be quite sufficient :)

What we are saying is more like "I am going to bid again, so don't go making strength signals, just show your distribution".

[haka9]

Is my understanding of these terms correct?

 

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

 

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

 

3. A bid that promises a rebid. Self explanatory. This is what I used to think was meant by Forcing for One Round If it's not the same as 2, is there a short way of describing it?

 

4. Game forcing. GF for short. 3NT, 4H/S or 5C/D. Not the same as 5.

 

5. Forcing to 3NT. the auction can stop at 4C/4D. Not the same as 4.

 

Thanks

 

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

[gordontd]

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

 

I think it's commonly played as forcing for one round after a one-level response, but forcing to game after a two-level response even if that two-level response was only forcing for one round (as in Acol).

[Zelandakh]

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

What Gordon wrote - F1R after a one-level call and GF after a new suit at the 2 level. The same can also be said of a rebid in 3 of Opener's suit (1X - 1Y; 3X or 1X - 2Y; 3X) or indeed any "strong" sequence.

[Wainfleet]

I think it's commonly played as forcing for one round after a one-level response, but forcing to game after a two-level response even if that two-level response was only forcing for one round (as in Acol).

 

My understanding was that in Acol a reverse promised a rebid. Is that not so?