Forcing response or non-forcing?

[relpar]

Partnership is playing 2/1. First in hand North opens 1♥. East overcalls 1♠. South now bids 2♦. West Passes. Is the response of 2♦ forcing?

[steve2005]

Yes, is forcing one round (but not game forcing)

 

Deeper question: Does 2♦ promise a rebid?

[Stephen Tu]

Standard is forcing on opener, but does *not* force to game, does not even promise a rebid by responder. Opener must cue bid, jump, or bid a new suit to force. So if opener bids 2H or 2nt or 3d here, responder may pass.

 

Alternatively, some partnerships play "negative free bids", in which 2d is non-forcing (stronger hands that wish to force must double). In some countries this is more prevalent and standard there.

[msjennifer]

Sir,

2♦ bid is FORCING for one round .More so as it is not a passed hand.The way we play it is the 2♦ bid promises one more bid unless the opponents keep on bidding at a level higher than 3♦. In that case the partnership understandings prevail.

[heart76]

[Deleted. Misread the OP]

[Huibertus]

[Partnership is playing 2/1.]

 

 

The name of a system that applies to uncontested auctions, not relevant to the question.

 

Should 2♦ be forcing?

 

That is a matter of partnership preference. Playing with bots it is. Regardless of the system you play for uncontested auction, together with leads and signals this is one of three questions that MUST be answered for any casual partnership before play commences. It's unlikely other questions are more important (i.e. Blackwood v. RCKB is likely not relevant to a single session of play as it doesn't pop up that often.)

 

My personal preference is it is forcing. However I recongize there are valid pro's for playing it non-forcing in matchpoints (not in IMPS). But I don't want to have a different set of agreements for Imps and matchpoint, too much baggage to carry around...

[Vampyr]

The “promises another bid” thing is, I think, the wrong approach. When 2/1 is strong (ie forcing to more than 2 of opener’s first suit), I think a sensible criterion is not whether it promises another bid, but to what level the partnership is forced to.

[bluenikki]

Another question worth considering. If 2♦ is not forcing, when does opener pass? If the rule is "only with a bare minimum misfit," it will rarely matter whether you call it forcing or not.

 

Just like 1♣ - 1♥; 1NT - 3♥, supposedly non-forcing, but opener passes only with bare minimum misfit, so it doesn't matter what you call it.

[TylerE]

Another question worth considering. If 2♦ is not forcing, when does opener pass? If the rule is "only with a bare minimum misfit," it will rarely matter whether you call it forcing or not.

 

Just like 1♣ - 1♥; 1NT - 3♥, supposedly non-forcing, but opener passes only with bare minimum misfit, so it doesn't matter what you call it.

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The two auctions are nothing alike. On 1♥ (1♠) 2♦ responder and opener are totally unlimited.

[bluenikki]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The two auctions are nothing alike. On 1♥ (1♠) 2♦ responder and opener are totally unlimited.

It would be nice for responder to have some reserved bid to show a hand that will produce game opposite a bare minimum misfit. (My vote is 2NT.)

 

But you are unlikely to hold such a hand after a non-psychic overcall. But I suppose you have to be prepared for psychs.

[TylerE]

Really? Have you seen the garbage people overcall on these days?

 

This isn't 1952 with the field playing Roth-Stone.

[nige1]

Partnership is playing 2/1. First in hand North opens 1♥. East overcalls 1♠. South now bids 2♦. West Passes. Is the response of 2♦ forcing?

IMO, after 1♥ (1♠) ??, reasonable agreements are

 

• Double = NEG.
• 1N = NAT N/F (or you could agree it to be forcing and play negative free bids).
• ♥ raises = PRE.
• 2♣/2♦ = F1 NAT.
• 2♠ = UCB Usually 3 card raise.
• 2N = ART Good 4 card raise to 3 or more.
• 3♣/3♦/3♠ = SPL over a major opening (but J/S would be F/J over a minor opening)

[bluenikki]

Really? Have you seen the garbage people overcall on these days?

 

This isn't 1952 with the field playing Roth-Stone.

I call those psychics.

 

In any event, it is wildly wasteful to structure your whole competitive structure to account for semi-psychics. Just reserve a single bid.

 

Notice that contemporary intervention methods have no way for intervenor to show a really good hand. The scale of strong rebids stops at about 20 hcp. In other words, no attempt to account for psychic openings.

[bluenikki]

IMO, after 1♥ (1♠) ??, reasonable agreements are

 

• Double = NEG.
• 1N = NAT N/F (or you could agree it to be forcing and play negative free bids).
• ♥ raises = PRE.
• 2♣/2♦ = F1 NAT.
• 2♠ = UCB Usually 3 card raise.
• 2N = ART Good 4 card raise to 3 or more.
• 3♣/3♦/3♠ = SPL over a major opening (but J/S would be F/J over a minor opening)

The term "negative free bids" is awful. It suggests weakness, rather than what I believe is the meaning: game possible if fit, even if opener is minimum. How about "constructive, non-forcing."

[gordontd]

but to what level the partnership is forced to.

 

I think this falls short of your usual high grammatical standards. :)

[miamijd]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The two auctions are nothing alike. On 1♥ (1♠) 2♦ responder and opener are totally unlimited.

 

Opener and responder are only totally unlimited if you play the 2D bid that way. Some players prefer so-called "negative free bids." With that treatment, non-jump bids between 2C and 3D show about 5-10 (maybe a horrible 11 if at the 3-level), a 5+ card suit (often 6+ cards) and no support for opener's major. With a good hand, you have to make a negative double first. If you play this treatment, the 2D bid is absolutely limited.

 

I don't care for negative free bids. It's not so much the bid itself that is bad; indeed, it's a very useful treatment when you get the hand for it (and they do crop up rather often). The trouble is that it puts way too much stress on the negative double. Your improved bidding accuracy on the weaker hands is more than counterbalanced by your greatly decreased accuracy on the better hands.

 

Cheers,

mike

[pescetom]

IMO, after 1♥ (1♠) ??, reasonable agreements are

 

• Double = NEG.
• 1N = NAT N/F (or you could agree it to be forcing and play negative free bids).
• ♥ raises = PRE.
• 2♣/2♦ = F1 NAT.
• 2♠ = UCB Usually 3 card raise.
• 2N = ART Good 4 card raise to 3 or more.
• 3♣/3♦/3♠ = SPL over a major opening (but J/S would be F/J over a minor opening)

 

I agree except for 3♣/3♦. Maintaining 4♣/4♦ as splinter costs little, maintains system uniformity and gains some space to better describe minor holdings IMO.

[Vampyr]

The term "negative free bids" is awful. It suggests weakness, rather than what I believe is the meaning: game possible if fit, even if opener is minimum. How about "constructive, non-forcing."

 

The term “negative free bids”:has been around a long time and is not going anywhere. It doesn’t really matter anyway, since it falls short of an explanation to opponents.

 

The opposite treatment is often called “negative double” so it is useful to use a similar term to describe actions taken at the same point in the auction.

[Vampyr]

I think this falls short of your usual high grammatical standards. :)

 

God, that is embarrassing.

[msjennifer]

I agree except for 3♣/3♦. Maintaining 4♣/4♦ as splinter costs little, maintains system uniformity and gains some space to better describe minor holdings IMO.

[/quote

3♣/♦ can easily be treated as MINI splinters as opposed to 3♠/4♣/♦ as GENUINE POWER SPLINTERS.

[Douglas43]

How useful is it to have two different types of splinter compared to having a fit jump available?

 

On an auction starting 1H [1S] a 3C mini-splinter sounds like a 4-4-4-1 or 3-4-5-1, which is OK if opener has short spades but bad news if opener has 3 of them. Is the aim to warn opener that you have spade losers?

 

n.b. I usually play a 4 card major system, maybe the fit jump is more important in 4cM