Is 2/1 also forcing to game in the minors

[baabaa]

Is 2/1 also forcing to game in the minors, or can 4♣ and 4♦ generally be passed out?

[DavidKok]

This is a matter of partnership agreement, but I personally prefer that we cannot pass in 4 of a minor. Bids of 4m are often useful for establishing a minor suit fit with slam potential, and if we might risk partner passing them out we lose our 'fast arrival' structure.

[Vampyr]

Is 2/1 also forcing to game in the minors, or can 4♣ and 4♦ generally be passed out?

 

1♠-2♥ and 1♦-2♣ are the most space-consuming 2/1’s, so it makes sense to many that these sequences should show a natural invitational or better hand; to aid constructive bidding or win a part-score battle.

[helene_t]

I think that if you haven't discussed anything other than "2/1 GF" then it implies that a 2-level non-jump shift by an unpassed hand really is a GF, not just forcing to 3NT. You might then make some exceptions for some very specific auctions, for example

1apple-2bananas

blah-blah

blah-3nt-(x)

xx-4m

 

but it is certainly not so that you should be in doubt about the forcing character of 4m in some undiscussed, convoluted auction.

[DavidKok]

1♠-2♥ and 1♦-2♣ are the most space-consuming 2/1’s, so it makes sense to many that these sequences should show a natural invitational or better hand; to aid constructive bidding or win a part-score battle.

You have it backwards. The most space-consuming bids leave the least room to explore both strain and level, and therefore they should be forcing to game.

At any rate 1♦-2♣ is a well-known issue in natural systems, and I recommend making special agreements on this auction.

[pescetom]

At any rate 1♦-2♣ is a well-known issue in natural systems, and I recommend making special agreements on this auction.

If you agree to treat it as just another 2/1 GF then I don't see that it needs any special agreements not common to other 2♣/1 sequences (certainly we never discussed any - there are some meta-rules that apply if one of the minors is raised, but they are not specific to this sequence).

Although I guess that to work well this presupposes a solid 1♦ opening (at least 4 cards, whatever else it means) and probably no inverted minors too.

[pescetom]

Is 2/1 also forcing to game in the minors, or can 4♣ and 4♦ generally be passed out?

 

I think your question is slightly ambiguous, which may be reflected in some of the replies.

You are not talking (I think) about 2/1 in the minors, i.e. 1♦/2♣.

You are talking (clearly) about whether 4m can be passed out after a 2/1 GF, but even if the agreement is "never" (as I prefer, for the reasons mentioned by DavidKok) then this is not necessarily forcing to game "in the minors" - we may prefer the Moysian game in opener's major or a natural 4NT game. It depends a lot upon how 4m is bid, a retreat from 3NT (X) is very different to a jump raise on second round.

[barmar]

As someone else said, this is a matter of partnership agreement.

 

Some pairs play that "game forcing" actually means forcing to 3NT or 4 of a suit -- this is game in anything except minors. While this may be useful for avoiding hopeless 5minor contracts, it makes the rest of the bidding difficult because you need some way to show the extra values or controls that may be needed to make the 5-level contract.

 

So I think most players don't attempt to pinpoint these contracts. Once they're in a GF auction, they concentrate on finding the right strain. If they don't have a major fit or the stoppers for 3NT, they'll bid 5 of the minor and hope for the best.

[Chas_P]

Years ago I read Mike Lawrence's take on this situation. His opinion was that if you get to the 3 level, have found no 8-card major-suit fit, and 3NT is deemed unplayable you can pass it out at 4m.

[pescetom]

Years ago I read Mike Lawrence's take on this situation. His opinion was that if you get to the 3 level, have found no 8-card major-suit fit, and 3NT is deemed unplayable you can pass it out at 4m.

Many people still play that. It's a rather small target to hit, even at MP. And probably works better if not fully disclosed (otherwise opponents will push you around more). But to each his own.

[Vampyr]

You have it backwards. The most space-consuming bids leave the least room to explore both strain and level, and therefore they should be forcing to game.

At any rate 1♦-2♣ is a well-known issue in natural systems, and I recommend making special agreements on this auction.

 

Well, I rarely play 2/1 GF, but if it goes 1♠-1NT(F1) don’t you have to bid 3♥ to show an invitational hand? Now you have much less room to explore strain and level.

[helene_t]

Well, I rarely play 2/1 GF, but if it goes 1♠-1NT(F1) don’t you have to bid 3♥ to show an invitational hand? Now you have much less room to explore strain and level.

Yes but at least you can still bid it at the 3-level. If you had an invitational hand with a long clubs you might need to jump to the 4-level.

 

But a modern trend (adopted even by GIB) is that a direct jjump shift shows the invitational hand.

 

Invitational 2-suiters are a problem but you might not be able to bid them accurately anyway even if a direct 2-level response is not GF.

 

A problem with 2♥ as GF is that you sometimes have to bid 1NT...2NT with five hearts. You can agree that opener shows three cards hearts when accepting the invite, for example

1♠-1NT

2♣-2NT

3♥-4♥

 

But as David says, 2♥ takes away a lot of space so needs to be accurately defined.

 

If you want to be able to show an invitational hand with five hearts, you could play a direct 2♦ as showing hearts.

[DavidKok]

I play 1NT NF, but prefer SF to F1. Also I play Gazzilli, which solves most common rebid issues over 1M-1NT.

 

I personally play 2♣ as artificial, showing one of six(!) different hand types, two of which are not GF (10-11 5(+)♥, 2-♠ over 1♠ only, and 10-12 balanced) - for all intents and purposes this is the catchall bid that enables 1NT NF in an otherwise 2/1 system (where 2♣ is normally 'fit or clubs or balanced', three different hand types). It works very well, but is far from standard. In vanilla 2/1 the invitational hands with exactly 5 hearts can be impossible to show over partner's 1♠.

[pescetom]

A problem with 2♥ as GF is that you sometimes have to bid 1NT...2NT with five hearts. You can agree that opener shows three cards hearts when accepting the invite, for example

1♠-1NT

2♣-2NT

3♥-4♥

 

The way we play 2/1 with a semi-forcing 1NT,

 

1♠-1NT

2♣-2♥

 

is natural NF and 5+card (3♥ would be INV 6+card).

This seems logical (opener has denied 4=card) and works well, opener's next bid will give direction and better define his strength if necessary,

[Vampyr]

Yes but at least you can still bid it at the 3-level. If you had an invitational hand with a long clubs you might need to jump to the 4-level.

 

But a modern trend (adopted even by GIB) is that a direct jjump shift shows the invitational hand.

 

This is pretty hopeless, as no information has been exchanged below the 3-level. Among other things, you can say goodbye to 3NT.

 

Invitational 2-suiters are a problem but you might not be able to bid them accurately anyway even if a direct 2-level response is not GF.

 

You have a better chance, though.

 

A problem with 2♥ as GF is that you sometimes have to bid 1NT...2NT with five hearts. You can agree that opener shows three cards hearts when accepting the invite, for example

1♠-1NT

2♣-2NT

3♥-4♥

 

But as David says, 2♥ takes away a lot of space so needs to be accurately defined.

[\quote]

 

Unless I am very much mistaken, 3♥ takes up more.

 

If you want to be able to show an invitational hand with five hearts, you could play a direct 2♦ as showing hearts.

 

No thanks.

[Gilithin]

It makes sense to differentiate in your bidding notes between auctions that are forcing to 3NT and those that are unconditionally forcing to game. If an auction is only F3NT then auctions such as 1♦ - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 2♥ -- 3♦ - 3♠ -- 4♣ - 4♦ can be non-forcing, since with slam interest Responder could have bid 4♦ directly rather than going through 3♠. If on the other hand the auction is defined as unconditionally game forcing then this 4♦ bid cannot be passed - perhaps 3♠ was meant as an advanced cur bid, or perhaps the lack of a spade stopper improved their hand, who knows?

 

Which auctions to define in which way, and the particular circumstances when a F3NT auction can be passed in 4m are very much a matter for agreement. I am not sure it is a great topic for a more general thread but if you wish to incorporate such a feature into your regular partnership, a sound meta rule is that 4m can only be passed if the auction is F3NT and the 4m bidder looked for 3NT but was denied and either had another way of showing slam interest in the minor or cannot reasonably hold slam interest due to previously limiting their hand. Other exceptions are possible but this is at least a reasonable starting point for discussion.