Can anyone explain the meaning of forcing?

[thepossum]

Free Acol MPs, wouldn't have a clue what I am bidding

Forcing means forcing and a pass means I throw in my cards

I could not care less that 3S+n would have made a half decent score (<50%)

The only reason it would have scored ok was that all these other people were victims and some played it out

And is it GiB or Argine that did it?

I looked at all the bid descriptions, thought I feel like bidding 4 but no. 3 was forcing

I am by no means the world's best Bridge player or bidder as many of you would know, but I try

 

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|1SK98HAK942D6CKJT5,S74HJT63DJ8CQ9742,SAQ532HQDQ7432CA8,SJT6H875DAKT95C63|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%207|mb|1H|an|4+!H;%20HCP%2011-20;%20natural|mb|P|mb|1S|an|4+!S;%20HCP%204+;%20natural%20-%20Forcing|mb|P|mb|2C|an|4-6!C;%205+!H;%20HCP%2011-19;%20at%20least%204!C|mb|P|mb|3D|an|5+!D;%205+!S;%20HCP%2011+;%20strong%20hand%20-%20Forcing|mb|P|mb|3S|an|4-5!C;%205-6!H;%203!S;%20HCP%2011-19;%20exactly%203!S%20-%20Forcing|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|DA|mc|0|]400|300[/hv]

[helene_t]

Wow that's a bad bug. I expected better from Argine.

[pescetom]

Wow that's a bad bug.

It's definitely bad bridge, but is it bad Acol?

I make no claim to know, and my only Acol book here doesn't even discuss what 3♦ should mean, but 2♦ would only be invitational and thus 3♠ a sign-off :unsure:

[helene_t]

It's definitely bad bridge, but is it bad Acol?

I make no claim to know, and my only Acol book here doesn't even discuss what 3♦ should mean, but 2♦ would only be invitational and thus 3♠ a sign-off :unsure:

I don't know what this sequence means in Acol either. 2♦ would be FSF and 3♦ could be invitational or GF. It could also be a splinter, I suppose.

 

But Argine explains 3♠ as forcing (as it must logically be if 3♦ was forcing) so it's bad to pass it.

 

BTW, the 2♣ bid was explained as 11-19 points, that doesn't look right either.

[Lovera]

If you are referring to the bidding of 3♦ it is a jump FSF which indicates a 5-5 shape and is therefore correct by the GIB.

 

 

[pescetom]

BTW, the 2♣ bid was explained as 11-19 points, that doesn't look right either.

After 1M it should not exceed a poor 1718 in any natural system, I would think.

[typo corrected]

[thepossum]

I don't know either but I opened and Argine said it had a strong hand which I thought could be headed to slam

 

EDIT Just put the hand into my QPlus Demo software (advanced Acol) and it bid 3D and ended in 4S :)

 

My regret is trusting my partner. I should have just bid 4 myself. Maybe I would have ended in 6 but 4 would be sign-off I thought :)

[Lovera]

After 1M it should not exceed a poor 17 in any natural system, I would think.

 

No, i don't think so. It's possible to have 19 HCP with a bidding at level (after it'd be jump shift with 21/+).

[FelicityR]

Hello all. I rarely reply on these forum pages these days, but as I have played and studied Acol for some 40 years, I think I am well-qualified to answer this question.

 

3♦ is NOT Acol. Acol is a neat system that preserves space and uses fourth suit forcing (4SF) by responder to set up a game force. In the very early days, 4SF was only forcing for one round. The bid by responder on the above hand that conveys this meaning (GF) is 2♦, not 3♦. If one wished to show a 5♠5♦ hand then 2♦ followed by 3♦ would show this.

 

The fourth suit 2♦ is traditionally used as asking for a stop initially. Already North knows that a) South is minimum with his/her rebid of 2♣, and b) The hands are a potential misfit. Therefore, there is less likelihood that a slam is on despite North's shape, especially given that North has a 14 count with very poor intermediate cards.

 

The bidding should be 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ (shaping out showing either 3514 or 3505 shape with 3♠ support, etc. Some partnerships here might rebid 3♠ on the South hand to show 3 card ♠ support with an honour and a better than minimum hand (11-13), but as a game force has already been set up it is not entirely necessary. And Acol preserves space, not wastes it.

 

The 3♦ bid as shown in the diagram would mean to me 4+♣ support and shortness in ♦, thus a splinter, and would be a game force. The description of the bids given in the diagram from 2♣ onwards are inaccurate, to say the least.

[Lovera]

Hello all. I rarely reply on these forum pages these days, but as I have played and studied Acol for some 40 years, I think I am well-qualified to answer this question.

 

3♦ is NOT Acol. Acol is a neat system that preserves space and uses fourth suit forcing (4SF) by responder to set up a game force. In the very early days, 4SF was only forcing for one round. The bid by responder on the above hand that conveys this meaning (GF) is 2♦, not 3♦. If one wished to show a 5♠5♦ hand then 2♦ followed by 3♦ would show this.

 

The fourth suit 2♦ is traditionally used as asking for a stop initially. Already North knows that a) South is minimum with his/her rebid of 2♣, and b) The hands are a potential misfit. Therefore, there is less likelihood that a slam is on despite North's shape, especially given that North has a 14 count with very poor intermediate cards.

 

The bidding should be 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ (shaping out showing either 3514 or 3505 shape with 3♠ support, etc. Some partnerships here might rebid 3♠ on the South hand to show 3 card ♠ support with an honour and a better than minimum hand (11-13), but as a game force has already been set up it is not entirely necessary. And Acol preserves space, not wastes it.

 

The 3♦ bid as shown in the diagram would mean to me 4+♣ support and shortness in ♦, thus a splinter, and would be a game force. The description of the bids given in the diagram from 2♣ onwards are inaccurate, to say the least.

 

But with a strong hand and particularly with a 5♠-5♦ the fourth suit (3♦) is expected to jump bid (see Fourth Suit Forcing by Liversidge in Novice and Beginner Forum #26 n.2).

[FelicityR]

But with a strong hand and particularly with a 5♠-5♦ the fourth suit (3♦) is expected to jump bid (see Fourth Suit Forcing by Liversidge in Novice and Beginner Forum #26 n.2).

 

You can hardly call North's hand strong - well, I certainly can't given the potential misfit, and that South has limited his/her hand by the rebid of 2♣. I am hazarding that very few players, even British ones, play 4SF as invitational these days, preferring the GF version.

 

I openly admit there will be hands where using 4SF as an unconditional GF will result in a poor contract, but that's no different than making a game force in the 2/1 system. Anyway, a player has to use judgement here, and it is normally the responder who has set up the GF who dictates where the contract is headed. With any 'forcing to game' bid there is also an opportunity to bail out below game level if you feel the hands are not fitting well and will not produce a game. But that is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

If you do not use 3♦ as a splinter here but to show a 5♠/5♦ hand instead, I would expect something like ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣xx not a watery ♠AQxxx ♥Q ♦Qxxxx ♣Ax where the second suit ♦s is as good or better than the first mentioned ♠s.

[Lovera]

You can hardly call North's hand strong - well, I certainly can't given the potential misfit, and that South has limited his/her hand by the rebid of 2♣. I am hazarding that very few players, even British ones, play 4SF as invitational these days, preferring the GF version.

 

I openly admit there will be hands where using 4SF as an unconditional GF will result in a poor contract, but that's no different than making a game force in the 2/1 system. Anyway, a player has to use judgement here, and it is normally the responder who has set up the GF who dictates where the contract is headed. With any 'forcing to game' bid there is also an opportunity to bail out below game level if you feel the hands are not fitting well and will not produce a game. But that is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

If you do not use 3♦ as a splinter here but to show a 5♠/5♦ hand instead, I would expect something like ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣xx not a watery ♠AQxxx ♥Q ♦Qxxxx ♣Ax where the second suit ♦s is as good or better than the first mentioned ♠s.

 

Probably GIB considers strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consequently.

[Lovera]

You can hardly call North's hand strong - well, I certainly can't given the potential misfit, and that South has limited his/her hand by the rebid of 2♣. I am hazarding that very few players, even British ones, play 4SF as invitational these days, preferring the GF version.

 

I openly admit there will be hands where using 4SF as an unconditional GF will result in a poor contract, but that's no different than making a game force in the 2/1 system. Anyway, a player has to use judgement here, and it is normally the responder who has set up the GF who dictates where the contract is headed. With any 'forcing to game' bid there is also an opportunity to bail out below game level if you feel the hands are not fitting well and will not produce a game. But that is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

If you do not use 3♦ as a splinter here but to show a 5♠/5♦ hand instead, I would expect something like ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣xx not a watery ♠AQxxx ♥Q ♦Qxxxx ♣Ax where the second suit ♦s is as good or better than the first mentioned ♠s.

 

Probably GIB considers strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consequently.

[Lovera]

You can hardly call North's hand strong - well, I certainly can't given the potential misfit, and that South has limited his/her hand by the rebid of 2♣. I am hazarding that very few players, even British ones, play 4SF as invitational these days, preferring the GF version.

 

I openly admit there will be hands where using 4SF as an unconditional GF will result in a poor contract, but that's no different than making a game force in the 2/1 system. Anyway, a player has to use judgement here, and it is normally the responder who has set up the GF who dictates where the contract is headed. With any 'forcing to game' bid there is also an opportunity to bail out below game level if you feel the hands are not fitting well and will not produce a game. But that is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

If you do not use 3♦ as a splinter here but to show a 5♠/5♦ hand instead, I would expect something like ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣xx not a watery ♠AQxxx ♥Q ♦Qxxxx ♣Ax where the second suit ♦s is as good or better than the first mentioned ♠s.

 

Probably GIB considers a strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consenquently.

[FelicityR]

Probably GIB considers strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consequently.

 

Oh dear! My apologies. I forgot that this is GIB/Argine bidding, not experienced human bridge partnerships. I should have realised that from my earlier reply where I stated that the definitions of the bids after 2♣ leave a lot to be desired. But the hand does demonstrate that the robots still have bugs that need fixing. North shows the strong hand type and then forgets that the partnership should be in game. Not satisfactory, to say the least.

[Lovera]

Hi FelicityR, ..."then forgets that the partnership should be in game" you have told.I'm going to put forward a hypothesis: isn't there an information cut for N which, in the uncertainty, bidded pass? In the explanation of 3♠ you see at the end "Forcing" and then you don't read anything else (was there a cut ?).