[pbleighton]

Forcing or not forcing, and why?

Peter

[pclayton]

Forcing and a slam try. Weaker hands go through a WJS. If not, I hope we play Wolff.

Hands with no slam interest bid 4 major.

[blackshoe]

Forcing because that's how the system has developed. The logic is that the pair has at least 24 HCP between them, so there is almost certainly a game somewhere.

Agree with playing Wolff, but rather than "hands with no slam interest bid 4 major", which contains the implicit and possibly erroneous assumption that y is a major, I'd say "hands with no slam interest just bid game somewhere; hands with no game interest (unlikely, but possible) must pass." Wolff is designed for the times when you find passing unpalatable, and want to sign off in a suit.

[ohioply]

maybe im miss reading this but something like 1h-1s-2nt-3s? why would 3s be forcing? 1s is overcall, so i would just think 3s is preemptive.
are you saying something like 1h-1s-2nt-pass-3s? if this is the case then yes forcing.

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on Jan 27 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

Forcing because that's how the system has developed. The logic is that the pair has at least 24 HCP between them, so there is almost certainly a game somewhere.

Agree with playing Wolff, but rather than "hands with no slam interest bid 4 major", which contains the implicit and possibly erroneous assumption that y is a major, I'd say "hands with no slam interest just bid game somewhere; hands with no game interest (unlikely, but possible) must pass." Wolff is designed for the times when you find passing unpalatable, and want to sign off in a suit.

I agree. Even as counter-intuitive as it may be (I wanna bail out in my suit!) the WJS tends to cover a number of the weaker/longer versions of the target hands. Sometimes with 5 in the suit and 4 hcp (everyone shows THAT hand) you are on the horns of a dilemma but what part of sayc is foolproof?

[ohioply]

Okay I get it now it's just us bidding. Its not technicaly forcing (to my knowledge) in 2/1 or sayc unless you play wjs. You have already promised 18-19 hcp and at least 2 cards in partner's suit with your 2nt bid...if partner has 6 he has enough info to go to game over your 2nt. It's either a slam try showing a good 6 card suit or a sign off bid. I'm generally optimistic so I always raise to 4 in this situation just to see what happens.

[kenrexford]

Whatever you agree.

This seems sort of like asking how many spades Opener has after 1♣-p-2♦-P-2♠. If 2♦ showed a major two-suiter, then a spade preference. If 1♣ was Precision, maybe 2♠ is some sort of Greek letter asking bid.

[SteelWheel]

I know I'm a lonely voice in the wilderness here, but of all the "modern style" default agreements that are out there, I think that weak jump shifts are among the worst. Nobody is ever going to convince me otherwise. So the "limited by failure to WJS at first round" argument is not going to carry much weight with me.

In theory, you have enough for game here, so it *should* be forcing. OTOH, just in case opener has 18 and responder has some poorish 6 (or some 5 count that he couldn't stand to pass), it's just barely possible that this is a signoff bid.....just barely.

In practice, at the table, if playing with a new/unknown/pickup pard, I'd size him up: Is he on the youngish side, and does his preferred CC include lots of the Bergen-esque gadgets? If so, I'd assume that he thinks this is forcing.

If he seems to be an older/more conservative type, I'd assume he thinks this is non-forcing.

All in all, a good argument here to agree to play something intelligent like Wolff signoffs, or Transfers after 2NT rebids, or even just some kind of NMF. One of these gadgets will see you through situations like this one, without having to wonder if 3y is forcing.

[Flame]

Its NF unless you have different way to show weak one suiter hand. The weak hand here is more important to show then the forcing one.

[goodwintr]

Leaving aside the various gadgets that have been mentioned here (WJS, Woolf, etc.) and assuming everything is natural, then the answer is that it depends largely on the notrump ranges in the system. The same-suit rebid was a non-forcing signoff in old-fashioned Acol, but forcing to game in Goren-style Standard American. The meaning made sense in both cases, because the Acol 2NT rebid (starting at about 17 points) showed less than a Goren 2NT rebid (which started at about 19 points). If you are one of the few remaining 16-18 1NT players, you probably want responder's same-suit rebid over 2NT to be forcing. If your 1NT is 14-16, you probably want to be able to sign off at the three-level (either by playing the same-suit rebid as non-forcing, or by adopting one of the gadgets).

TLG

[whereagles]

If you play it as non-forcing, you need either a gadget or to "invent" a 3-card suit with strong hands.

If you play it as forcing, you can bid everything naturally, with pass as the ONLY weak bid.

Both ways are playable, the forcing way having the advantage of being more natural.

[kenberg]

With one frequent partner I play it as forcing, with another frequent partner I play it as not only non-forcing but pretty much drop dead. With both of these partners I do play strong jumps shifts and do not play Wolff sign-offs. My preference is that it be forcing. Given that preference, no doubt I should also play Wolff sign-offs, but I don't. It's on my list of things to add, just not high on the list.

Undiscussed, with a pick-up, it's undiscussed. I wouldn't pass. I would take the blame if I should have passed.

[bid_em_up]

In standard SAYC or 2/1, it is forcing.

That said, in most of my partnerships, I prefer it to be non-forcing. Forcing hands can bid 3C (checkback) to find 3 card support for responders major.

[neilkaz]

bid_em_up, on Jan 28 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

In standard SAYC or 2/1, it is forcing.

That said, in most of my partnerships, I prefer it to be non-forcing. Forcing hands can bid 3C (checkback) to find 3 card support for responders major.

I prefer your method or NMF (being a 15-17 NTer) but most of my PD's prefer Wolff.

[mikeh]

In standard, it is forcing, and it really has to be for a simple reason.

Unless you have some form of checkback, responder needs to be able to bid 3 of his suit, confident it cannot be passed, in two obvious situations:

1) he has a 5 card major. He cannot tell whether the partnership should play 3N or 4Major... especially when he has a 5332 with a weak doubleton in a suit other than opener's.

2) he has a one suiter with slam interest: he cannot simply jump to game if 3Major is nonforcing, since the jump to game merely gets to game, without slam interest. Having to fake a side suit in order to establish a force is a needless complication, leading to all kinds of confusion, especially when opener fits the second suit.

The downside is that one has to either pass 2N, when playing 3Major is preferable, or overbid to game somewhere.

To me, the choice is a no-brainer. Worry about the right partscore or try to play the better game and/or explore slam? I'll take my chances on missing 3Major when it is the only making partscore, and I'll clobber the '3y non-forcing' crowd on all the important hands.

However, there is an even simpler solution: play something over 2N rebids: I am a BIG fan of transfers: I think they are more powerful/flexible than Wolff, which in turn is better than new minor forcing... which in turn is better than nothing.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 29 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

However, there is an even simpler solution: play something over 2N rebids: I am a BIG fan of transfers: I think they are more powerful/flexible than Wolff, which in turn is better than new minor forcing... which in turn is better than nothing.

Funnily enough, although I play a very complex system of transfers after a 1NT rebid, in my most system-heavy partnership we play everything as "natural and forcing" by responder after a 2NT rebid.

What we have done however is codify opener's rebids somewhat, particularly after 1C (could be short) - 1M (could have longer diamonds) - 2NT - 3C in order to sort out the size of our various potential fits. We've also put a lot of clarity into the auction 1C - 1H - 2NT - 3D to sort out if responder is 4-5 or 5-5 (or 4-6) in the reds.

Compared to our methods, transfers gain by getting the 4-4 major suit fit in the other major played the right way up. They lose when looking for a minor-suit slam.

I play Wolff in another partnership. We never sign off in 3M (even though you can systemically) - it's mainly used to get 4-other-major right-sided.

[Codo]

Nearly everybody agrees, that 3y should be forcing if you have no other agreement.
But I think if you have these agreements like nmf, wollf signoff or transfers, there is no need to play 3y as forcing any more.

[mikeh]

Codo, on Jan 30 2007, 02:27 AM, said:

Nearly everybody agrees, that 3y should be forcing if you have no other agreement.
But I think if you have these agreements like nmf, wollf signoff or transfers, there is no need to play 3y as forcing any more.

This is 100% wrong.

If you play wolff, then 3y is 100% forcing: you use the 3♣ checkback to get out, and the 3major to force (at least that is the way I learned it). If you play nmf, 3M is forcing because you need it to set trump when you hold a 6+ suit and too much to simply bid game, and an inappropriate hand for blasting.

If you play transfers, then 3y is not natural, and it is a forcing bid.

I suppose that one could play that the wolff relay followed by 3M would be forcing, but that is not the way I have seen it played.

[kenrexford]

I asked the ladies at the bridge club. Apparently this is sometimes forcing.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jan 30 2007, 10:19 PM, said:

I asked the ladies at the bridge club. Apparently this is sometimes forcing.

Why only the ladies?
Are they players than the men and hence more worth consulting?