[mycroft]

sorry, yes, in parallel with CLM (Career Limiting Move).

[tedlevy]

The question answers itself. Forcing is forcing. Normally partner has less than 11 or 12, but in some styles, can have more. Regardless, you must bid (I suppose it would be OK to pass when playing against a BOT in a robot tournament, since you are only hurting yourself.)

With the example hand (you may have a partnership agreement for this specific size/ shape) you either rebid 2C or 2H. There are reasonable arguments for either alternative.

[rmnka447]

msjennifer, on 2017-February-23, 00:29, said:

We play Precision and this 1 NT is 100 p.c. Forcing for one round.It usually requests opener to bid his longer minor suit .With equal length in minors opener bids 2Club.However,this hand with such a strong heart suit has to respond 2 H. 2C bid with just two rags is simply weird bid. Playing standard We open this hand 2D ( Flannery) since we have found that a weak 2D opening fails to impress the opponents and serves no purpose whatever against advanced or expert opponents. To bid a minor with only xx in the suit is stretching the things too far.

If you're not playing Flannery, then having a discussion of what to do when holding a minimum 4 ♠/5 ♥ hand over a Forcing NT should be mandatory.

Not playing Flannery, a Forcing NT response denies 4 ♠ and 3 ♥ when you hold an absolute minimum (5-8) range hand. If you held either, presumably 1 ♠ or 2 ♥ would be bid. Whenever responder holds a doubleton ♥ with such a hand, the normal rebid is 2 ♥. So the problematic hands for bidding 2 ♣ with a doubleton are where responder holds a stiff ♥ or 5 ♣ and 2 ♥. With 5 ♣ and 2 ♥, responder may choose to play the "known" 5-3 ♣ fit rather than play the 5-2 ♥ fit resulting in a less optimum result. If responder holds a stiff ♥, the problem hand is probably something like ♠ xxx ♥ x ♦ Jxxxx ♣ KQxx. Responder has to choose whether to pass and play a "known" 4 opposite 3+ ♣ fit or bid a terrible ♦ suit. I suspect most would just pass and end up playing a 4-2 fit. But how often would those hands come up? OTOH, you get to play 2 of a minor when responder has a long minor and no major fit.

If responder has a maximum Forcing NT range hand, a second forward going call will be made and the 2 ♣ rebid probably won't be a problem.

The foregoing has to be weighed against deciding to rebid 2 ♥ or 2 ♠ with these hands and what can go wrong with those rebids.

[Kaitlyn S]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-23, 11:34, said:

What is PLM?

Pompous Life Master?

[molly6664]

gordontd, on 2017-February-22, 11:20, said:

The usual rebid in these situations is 2C but with such good hearts I'd be inclined to rebid 2H. I certainly wouldn't pass.

I would bid 2 Spades Partner will know you have 4S and can make a choice as to where to go

[stoppiello]

Reversing with 2!s just seems pointless. The only hand I have ever seen that bid 1N forcing over 1!h and had 4 spades in it was a 4333 shape 6 count that went through 1N to end in 2!h. Even that was debatable.

I would think that even in precision, bidding 1N over 1!h denies 4 spades, so there isn't a fit there.

If the hearts were a touch better (AKQTx or AKQ98 something in that range) I would treat them as a 6 carder and rebid 2!h. As the hand is posted, 2!c is the least lie. At worst you're in a 4-2 trump fit opposite a stiff heart so you have 4-5 tricks to contribute and if you're in magical christmas land, you get to ruff a diamond in your hand.

[lycier]

Forcing 1N is a very important artificial, ant it meant that it will be convention fail if responding 1N isn't forcing or pass forcing 1N.
I would bid 2♣, of course, 2♣ is a systemic bid .

[lycier]

I think some rebids for example 2♥,2♠, 2N and passing are worse description.

[GrahamJson]

stoppiello, on 2017-February-23, 18:38, said:

Reversing with 2!s just seems pointless. The only hand I have ever seen that bid 1N forcing over 1!h and had 4 spades in it was a 4333 shape 6 count that went through 1N to end in 2!h. Even that was debatable.

I would think that even in precision, bidding 1N over 1!h denies 4 spades, so there isn't a fit there.

Not bidding a suit because partner has already denied it is not a good argument. By bidding 2S you are showing your shape, perhaps allowing partner to bid more confidently knowing spades are well stopped. In fact you often can often bid a suit because you know partner can't hold it and therefore won't get carried away raising you to a high level.

The argument against 2S on this hand is simply that you aren't strong enough, although personally I think it is borderline.

[helene_t]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-23, 14:52, said:

Not playing Flannery, a Forcing NT response denies 4 ♠ and 3 ♥ when you hold an absolute minimum (5-8) range hand. If you held either, presumably 1 ♠ or 2 ♥ would be bid.

1NT denies four spades, full stop. It has nothing to do with 5-8 vs 9-12.

1NT could have three card heart support if either very weak or invitational. The ranges are something like 4-6 OR 11ish, depending on whether you agreed to play constructive raises or not. But I don't think constructive raises have anything to do with Flannery.

[helene_t]

nullve, on 2017-February-22, 12:19, said:

2♣ is the book bid, but I would have opened 1N.

A 1NT opening is ok if you play a nonforcing (sorry I refuse to use the word "semiforcing") 1NT so that this hand is a tad strong for passing 1NT while 2♣ isn't good since it strongly suggests real clubs (although it could be 4513).

Playing a forcing 1NT response, I don't like a 1NT opening so much. Partner will almost never raise 2♣ with four since it is frequently a 3-card suit. So it's not that bad to bid 2♣ on a doubleton and it is certainly the system bid.

[mr1303]

I really dislike a 1NT opening here. You have 2 empty doubletons and all your strength in your majors.

If you had

Qxxx
Xxxxx
AK
AK

I could accept 1NT (even like 1NT) but not on this hand.

2S is wrong as partner will force to game too often.

Which leaves 1H 1NT 2C

[nullve]

helene_t, on 2017-February-24, 04:53, said:

Playing a forcing 1NT response, I don't like a 1NT opening so much. Partner will almost never raise 2♣ with four since it is frequently a 3-card suit. So it's not that bad to bid 2♣ on a doubleton and it is certainly the system bid.

I agree that 2♣ over a F1 1N response is not so bad at IMPs. But playing 3♣ on a 5-2 fit at MPs is asking for a zero in my part of the world, since everyone else will be playing either 1N (after 1♥-1N; P or 1N-P) or 2♥ (after 1♥-1N; 2♥).

This hand type (good MIN, 4522) isn't a problem for me personally (and I do open 1♥ in my system), but I wonder how other flanneryphobic gazzilliphiles deal with it, especially if they play 1♥-1N as F1 (which I don't).

[ggwhiz]

I agree that passing with this one and rolling in a +210 deserves a trip to the partnership desk.

My preference would be 2♣ if I had an honour but 2♥ with what looks more like a 6-card suit.

[rmnka447]

helene_t, on 2017-February-24, 04:47, said:

1NT denies four spades, full stop. It has nothing to do with 5-8 vs 9-12.

1NT could have three card heart support if either very weak or invitational. The ranges are something like 4-6 OR 11ish, depending on whether you agreed to play constructive raises or not. But I don't think constructive raises have anything to do with Flannery.

It's a fair point about constructive raises. If you play them then you could have something like 4-6 and 3 ♥. If you don't, then your normal choice with 5-9 hands with 3 ♥ is the simple 2 ♥ raise.

The sentences you parsed are pointed toward the 5-8 point hands responding 1 NT, not the invitational subset of Forcing 1 NT response hands. The invitational hands are going to take a second call, so opener's rebid with a doubleton ♣ isn't going to be passed out. The main issue with the 2 ♣ rebid on a doubleton is being passed out in an inferior ♣ contract by the 5-8 point hand. The subsequent analysis tried to point out the cases where that might happen so that the merits of a 2 ♣ versus 2 ♥ rebid with a 4=5=2=2 hand could be addressed.

If opener has a 3 card minor fragment with 4/5 in the majors and a minimum hand, it would be normal to bid it. The subsequent auction from there would be essentially a normal forcing NT sequence.

[gszes]

We sometimes treat really bad 5 card suits as a 4 card suit (when we have decent alternatives available) and we sometimes treat a really good 5 card suit as a six card suit (when we have no decent alternatives available). The "book" bid of 2c is far from horrible but playing 2h has a fair chance of beating almost any partscore out there. I would rate 2h as 8 and 2c as 7 with nothing else better. Pass rates a 1/2 simply because it is better than random stabs at various game/slam bids. Pass is also highly irritating to partners because they "know" the pass is based on a desire to mastermind vs depend on partnership.

[kenberg]

I just bid 2C. It's true that if we were playing Flannery this situation would not come up, but it did come up so I presume we are not playing Flannery. When not playing Flann, partners usually bid 1S over 1H if they have four. If opener has modest values with four clubs and two hearts, he will, or at least I would, bid 2H over 2C. So as I choose my call I assume partner has a fair number of minor suit cards or else will be bidding again, maybe 2NT or maybe some number of hearts. On some hands he will bid 2D over 2C.

I am not saying that bidding a two card club suit will never go wrong, it might. But usually it won't. Partner expects me to bid over 1NT, there are a variety of hands where passing would be wrong, so I am not passing. I don't strongly object to 2H, but I bid 2C.

Opening this hand 1N would not occur to me.

[JLilly]

In general if it's a really tough choice between the by-the-book response and another sound response, I choose the by-the-book response, unless I'm playing with bots. With human partners that have memory and that I have a relationship with (even if only for half an hour on BBO), I'd rather they consider me dependable and competent than a maverick. Being on the wrong side of a 53/47 call for one hand is worth partner trusting me for dozens more hands.