[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Oct 22 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

Is 2N forcing, is 3C forcing? Also feel free to comment on what you think the best treatment is, but for the poll purposes just stick to what you would think with a new partner.

I voted neither forcing, in an undiscussed pship, but I hate it.

If you ask me what is the best treatment here, I'd say using Negative freebids.

Otherwise, Junhi Zu has suggested the use of artificial 2NT, which gives up a natural invitation, but after all it is not the only sequence where the natural 2NT is given up in order to clear other sequences.

[cherdano]

For the record, in BWS 2N is forcing, but 3♣ is not.

[FrancesHinden]

I can't see how 2NT can be forcing unless you play either weak NT or NFB.
In a strong NT system with 2S F1, both have to be non-forcing.

[mike777]

See the other post where I wrote down the Mike Lawrence style.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=15&#entry98489

[luis]

What I think :
2NT, 3♣ and 3♠ are not forcing.
3♦ and 3♥ are forcing.

[Walddk]

luis, on Oct 22 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

What I think :
2NT, 3♣ and 3♠ are not forcing.
3♦ and 3♥ are forcing.

It was bound to happen one day, and it did now: I agree with Luis!

Roland

[luis]

Walddk, on Oct 22 2005, 08:54 PM, said:

luis, on Oct 22 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

What I think :
2NT, 3♣ and 3♠ are not forcing.
3♦ and 3♥ are forcing.

It was bound to happen one day, and it did now: I agree with Luis!

Roland

:-))

[mikeh]

Justin's post arises from a comment I made on another thread: that I play that 2♠ promises a rebid. That makes any bid by opener forcing, since partner has promised that he will not pass (absent interference).

You will occasionally pay to a hand on which you can make exactly 2N or 3♣. But surely that is low percentage. You will not find ANY consistent winners who design their methods around reaching 2N. And aiming to play 3♣ is not that much better.

In the meantime, playing either as non-forcing means that opener must either make a space-consuming and potentially misdescriptive jump or fake change of suit or an ambiguous cue-bid with any hand that is a Queen or so (King, if 2♠ could be really weak..not NFB weak but 8-10 points or so) better than a normal low-range opening bid.

I HATE 3-level cue-bids that do not send any message other than I want to force to game somewhere: make your best guess. And guess it is: if opener could be wanting to move towards 3N while leaving room, responder will frequently be unable to show shape or range...responder has to bid conservatively because he has NO clue as to opener's hand type.

So playing 2N or 3♣ as passable aims at a very narrow and low-value target, while screwing up your constructive game/slam sequences.

Look at it in another way: preempts work because they destroy bidding space. All successful constructive methods are created with a view to maximizing bidding space on good hands. Yet playing 2N /3♣ as non-forcing means that you have to add to the preempt and destroy your own bidding space on good hands in order to cater to the occasional +120/+110.

Fill your boots, boys (and girls). You will win a few part score hands, but we will outbid you (all other things being equal) in game and slam decisions.

BTW, obviously my comments are based on imp considerations: the partscore swings are more valuable at mps, but even there, I prefer to have the 2♠ bidder make another bid.

[jdeegan]

For me, only the cue bid, 3♦, would be forcing, but then I am most certainly not 'modern' and offer a view of little value to your quest.

[EricK]

2♠ is forcing me to bid but it isn't GF. I need a bid to show a balanced minimum (assuming I am not opening these 1NT) - I shall choose 2NT for this purpose. I also need a bid to show a minimum hand with long clubs and no spade support - I shall choose 3C for this.

If I make these forcing, then I am effectively playing 2S as a GF.

It is a bit of an American disease making more and more bids more and more forcing. The idea, presumably, is to avoid missing games at IMPS, but the arguments aren't that convincing. After all, partner knows about the game bonus just as much as we do, so he will be keen to bid game even if I make NF bids (as long as they are reasonable descriptive ones), but we at least give ourselves the chance to stop in a part score if either player thinks game is low odds.

Eric

[EricK]

Certianly it is nice to have these as forcing if you pick up a strong hand, and nice to have them as NF if you pick up a weak hand.

But if you pick up a weak hand and you are playing them as forcing you have left yourself with no escape, but if you play them as non-forcing and pick up a strong hand you still have other bids, so the situation isn't so bad.

In my experience I pick up weak hands far more often than strong hands, so obviously I have to have a system which caters for them. YMMV.

Eric

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Oct 22 2005, 11:01 PM, said:

Justin's post arises from a comment I made on another thread: that I play that 2♠ promises a rebid. That makes any bid by opener forcing, since partner has promised that he will not pass (absent interference).

If 2♠ promises another bid, thereby driving you to game most of the times, you will get to a no play game more often than not in my opinion. Here is just one example:

KQJxx
Axx
xx
xxx

Axxx
Qx
Qxx
AQxx

1♣ (2♦) 2♠

I suppose we agree that opener must support to 3♠. Now, according to mikeh responder raises to game because he promised another bid. I even gave opener a goodish minimum, and yet you will go down in 4♠ even on the most favourable lie of the cards.

I find this unsound.

Roland

[kfgauss]

cherdano, on Oct 22 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

For the record, in BWS 2N is forcing, but 3♣ is not.

I'm having trouble finding any reference to this situation in the BWS document -- could you let me know where you find this?

If there is indeed no reference to this situation, then I think both of these would be NF by the general agreement that if in doubt, calls are NF in competitive auctions.

Andy

[Elianna]

Wow, so far I seem to be the only one that has voted for both (though I see reading later on that Mikeh agrees with me). Basically, I voted both for the same exact reason Mikeh stated later on: 2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

I might not expect a new partner to know this, for the same reason that I might not expect a new partner to realize that the auction 1♠-2♥-3♥ (opps pass) is forcing to game: I don't believe that many people know SAYC.

But as I try to expect the best out of any new partner, I'll go with expecting them to know both.

[EricK]

Elianna, on Oct 23 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

Wow, so far I seem to be the only one that has voted for both (though I see reading later on that Mikeh agrees with me). Basically, I voted both for the same exact reason Mikeh stated later on: 2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

I might not expect a new partner to know this, for the same reason that I might not expect a new partner to realize that the auction 1♠-2♥-3♥ (opps pass) is forcing to game: I don't believe that many people know SAYC.

But as I try to expect the best out of any new partner, I'll go with expecting them to know both.

In SAYC a 2/1 rebid promise a rebid. The reason it can afford to do that is that opener can always rebid his suit or make a 2 level bid in a lower ranking suit on a minimum hand thus allowing certain hands to stop short of game (eg 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♥ is NF but 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ is forcing as you said).

In the sequence under discussion, opener hasn't the luxury of rebidding his suit at the two level, so you can't afford to make responder's bid promise a rebid (unless you effectively make it GF).

Eric

[Chamaco]

Elianna, on Oct 23 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

As far as I know, 2x (2S here) promises a rebid UNLESS partner bids 2NT or preferences (or rebid his own suit) at the 3 level.

So basically, 2/1 here would promise a rebid ONLY if opener rebids 2 of a suit, but, being it impossible in case of 2S, indeed, from the practical viewpoint, 2S does NOT promise a rebid for lack of bidding room.

If the 2/1 bid had been 2H, the over pard's 2S, responder would have been forced to bid.

[kfgauss]

Chamaco, on Oct 23 2005, 08:32 AM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 23 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

2♠ promises a rebid (I'd play it as a normal 2/1 bid in SA, which coincidentally enough, is the system Adam and I play), so therefore both must be forcing.

As far as I know, 2x (2S here) promises a rebid UNLESS partner bids 2NT or preferences (or rebid his own suit) at the 3 level.

So basically, 2/1 here would promise a rebid ONLY if opener rebids 2 of a suit, but, being it impossible in case of 2S, indeed, from the practical viewpoint, 2S does NOT promise a rebid for lack of bidding room.

If the 2/1 bid had been 2H, the over pard's 2S, responder would have been forced to bid.

Elianna's right about 2/1's without interference in SAYC. See http://web2.acbl.org...y/sayc_book.pdf (top of p.5). This is also the method given by Root in "Commonsense Bidding," for example. (SAYC needn't be taken as our standard, of course, but all Elianna claimed was that SA used this).

Root suggests not bidding 2NT on KQ432 86 A52 A76 after 1S-2H;?, but rather bidding 2S so we can stop below game (he gives K10963 K2 A104 K109 as an example of something worth a 2NT bid).

I do agree with Eric, however, that the competitive situation is quite different in that we have no catchall. There's also the point of shading a bit more than even a SA 2/1 in competition.

Root (which we also needn't take as our standard), for example, states that a noncompetitive 2/1 promises 11 points but a competitive 2/1 may be shaded to 10 or a good 9, and thus, he reasons, competitive 2/1's don't promise rebids. To force responder to bid again, he claims, opener must bid a new suit or jump. Note that this means that even 1S (2C) 2D; 2S is NF for him. (NB: Root's "points" include distrib.)

Root's book as a whole is certainly no longer standard (e.g. he plays 1M-3M as forcing) but the point is still valid. I do think that the "lack of a catchall" point is even stronger, though.

Most of this is aimed at refuting Elianna's claim that "2/1 promises rebid" means competitive auctions too. As for what I think is currently standard, I think NF for both. I have no idea what's best, but will note that I play this as NF with all current partners (or so I believe).

Andy

[the hog]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 23 2005, 06:09 AM, said:

I can't see how 2NT can be forcing unless you play either weak NT or NFB.
In a strong NT system with 2S F1, both have to be non-forcing.

Ok Frances, my take - I can't see how 2NT can be non forcing in a practiced, serious partnership. You are contracting to make exactly 8 tricks. How often can this be right? Personally I would prefer to play 2NT as a Ruben's advance, but obviously this is not possible in a non expert partnership.