[awm]

Suppose you're playing a standard american-style method where two-over-one bids are forcing and invitational or better but not necessarily forcing to game. How would you play the bid of a second suit by responder after opener rebids his major? Assume a structure where 2♥ was forcing (2/1 promises a rebid) and could be various minimum opening bids (not guaranteeing 6♥).

[Trinidad]

awm, on Oct 10 2006, 02:03 AM, said:

Suppose you're playing a standard american-style method where two-over-one bids are forcing and invitational or better but not necessarily forcing to game. How would you play the bid of a second suit by responder after opener rebids his major? Assume a structure where 2♥ was forcing (2/1 promises a rebid) and could be various minimum opening bids (not guaranteeing 6♥).

So, you are talking about auctions like:

1♥-2♣
2♥-2♠

and

1♥-2♦
2♥-3♣

They are absolutely forcing to game for me. In the first case responder reversed, showing extra values (and INV+ + extra values = GF). In the second case responder bid a new suit at the three level (some would call it a "high reverse"). My default agreement is that new suits at the three level are forcing to game, unless we specifically agreed otherwise.

In my opinion, the only bids responder has to stop below game are the rebid of their own suit, a bid of 2NT and possibly (as in up for discussion) a raise to 3 of opener's suit.

Rik

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing to game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

Forcing to game is the standard meaning.

Peter

[pclayton]

This is a high reverse; 100% forcing to game. I suppose if you want to back off a little to 3N or 4m, thats OK.

Look at Han's and my NSI for a sensible way to bring invitational 2 suiter into the fold.

[awm]

I'm interested in how people define a reverse. My definition is:

A reverse is a bid of a secondary suit at a level higher than the lowest available level of the first suit named.

By my definition, 1♣-1♥-1NT-2♠ is a reverse (2♠ higher than 2♥). Also 1♠-2♦-3♣ is a reverse (3♣ higher than 2♠). However, a number of people have indicated here that they consider 1♥-2♦-2♥-2♠ to be a reverse, when it was the absolute lowest available call in a forcing auction. Similarly, I would not consider 1♥-2♦-2♥-3♣ to be a reverse, since it's cheaper than the lowest available diamond bid. Whether these bids show extra values doesn't immediately follow of course.

In any case, I agree that "forcing to game" seems to be the most common opinion. I'd be interested to see a link to Phil and Han's treatment for the invitational hands.

[mike777]

awm, on Oct 10 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

I'm interested in how people define a reverse. My definition is:

A reverse is a bid of a secondary suit at a level higher than the lowest available level of the first suit named.

By my definition, 1♣-1♥-1NT-2♠ is a reverse (2♠ higher than 2♥). Also 1♠-2♦-3♣ is a reverse (3♣ higher than 2♠). However, a number of people have indicated here that they consider 1♥-2♦-2♥-2♠ to be a reverse, when it was the absolute lowest available call in a forcing auction. Similarly, I would not consider 1♥-2♦-2♥-3♣ to be a reverse, since it's cheaper than the lowest available diamond bid. Whether these bids show extra values doesn't immediately follow of course.

In any case, I agree that "forcing to game" seems to be the most common opinion. I'd be interested to see a link to Phil and Han's treatment for the invitational hands.

Reverse "An unforced rebid at the level of two or more in a higher ranking suit than that bid originally" It does not mean strength or extras by definition despite what people continue to write.

[sceptic]

ok I may be dumb here but

if 2 diamond bid is forcing (BUT NOT to game) then 2 hearts is a forced response

why is 3 clubs not asking for pard to pick a preference for clubs and diamonds (which means 3 clubs is passable

[mike777]

sceptic, on Oct 10 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

ok I may be dumb here but

if 2 diamond bid is forcing  (BUT NOT to game) then 2 hearts is a forced response

why is 3 clubs not asking for pard to pick a preference for clubs and diamonds (which means 3 clubs is passable

Wayne while 2D forces some response from partner, it does not force a 2H response. To rephrase, partner must make some response but a specific, 2 hearts, is not forced.

I do not see how a third new suit which is introduced at the 3 level can ever be passed or not game forcing. It just makes bridge too difficult. I do not see how a higher ranking third new suit introduced at the two level can ever be passed or not game forcing. It just makes bridge too difficult.
1h=2c
2h=2s(higher ranking third suit introduced at the two level).

I guess that means if not playing Walsh you need to rebid 3h or 3c or 2nt with long clubs and 4 spades. This is why people play Walsh style so over 2h they will just hide the longer clubs. Note one style often hides long minors in favor of the majors or nt.

[awm]

Again, it'd be nice to see terms defined. My definition for Walsh responses:

Walsh responses to 1♣ are a style in which responder bypasses a cheaper call in a possibly longer diamond suit in order to bid a four-card major with less than game force strength. Thus responding 1♦ to 1♣ would deny a four-card major unless holding game values.

On the other hand, responding with one of a major in a hand too weak for a two-over-one despite having a longer minor is standard. So for example over 1♦, it's standard to bid 1M with longer clubs if you're not strong enough to start with a 2/1 call.

I agree that the definition of reverse doesn't have anything to do with values. Again by my definition, a reverse is simply a bid of a secondary suit which is higher than the cheapest bid in the first suit named. It is a fairly standard agreement (but not a necessary agreement, especially in 2/1 game forcing auctions) that a reverse shows extra values and is forcing but neither of these is part of the definition of a reverse. It also does not follow that bids which are not reverses are non-forcing.

In fact it's a standard agreement that a new suit by an unpassed hand responding to an opening bid by partner is forcing, except when opener has rebid 1NT. So it would be unusual to play that 1♥-1♠ is not forcing, or that 1♥-2♦-2♥-3♣ is not forcing, despite the fact that no reverse has occurred in either auction. The question being asked is more about degrees of forcing-ness -- there are bids that are forcing but you can pass partner's next call (like 1♥-1♠), bids that are forcing and promise a rebid (like SAYC 2/1 bids), and bids that are forcing to the game level (typical is opener's jump shift, or opener's reverse after a 2/1 call by partner).

Certainly it is possible to play that 1♥-2♦-2♥-2♠ for example (again, not a reverse) is forcing but the auction can die in 3♦ on a misfit.

[joshs]

The standard 2/1 structure for standard american is:
a. 2/1 promises rebid unless opener bids game. Its possible to attach an exception to this. Popular exceptions:
a1. 2M rebid not forcing
a2. 2N not forcing
a3. raising the 2/1 bid not forcing (the least popular, but actually playable with some additional gadgets)

b. New suit by either player above openers suit is gfing. Possible exception:
1H-2m-2H-2S-2N as non-forcing

The main idea is to be able to identify a fit or lack there of in each players primary suit, and have 2N as a catch all way out if you don't find a fit. This allows for reasonably good choice of game and slam auctions, and the price of an awkward auction when responder has a distributional 2 suiter. Generally, with 1255 after 1H-2D-2H you just game force to make sure you end in the correct strain (or raise 2H to 3H with a strong doubleton and good controls). With 2155 without a spade stopper you are kind of stuck.

Note: Clearly playing 3C in the auction of record as non-forcing is not playable. First it can be a 3 card suit, since there are many strong hands that don't know where you belong. Second, making a strong responder bid 4C which is past 3N does not lead to good auctions.

If a 3D preference or a 3H rebid was non-forcing, you can't get COG correct. Opener can have Axx KJxxxx Ax Kx or xxx AKxxxx Ax Kx for instance and it can't be right to bid 3S with both of them. Being able to stop on a dime in 3D is not worth anything compared with getting to the correct game when you have this sort of hand. Sometimes opener might even have a really strong hand with a bad 6 card suit that is not a good enough suit to rebid 3H the first time. And you are working on both strain and level. While its possible to plat 3D or 3H as non-forcing, it just isn't a good treatment.

Incidently, I have no idea if 3C in this auction is treated as game forcing in ACOL (I always assumed that it was, but since 2H was much more limited in ACOL than in SA the arguments become closer), so if anyone can tell me, that would be helpful.

Those are my two sense.

[FrancesHinden]

joshs, on Oct 10 2006, 08:43 PM, said:

Incidently, I have no idea if 3C in this auction is treated as game forcing in ACOL (I always assumed that it was, but since 2H was much more limited in ACOL than in SA the arguments become closer), so if anyone can tell me, that would be helpful.

Those are my two sense.

New suit at the 3-level is game forcing, even in Acol.

Responder's reverse at the 2-level (e.g. 1H - 2C - 2H - 2S) is traditionally F1, not game forcing, though many people today play it as game forcing.

[mike777]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 10 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

joshs, on Oct 10 2006, 08:43 PM, said:

Incidently, I have no idea if 3C in this auction is treated as game forcing in ACOL (I always assumed that it was, but since 2H was much more limited in ACOL than in SA the arguments become closer), so if anyone can tell me, that would be helpful.

Those are my two sense.

New suit at the 3-level is game forcing, even in Acol.

Responder's reverse at the 2-level (e.g. 1H - 2C - 2H - 2S) is traditionally F1, not game forcing, though many people today play it as game forcing.

As Frances points out in many natural systems longer clubs with 4s and invite values 2clubs can be bid before the one spade bid. I do think bidding one spade with 4 spades and 6 clubs and invite values in a non 2/1 game force system is unusual unless you play Walsh style. I do not think non 2/1 players play Walsh style very often. I just think rebidding 2s as only a round force and not game force makes bridge too difficult.

[P_Marlowe]

sceptic, on Oct 10 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

ok I may be dumb here but

if 2 diamond bid is forcing (BUT NOT to game) then 2 hearts is a forced response

why is 3 clubs not asking for pard to pick a preference for clubs and diamonds (which means 3 clubs is passable

Hi,

it is a matter of frequency.

Playing 3C as nonforcing is only right
if you make 3C or 3D, or if you are
down 1, and game does not make.

But the partnership already stated, that
they posses at least 23HCP in the combined
hand, and that is the min value.
If only one hand contains a single Queen
more, than the combined strength will make
game a good proposition.

If you compare the frequency of the above
cases, you will see, why it does not really pay
to play 3C as nonforcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe