[awm]

I think the rule is, if partner does something that shows extras, then you can force even if you made a prior non-forcing bid. It's always possible partner could pass your "forcing" bid if he didn't really have his prior call, but I don't think this makes your bid non-forcing per se (a lot of "forcing" calls become non-forcing if partner psyched a previous call).

So the power double auction given, advancer's second call could easily be forcing even though the initial bid of 1♠ was limited, because doubler's new suit rebid has shown a huge hand opposite which advancer could easily have a force. I would tend to interpret that bid as forcing in fact.

Similarly a lot of people play that auctions like 1♦-1NT-2♥-3♦ is forcing, even though the original 1NT bid was not forcing and limited, because opener has shown extras.

But in the auction that started this thread, responder's second call never promised anything more than the first call. Responder could still have the same lousy 5-count or whatever you respond on. So opener can't force now, having failed to force before.

[Halo]

Ok Have it your way when you play your agreements. I like the 2S bid and would have signed off via 2NT. I just don't get this certainty stuff. But if this is just a forum for a single approach to bidding, I took up your time.

[jdonn]

Halo, on Apr 20 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Ok...i'll try one more time...

When I opend 1D that wasn't forcing...so what.

I don't understand what you're getting at there.

[awm]

I think the point is, you can make a forcing bid despite making a non-forcing bid earlier in the auction. The simple example is a 1♦ opening (not forcing) followed by a jump shift or reverse after partner's response (forcing). But again, the difference between that and the given auction is that by responding, partner has shown some values. Typically this is 6+ points, or 5+ points (or maybe less if your partner is Justin). But in any case it shows more than partner's worst possible hand before partner responded, so now opener can force.

[mike777]

Sorry I guess I misunderstood your main question. I read it as wanting to discuss this auction in the context of natural, American bidding theories, not what the right bid or just under one theory of natural bidding. As I stated under this theory 2D is not just a simple preference. If 2D means just that and only that ok.............

If your discussion is limited to where I must jump shift with:
A...x...KQTxxx...AKxxx or
void...x...AQTxxx...AQxxx

ok I misunderstood what type of comments you were asking for discussion on.

[cherdano]

mike777, on Apr 20 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

Sorry I guess I misunderstood your main question. I read it as wanting to discuss this auction in the context of natural, American bidding theories, not what the right bid or just under one theory of natural bidding. As I stated under this theory 2D is not just a simple preference.

Yes it is; as I, myself, have stated already 2 years in this forum, responder's 2♦ bid is a simple preference that can be made with a minimum hand.

[helene_t]

Agree with Justin. I think this is obvious. I'm surprised there can be discussion about this.

I would be more interesting if opener was unlimited, say
1♣-1♠
2♥-2N (Ingberman)
3♦*

I think that would be forcing but I may be wrong.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Apr 21 2007, 01:30 AM, said:

Agree with Justin. I think this is obvious. I'm surprised there can be discussion about this.

I would be more interesting if opener was unlimited, say
1♣-1♠
2♥-2N (Ingberman)
3♦*

I think that would be forcing but I may be wrong.

That one is clearly forcing since it bypasses where responder may have been signing off. Anything that can't force to game has to bid 3♣ there.

[Halo]

Unusually narrow range of contributors to this post.

Too boring and obvious... too something...?

I welcome hearing from the usual suspects and I'm not usually disappointed to this extent. Can't guess what the inhibition is.

[temp3600]

I think an important point is that 2♠, in the original post, is a playable spot. It is possible to construct a sequence where player 1 has made a non-forcing bid, player 2's following bid does not show any extra strength or lenght (typically, a preference), and player 1's next bid is natural, but cannot be a playable spot, and therefore has to be forcing 1 round :
1♥   1NT
2♣   2♥
2♠
Spades are at most 3-3, so responder cannot pass 2♠.

So I would say that if player 1 has made a non-forcing bid, player 2 makes a bid that does not convey anything extra, and player 1's next bid is a playable spot, then it is non-forcing. If it is not a playable spot, it is forcing 1 round.

[Flame]

The real question is should this bid be 100% natural.
If its 100% natural the "justin's law" that non GF hand cant make a forcing bid is good here, but if you want this bid to be more flexiable losing the option to play in 2S but winning a better discription of other hands.
You need to weight the pluses and minuses, is it important to be hable to play in 2S on such a sequence ? and How much we win by playing it as forcing.

[Free]

It shows extra's in a natural way while we have clearly shown no game interest. Imo this bid should be NF, so very dangerous to do it with a doubleton.

[Halo]

Forcing or non-forcing just(in) isn't the issue.

Is partner desperately trying to improve on the known 52 fit? Why on this Earth would partner do that?

So he is strong, but you want to take control and say '.. sigh... I have an excuse for deciding the final contract is 2S'. Well - do it, and then at least apologise when you are wrong, and take credit when you are right. Preferably no philosophy.

[bid_em_up]

Justin,

I certainly respect your opinion/belief that it cannot be forcing since opener is somewhat limited. But, if opener didnt want to force, why the heck is he moving off of 2♦? Where is he going? What is point of bidding 2♠ if NOT expecting another bid from partner? He certainly isn't offering 2♠ as an offer to play. After all, he has already shown 9 minor suit cards, and responder has shown no spade cards.

Now, if you are claiming that partner must be some 15-17, 3-1-5-4 hand, pass of 2S is ok. But if it doesnt have to be this specific hand pattern, I think it must be forcing.

Personally, I think the 2-1-6-4 hand should have bid 3D anyway.

[Halo]

Jlall, on Apr 22 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

Halo, on Apr 22 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

Forcing or non-forcing just(in) isn't the issue.

The OP said:

Quote

please accept that both partners know 2♠ was showing shape

So the issue of this post is NOT the meaning of 2S. The meaning of 2S was specified. It is not an artificial bid. The OP asked very bluntly, as the last sentence of the post, given it's own paragraph

Quote

Should 2S be forcing?

The context of the problem is set by the OP.

What, please accept that it did show 3154 when it was 2164.

Odd place to start a discussion.

If Jlall and Jdonn want to set all the parameters for the discussion, we needn't waste our time.

[jdonn]

How did I get sucked into your argument! You were right, if I asked a certain question based on certain assumptions, and you didn't like the question or the assumptions, you shouldn't have wasted your time answering.

[Halo]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

How did I get sucked into your argument! You were right, if I asked a certain question based on certain assumptions, and you didn't like the question or the assumptions, you shouldn't have wasted your time answering.

OK I accept all your assumptions, and in your place I would not have passed 2S.

I think that is much what I said in my original post. If anything I have allowed myself to be sucked into your argument.

[jdonn]

Lol I wasnt even having an argument. You were arguing with Justin, until right now I had almost nothing to do with it but then you went and dropped my name, and then try to turn the tables on me as though anyone can't see what really happened 2 posts earlier. You argue like a 5 year old.