[Trumpace]

Assume opponents pass all the time:

i)
1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - ?

game forcing? non-forcing? or just forcing for at least one round?

Looks non-forcing to me.


ii)
1♣ - 1♠
1NT - 2♥
?

What about this one? This one seems non-forcing too.

[helene_t]

1: Game forcing in all versions of SA and other standard systems with a wide-ranging 1♦ opening (ACOL, SEF etc.)

2: Certainly not forcing. Playing some check-back structure, it's a weak sign-off. Playing pure natural it could be invitational or weaker so that opener can make a game try with extras. I think in SAYC, even though no check-back structure is played, it's a weak sign-off on the basis of the theory that 1N has a narrow range (13-14) so it's not so important for responder to be able to invite.

[cherdano]

i) GF
ii) NF

[P_Marlowe]

#1 3C was game forcing
#2 one round force, unless you play NMF
or something similar, in which case it
is weak, asking for a pref.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

1. Game forcing.

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

[bid_em_up]

awm, on Aug 8 2007, 03:13 AM, said:

1. Game forcing.

2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

What he said.

[P_Marlowe]

awm, on Aug 8 2007, 03:13 AM, said:

<snip>
2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

Ok, I can agree that it is nonforcing, although I would
even challenge this, but 2H is not a weak sign off.

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with
5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?
Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors
and min?

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has
to shows forward going values.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[keylime]

1. G/F is most methods unless you play Gazzilli.
2. In expert standard, nonforcing, since you have new minor forcing available to you. Without checkback or nmf, nonforcing, since you can jump to 3H to force.

[ralph23]

1. GF in standard; in the old days a JS by opener promised 20 points, but now that's been lessened and it may be based on shape.

2. NF in standard. This is exactly one of the problems that motivated the invention of nmf. If you don't play nmf and have inv+ values with 5♠ and 4♥, you're kind of stuck in standard. Thus nmf.

[jtfanclub]

Huh, I've always played it only as forcing to 4 of a minor:

After
1♦ - 1♥
3♣ - 3♥


4♣

4♦

4♣ - 4♦

were all non-forcing, the theory being that there's plenty of count for game, but neither hand has a spade stopper, and it's a lot tougher to make 11 tricks than 9.

Is this an outdated belief, one I made up, or common?

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Aug 8 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

Huh, I've always played it only as forcing to 4 of a minor:

After
1♦ - 1♥
3♣ - 3♥


4♣

4♦

4♣ - 4♦

were all non-forcing, the theory being that there's plenty of count for game, but neither hand has a spade stopper, and it's a lot tougher to make 11 tricks than 9.

Is this an outdated belief, one I made up, or common?

I vote for door #2, at least in Standard, if those are the only 3 doors....

It's been GF in standard since I was a wee lad, so the notion of being able to stop in 4-of-a-minor isn't outdated.

And it's certainly not common.... if you as the opener/responder use your judgment (gasp! who would ever do such a thing!! ) to violate system and pass 4♣/♦ then maybe that's the right thing to do in that particular circumstance, but I think that's a different issue.

Sometimes of course it is "right" (i.e. you will get a better result) to violate system but that's hard to know, and your partnership esprit de corps is weakened.....

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-08, 09:12

[cherdano]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 8 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 8 2007, 03:13 AM, said:

<snip>
2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

Ok, I can agree that it is nonforcing, although I would
even challenge this, but 2H is not a weak sign off.

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with
5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?
Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors
and min?

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has
to shows forward going values.

The logic "bid A has to show hand B because otherwise you can't show hand B" is brought up so often, and so often it is wrong...
If you play 2H as sign-off, you can't bid invitational hands. If you play it as forward-going, you can't bid weak hands with both majors sensibly.
Bidding agreements are always a trade-off, and anyway nobody ever claimed that traditional standard here is optimal.

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Aug 8 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

Bidding agreements are always a trade-off, and anyway nobody ever claimed that traditional standard here is optimal.

Yes exactly, and it's pretty clear that most of the world thinks tradtional standard isn't optimal in this regard, which accounts for the nearly universal acceptance of nmf or one of its kinfolk.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with
5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?
Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors
and min?

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has
to shows forward going values.

No, this doesn't follow. 1nt is a narrow range rebid. Without conventions, you don't lose a ton simply deciding to force to game or not. There are many more hands that want to sign off & not get to 3 level (5-9(10-) 4+ hearts), than those that want to invite (10+-11 4 hts). If you only have one bid available to show both hands, then it makes sense to use it for the one that will help you most often. Then just underbid/overbid the invitational hand depending on where it lies on the spectrum.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Aug 8 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

Huh, I've always played it only as forcing to 4 of a minor:

After
1♦ - 1♥
3♣ - 3♥


4♣

4♦

4♣ - 4♦

were all non-forcing, the theory being that there's plenty of count for game, but neither hand has a spade stopper, and it's a lot tougher to make 11 tricks than 9.

Is this an outdated belief, one I made up, or common?

Made up.

[skjaeran]

1. 55+ GF.

2. 5-4 NF (sign off, opener passes or gives preference to 2♠). I play xyz here (others play NMF, check-back, gazzilli or whatever). Any adv+ I know play some gadget after 1x-1y-1NT.

[Elianna]

skaeran, on Aug 8 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

2. 5-4 NF (sign off, opener passes or gives preference to 2♠). I play xyz here (others play NMF, check-back, gazzilli or whatever). Any adv+ I know play some gadget after 1x-1y-1NT.

keylime said:

1. G/F is most methods unless you play Gazzilli.

Gazilli doesn't apply in either case. It's only when opener opens a major, and responder replies at the one-level. At least, in it's traditional form.

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on Aug 8 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Aug 8 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 8 2007, 03:13 AM, said:

<snip>
2. This is not forcing. Even if you don't play nmf in any of its forms, 2♥ is a weak signoff. To force, jump in a new suit or bid 2♦ if playing some form of nmf. Of course, opener can preference to spades with ♠ equal or longer to ♥.

Ok, I can agree that it is nonforcing, although I would
even challenge this, but 2H is not a weak sign off.

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with
5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?
Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors
and min?

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has
to shows forward going values.

The logic "bid A has to show hand B because otherwise you can't show hand B" is brought up so often, and so often it is wrong...
If you play 2H as sign-off, you can't bid invitational hands. If you play it as forward-going, you can't bid weak hands with both majors sensibly.
Bidding agreements are always a trade-off, and anyway nobody ever claimed that traditional standard here is optimal.

#1 you are right, the argument "bid A has to show hand B
because otherwise you can't show hand B" is ..., which
can easiliy be shown.
because if 2H shows forward going values, you cant bid
weak 5-4 hands and use the same argument

#2 Holding a weak 5-4 hand, I would bid 2S, which is similar
to 1NT opening and transfering to spades ommitting stayman,
which you have to do, if stayman promises inv. values

#3 As always the question is, what is standard, but I believe the
simple rule "New suits by responder are forcing" is standard,
one can agree / disagree

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 8 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

Quote

Please ask yourself the question, what do you do with
5-4 in the mayors and inv. values?
Force to game and hit partner with 2-3 in the mayors
and min?

The simple answer is, without add. conventions, 2H has
to shows forward going values.

No, this doesn't follow. 1nt is a narrow range rebid. Without conventions, you don't lose a ton simply deciding to force to game or not. There are many more hands that want to sign off & not get to 3 level (5-9(10-) 4+ hearts), than those that want to invite (10+-11 4 hts). If you only have one bid available to show both hands, then it makes sense to use it for the one that will help you most often. Then just underbid/overbid the invitational hand depending on where it lies on the spectrum.

On the other hand reaching game is more valuable than
reaching the correct part score, and you have a reasonable
partscore, 2S - a 5-2 fit.

And the difference in frequency between weak hands
with 5-4 in the mayors and inv.+ hand with 5-4 in the
mayors is not that large.
After all responders will hold on average 8-9, assuming
opener showed 12-14.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

There are many exceptions to this "new suit by responder is forcing". This is one of them.

You may think 2♥ as forward going is better (I happen to disagree but we don't have to agree), but the orginal question was what it means in SAYC.