[Free]

Suppose you play a natural system (2/1 forcing for 1 round - NOT GF), a bit like sayc.

Is the auction 1♠-2♥-2♠-3♥ forcing or not?

Note 1: 2♠ shows at least 5 ♠s if the hand is minimum unbalanced with a minor suit
Note 2: 1♠-3♥ is a splinter (not a GF singlesuiter)

[drinbrasil]

many play 2/1 FG except for rebids, in this case is clear NF as you play like sayc

[FrancesHinden]

No.

p.s. all linguistic pedants will answer 'yes' to your poll, whatever they think the sequence means.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the question.

You don't play 2/1 GF, either variety, and you don't play standard american. Whatever you play, you don't define it. Then, you ask if a bid is forcing in your own approach.

I have no idea how you play.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 23 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

No.

p.s. all linguistic pedants will answer 'yes' to your poll, whatever they think the sequence means.

Not true. I'm a linguistic pedant and I voted no.

[Free]

kenrexford, on Oct 23 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

I don't understand the question.

You don't play 2/1 GF, either variety, and you don't play standard american.  Whatever you play, you don't define it.  Then, you ask if a bid is forcing in your own approach.

I have no idea how you play.

It's kind of a question about logic: is it more logic to play this as forcing or not? Up until 2♠ nothing special happened, whatever natural system you play...

[brianshark]

More likely to be non-forcing playing 2/1 10+ sans other agreement.

[awm]

I've never played a system where the 3♥ bid showed a better hand than the worst possible 2♥ bid. In other words, if 2♥ wasn't a game force, 3♥ should be NF.

This does make it hard to show a good heart one-suiter in systems like SAYC, which is why those systems typically include strong jump shifts.

[skjaeran]

You describe agreements similar to what I use in one partnership. 3♥ is invitational.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

neither did openers 2S promise add. strength
nor did responders 3H, hence 3H is nonforcing,
the 3H just shows a 6 card suit.

This is true for system where a 2/1 bid is only
forcing for one round or promises a rebid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Oct 23 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 23 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

No.

p.s. all linguistic pedants will answer 'yes' to your poll, whatever they think the sequence means.

Not true. I'm a linguistic pedant and I voted no.

It is absolutely true that 3♥ is forcing or not.

[kenberg]

Surely folks get dealt hands where they wish to play in hearts and invite but not force to game. In a SAYC like system, or any system where 2H is not a game forcing bid, I imagine this is how such a hand would be bid. Seems clear enough to me.

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on Oct 23 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

It is absolutely true that 3♥ is forcing or not.

Indeed. Any statement of the form <P v ~P> is logically impeccable and even true

[helene_t]

If there can be any discussion about this, surely it must depend on the meaning of 2♠. Is it NF? If so I can imagine playing 3♥ as a forcing, based on the theory that it's a go-nogo for responder and a minimum hand would usually pass. Opener could have only five spades and we could have a stuffy 6-card, but a forcing 3♥ might be more useful.

Also wonder if 2N by responder would be forcing, assuming that opener would have rebid 2N with any balanced minimum. If so, you could bid the non-GF singlesuiters via Lebensohl.

But whatever is technically better, there is an obvious case for playing SAYC instead of some vague "SAYC-like" system.

[kenberg]

Sure. I can imagine reasons for playing it as forcing, the most obvious being that it allows a statement along the lines of: "I want to play in game, I don't think much of spades, please choose between 4H and 3N, or, if you insist, 4S."

But undiscussed, surely the more obvious interpretation "I want to play in hearts, either 3 or 4, your choice" should be the default.

It seems to me that if you agree to play SAYC, or Sayc-like, or standard (yes, I know the word is meaningless) you have agreed to forsake science and exotica and plan to bid on the basis of straightforward interpretations. Bidding 2H and then 3H means you think the hand should be played in hearts, you are strong enough to play 3H, you are unsure of 4H. If instead you want to be in game, you bid the game of your choice. Sure it would be nice to elicit partner's input, hence the science we all know and perhaps love. But we are not playing science here.


PS I think it is somewhere in Goren's writing that he tells the story of an auction
1S 2H
2S 3H
3S 4H
After which opener announces: I bid the fourth, and the last, spade.