[jdonn]

Adam I have never heard of 1NT X bid P as forcing. Certainly it can't be so common that it's some obvious assumption.

I think the only place your agreement about forcing passes is way against mainstream thinking is after a 2♣ opening bid it's standard that all passes are forcing.

[Cascade]

awm, on Feb 5 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

It seems sort of strange to me that:

2NT-(bid)-Pass would be non-forcing whereas...

(1NT)-X-(bid)-Pass is forcing.

In the first case, opener has shown half the deck in his own hand. The opening side will virtually always have majority of the strength. Opponents probably have something for their bid (at least some shape) but in principle the opening side could still have the points for slam!

In the second case, doubler has shown only something like 15-plus. Opener has shown something like 15-17 (assuming strong notrump). Neither side is all that likely to have the points even for game (much less slam), and either side could have the majority of the strength.

Yet it seems like a lot of folks regard it as "obvious" that the first auction is NF and almost as "obvious" that the second auction is forcing? Seems weird to me.

Anyways, I play all such auctions as NF under the reasoning that "there are no forcing auctions when someone on our side could still have a zero-count." However, use of such a rule puts me in a definite minority (there are many auctions such as the second one above, where one partner could easily have a zero-count and yet the majority plays forcing pass).

I am pretty much with you. I wouldn't play the (1NT) X (bid) Pass as forcing - as you say what do you do with a zero count.

I have never understood these arguments.

The only auctions when partner has a potential zero count that I would play as forcing are where opener has shown a game force.

[barmar]

I've also never heard of (1NT) X (bid) Pass as forcing. But maybe the justification is that if responder had a decent hand he would presumably redouble, so (bid) tends to be weak, and that suggests that advancer should have something. Or maybe that overcaller shouldn't double 1NT if he's not willing to double a suit they run to or compete -- you generally shouldn't double a strong NT for penalties unless you have a source of tricks, not just a balanced 15 count.

Since few experts play penalty doubles of strong NT these days, there's probably not too much concensus on this type of auction -- it just doesn't happen.

[gnasher]

To play (1NT) X (bid) Pass as forcing is quite common in England, probably because a 12-14 notrump is so widespread. As usually played, advancer's pass promises values, and he bids immediately with a bad hand. The idea is to increase the chance of taking a penalty and improve the accuracy of any constructive bidding.

Personally, I don't much like it, regardless of the notrump range.