[fred]

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

fred, on Jul 3 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This shows that the posts in favour of forcing make more sense than those against it, since the early trend was strongly NF

(I only post this because I think it is forcing)

BTW, Fred.... since you started it, which way:

1) did you treat it at the time

2) do you think that it should be played, absent your non-standard agreement?

BTW, it struck me that inverting the reds here would be perhaps doable: I think we all agree that 4♦, natural, would be forcing... we are not aiming for +130. So 4♦ to show hearts and 4♥ to show diamonds. The problem being how to remember this for the twenty + years before the auction comes up again. Because a forget here would likely be disastrous!

BTW, again, if 4♦ shows hearts, presumably we need some agreement as to how responder shows a mere preference for hearts, non-forcing, and a strong liking for hearts.. but we can probably work that out at the table if need be.

[Gerben42]

Tough problem. I would vote forcing, and not necessarily natural.

[pclayton]

fred, on Jul 3 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Sadist!

[fred]

mikeh, on Jul 3 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

BTW, Fred.... since you started it, which way:

1) did you treat it at the time

2) do you think that it should be played, absent your non-standard agreement?

Answers:

1) I have never had an explicit agreement about this auction with any of my regular partners. No implicit agreements either since there is a contradiction between 2 basic principles that apply in my partnerships:

- new suit bids by 2C opener (below the slam level) are forcing
- natural bids of game contracts are non-forcing

2) I really don't know which of the above principles deserves priority and I don't have any strong sense of which agreement rates to be the long term winner in practice. That being said, the following basic principle which, unlike the ones above, is not in my system notes, speaks loudly to me (quite possibily for emotional reasons):

If it is not unlikely that X is the last making contract (especially where X is at the game level or higher) then your system should allow for the possibility of playing in X.

That would argue for "non-forcing" (where X=4H).

How "not unlikely" it is that 4H is the last making contract depends of course to some extent on things like your standards for 2C openings, what strength (if any) responder's sequence conveys, the length implications of a Kokish sequence that ends in 3C, whether or not you consider it acceptable for opener to rebid 3NT with some club-heart 2-suiters...

Sorry I cannot offer any advice as to which agreement is "best" - I have no idea. Make either agreement with your partner if you care. Also reasonable IMO not to care - apparently it is possible to survive a long time in the wild without an agreement about this one. If you (reasonably!) think it is acceptable to not discuss EVERY auction, this would not be the worst one to ignore.

Fred Gtielman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

fred, on Jul 3 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I apologize for making it 24-21 in favor of forcing...

[matmat]

cherdano, on Jul 3 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 3 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I am rather pleased with myself for creating this poll - it is a 21-21 tie at the time I am posting this

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I apologize for making it 24-21 in favor of forcing...

there's no monkey option... how am i supposed to vote :/

[gwnn]

I don't like this sequence. I don't like opening 2♣. Is opener showing 6-5? 6-4? argh. Responder carefully ate up lots of room with his 3♠ bid, ...

With zero discussion I'd assume opener is showing 6-5 with very good stuff, but non forcing. I do realize opener will have an unpleasant time choosing a good way to bid a very strong monster hand, jumping to 5♥ (?!) or something, but that hand will come up once every fifty years and one in two such hands may bid hearts then clubs.

BTW I equalized at 24.

[kenrexford]

A friend of mine once advised another friend of mine that he'd make a killing if he could write a book where he solved the problem of the standard 2♣ opening.

I have seen a lot of good ideas for mitigating the problem a lot with two strong, forcing openings (usually adding in 2♦). See, for example, Super Standard (Nilsland's version is especially good IMO). But, to keep it all in 2♣ and really solve it, wow. That would be something.

Every so often, I tinker with some ideas, but it is quite a task to unwind. A few good ideas like Kokish and that diamond-major canape jump business are nice, but not enough. I think the solution will be found in Responder's bids, myself. Responder seems to bid 2♦ 99% of the time. That seems like a HUGE waste. Something pattern-oriented seems right, but I'm still looking for that eureka moment.

Nilsland's work inspired me. I happened upon the weird idea of a 2♦ opening as a strong, unbalanced hand with 4+ spades, sometimes canape, and then found out he did the same thing years ago. This has an amazing effect on the ability to handle hand patterns very wellm but it does eat up the 2♦ opening. So, I keep thinking that there is some similar out of left field core concept to radically improve 2♣ sequences that has evaded us all (unless someone already has this in some obsscure-for-me source like Nilsland's work).

[Impact]

The absolute worst hands for a 2C opening are those that have a main suit in D (and any second suit just becomes worse).

The most obvious solution, as Ken has noted, is to utilise 2D opening to show main hands D (possibly Flannery multi also or weak in H many variations depending on remainder of system as GF with D is too rare of itself to justify the sole use of the bid), which frees not only the jumps but also opener's 3D rebid (typically most such solutions tend to focus on such bids as main suit C with second suits shown economically).

I have maintained for years that so-called Standard which focuses on an almost automatic 2D is criminal in that neither partner really gets to show his values.....the old-fashioned control responses is superior as at least opener has some idea of whether the necessary extra values are present for higher investigation (admittedly at the cost of starting suit investigation higher but gaining SOMETHING).
regards

[mike777]

Having a 3h or 3s rebid over 2D( g/f) show 4 of major and long diamonds, helps a bit.

[the hog]

pclayton, on Jul 3 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 3 2008, 02:57 AM, said:

I would definitely say nf. how else would you bid:

A
AKJx
xx
AKQJxx

xxxxxx
xxxx
xx
x

Well, you'd show the weak hand as a negative over 3♣, assuming one is available.

You'd still find 4♥ via 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♦* - 3♥ - 4♥.

I'm pretty sure Fred plays an immediate 2♥ as a negative, by the way.

Fair enough Phil. That makes sense if you play a second negative, or 2H as an out and out negative.

[benlessard]

NF here.

My rules for these questions is a bit simple. A natural game bid isnt forcing if

1- its the cheapest call in that domination.
2- No fit is agreed in a equal denomination.
3- its not a 3Nt serious or non-serious.

1S----(pass)------2S-------(4D)
4H
many here will play 4H as natural but for me its forcing.

[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Jul 3 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

How "not unlikely" it is that 4H is the last making contract depends of course to some extent on things like your standards for 2C openings, what strength (if any) responder's sequence conveys, the length implications of a Kokish sequence that ends in 3C, whether or not you consider it acceptable for opener to rebid 3NT with some club-heart 2-suiters...

Well yes,

I am a non-forcing person on the 'game is to play' rule.

But then some of the people voting 'forcing' think that partner has shown values, either by not bidding 2H over 2C, or by not bidding 3D over 3C as a negative.

As far as I am concerned partner can still have a 5431 0-count for this sequence, and therefore it is non-forcing.

[hotShot]

To evaluate the answers, we really need to know the answers to some implied questions.

1) Does your partnership open 2♣ with less than 22 HCP?
2) Does your partnership open 2♣ with 2-suited hands?
3) Does your partnership consider a long 6+ suit with a 4 card side suit 2-suited?
4) What is your answering structure to 2♣? Do you have a 2nd negative? If partner has other answers than 2♦ available, what do they promise?


If your partnership does not open 2-suited hands with 2♣ and opener can't have 4♥, the bid has to be forcing.

If you open 2-suited hands with less than 22 HCP in 2♣, than it would be wise to play 4♥ NF here.

[mike777]

hotShot, on Jul 4 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

To evaluate the answers, we really need to know the answers to some implied questions.

1) Does your partnership open 2♣ with less than 22 HCP?
2) Does your partnership open 2♣ with 2-suited hands?
3) Does your partnership consider a long 6+ suit with a 4 card side suit 2-suited?
4) What is your answering structure to 2♣? Do you have a 2nd negative? If partner has other answers than 2♦ available, what do they promise?


If your partnership does not open 2-suited hands with 2♣ and opener can't have 4♥,  the bid has to be forcing.

If you open 2-suited hands with less than 22 HCP in 2♣, than it would be wise to play 4♥ NF here.

Strangley enough I will bet that 90% or more of the pairs have not discussed, let alone remember the correct answers to these questions in full. Maybe 99%.

This take me back to my long ago stated premise that if you take the top 10,000 pairs worldwide, 90-99% of them will have shockingly little experience playing together, let alone discussing system.

[jdeegan]

As others have so wisely said, specifying one's system is important here. Let's suppose we are playing old fashioned, high-level but still amateur bridge the way I was taught sometime back in the last century. A 2♣ opener shows:

1. 22+ HCP if balanced or 4-4-4-1 shape
2. 4 quick tricks and 4 losers if my main suit is a major
3. a little better if a minor
4. 2 suiters are OK if I am worried about getting passed out at the one level - AKJxxx AKJxx x x is an OK one bid because it's only 16HCP.

Responses are:
1. 2♦ waiting with 2 queens or better - forcing to game
2. 2♥ waiting with less than 2 queens - NOT forcing to game if I rebid 2NT, and for some not forcing to game if I just rebid a suit.
3. suit bids show 5+ cards and a decent suit like KJ9xx or better - game forcing
4. 2NT shows hearts - game forcing

In this case, I am going to have to play 4♥ as non-forcing because what do I bid with:
x
AKQxx
Q
AKQ10xx

or

x
AKQx
Q
AKQ10xxx

I have game in hand and half the high cards in the deck - too risky, not to mention too awkward to open just one. After the 2♦ response, partner's hand may be worthless, or it may produce slam. On the given auction, he will usually know what to do - only aces are any good in the pointed suits.

By the way, what is the virtue in playing 4♥ forcing? Is it a cue bid for spades, or what?