[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we used to play it as forcing, but opener needs to expect 1S being
passed out, if the response was basically "light".

In the end NF caters for the fact, that one may have less than 6HCP
for a response, so if you always have 6HCP for a response it does
not make sense to play 1S as NF.

Playing 1S as forcing has the advantage that a jump shift by opener
always showes 5-4, other it could be 4441.

Another point: The style, that openers 2nd bid with a bal. hand is a NT
rebid gains supporters, even if the NT rebid means, that one has to
by pass a major suit. We switched to this style.

This is also happening in Acol, because "English Standard" recommends
opening to open with the major, if one has a 4 card minor and a 4 card
major, i.e. if opener starts with a minor and his 2nd rebid is a major, than
this would also show a unbal. hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: For whats it worth - I think forcing is best.

[campboy]

hotShot, on Feb 4 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

In ACOL it is forcing (F1).

Where did you get that from? I have never heard anyone suggest that it is forcing, and certainly in traditional Acol fewer bids are forcing than in most modern systems. The only reference I have to hand is Crowhurst's 1974 book 'Precision Bidding in Acol', which lists this sequence as non-forcing.

[FrancesHinden]

Very few bids in Acol are forcing, and this one certainly isn't.

[hotShot]

campboy, on Feb 5 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

hotShot, on Feb 4 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

In ACOL it is forcing (F1).

Where did you get that from? I have never heard anyone suggest that it is forcing, and certainly in traditional Acol fewer bids are forcing than in most modern systems. The only reference I have to hand is Crowhurst's 1974 book 'Precision Bidding in Acol', which lists this sequence as non-forcing.

Well I won't insist on it, my ACOL days are long gone. I'm not even sure I still have that book. It was a modified ACOL with strong NT with suits being bid line up.

[bd71]

jdonn, on Feb 4 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

When I was an intermediate player I thought 1♠ was forcing...

So that's exactly where I was, two months ago, before this situation came up to burn me, which led to further discussion with my partner.

I now know that in SAYC and 2/1, 1S is not forcing (although I still instinctively FEEL that it is), but it's not clear to me WHY it should be non-forcing.

It seems to me that BOTH of the following conditions would need to be true on a hand for a non-forcing 1S to leave you in the best place, and thus for the non-forcing to be the right approach:

Condition 1. Our combined point holdings have to be pretty minimum. This can happen but seems somewhat rare since we've shown 16-17 minimum (say a rule of 20 opener, and a think 5-point response), and neither opponent has spoken.

Condition 2. EITHER (a) Opponents would NOT balance after 1S is passed (seems like this would be very rare), OR (bb) Opponents would balance and we would NOT want to compete to the two level (so hand would have to be a total misfit)

Seems like Conditions 1 and 2 are going to be rare individually, and combined even rarer. So doesn't seem like you gain a lot by making 1S non-forcing, and like gnasher said you gain some flexibility to describe your hand at a low level if you define it as forcing.

[gwnn]

if you pass, you show a big flash signal that you're minimum and you have crap. if you can't have this flash signal, partner will not be sure what's going on and will overbid on random hands.

also, you're overestimating opps balancing. I think it's about 50-50. Often the guy who's last to speak doesn't have a good bid with, say, a 3334 10 count. Just bidding 1NT blindly is fatuous, since opener -notwithstanding his partner's flash signal about the relative scarcity of resources- will be happy to double it with the 18 count he often has in this case.

[jjbrr]

bd71, on Feb 5 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

I now know that in SAYC and 2/1, 1S is not forcing (although I still instinctively FEEL that it is), but it's not clear to me WHY it should be non-forcing.

Your instincts are close. As others have said, it won't be right to pass 1♠ very often at all. Usually you will bid 1NT or give a courtesy raise of ♠ or take some preference. But given that partner has limited his hand by his failure to jump shift (even though he still has a wide range of hands) you are allowed pass. As someone else noted, the actual hand in the OP was not right to pass.

[jh51]

bd71, on Feb 5 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

I now know that in SAYC and 2/1, 1S is not forcing (although I still instinctively FEEL that it is), but it's not clear to me WHY it should be non-forcing.

It seems to me that BOTH of the following conditions would need to be true on a hand for a non-forcing 1S to leave you in the best place, and thus for the non-forcing to be the right approach:

Condition 1. Our combined point holdings have to be pretty minimum.  This can happen but seems somewhat rare since we've shown 16-17 minimum (say a rule of 20 opener, and a think 5-point response), and neither opponent has spoken. 

Condition 2. EITHER (a) Opponents would NOT balance after 1S is passed (seems like this would be very rare), OR (bb) Opponents would balance and we would NOT want to compete to the two level (so hand would have to be a total misfit)

Seems like Conditions 1 and 2 are going to be rare individually, and combined even rarer.  So doesn't seem like you gain a lot by making 1S non-forcing, and like gnasher said you gain some flexibility to describe your hand at a low level if you define it as forcing.

Why should it not be forcing? It is easy to imagine responder with 6 points in red suit quacks and tolerance (3 or 4 cards) for spades. If opener cannot make a stronger bid than 1S, game is almost certainly out of reach. Those red suit quacks may be almost worthless.

I dispute bd71's first condition as needing to be true. There could be 22-23 points, and 1S might still be the best contract.

I prefer to think of the 1S bid as being almost forcing. Responder should examine his values and prefer to bid even with a minimum if his hand seems to be working.

I happen to play with bd71 from time to time, and this discussion came up recently after a hand where we missed slam on an action that started 1C-1H-1S. bd71's shape was 4414 with 20 HCP, which you have to discount a little due to a stiff Q. After the 1H response, this hand has to worth around 22 HCP. 1S had got to be an underbid in any but a forcing club system. We got to game, as I had more than a minimum and 0445 shape. However we missed the club slam as bd71 had to bid 4H after my 2C bid to make sure we got to game. Had he bid 2S, we are in GF sequence and we can proceed more slowly thereafter.

[aguahombre]

awm, on Feb 5 2010, 01:13 AM, said:

PhantomSac, on Feb 4 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

Awm: I prefer to rebid 1S with 18-19 balanced and 4 spades.

Hey I agree with.... me.

Agree with Adam agreeing with himself --and agree with Gnasher's clear explanation above that. But, more important is Peachy's implied warning that it should be agreed with partner in advance, since so many people disagree.

[jjbrr]

[quote name='jh51' date='Feb 5 2010, 11:47 AM'] [quote name='bd71' date='Feb 5 2010, 10:33 AM']I happen to play with bd71 from time to time, and this discussion came up recently after a hand where we missed slam on an action that started 1C-1H-1S. bd71's shape was 4414 with 20 HCP, which you have to discount a little due to a stiff Q. After the 1H response, this hand has to worth around 22 HCP. 1S had got to be an underbid in any but a forcing club system. We got to game, as I had more than a minimum and 0445 shape. However we missed the club slam as bd71 had to bid 4H after my 2C bid to make sure we got to game. Had he bid 2S, we are in GF sequence and we can proceed more slowly thereafter. [/quote]
Not that it would help you get to 6[cl], but why not splinter with 4414 after 1[cl]-1[he]?

[aguahombre]

Some people would consider an unbalanced hand worth 22 in support too strong to splinter. they would js to 2S, planning to jump again to 4H if possible.

That plan might accidentally or on purpose land the partnership in a club slam.