[20Hereford]

My bridge friends who play 2/1 have been having a discussion about which of the following bidding sequences are forcing. Input would be greatly appreciated. There is no bidding from the opponents.
Example 1. 1♥ - 1NT, 2♣. Is 2♣ forcing?
Example 2. 1♥ - 1♠, 1NT - 2♣. Is 2 ♣ forcing?
Example 3. 1♦ - 1♥, 1♠-2♠. Is 2♠ forcing?
Example 4. 1♦ - 1♠, 1NT - 2♥. Is 2 ♥ forcing?
Example 5. 1♥ - 1♠, 2♥. Is 2♥ forcing?
Example 6. 1♥ - 1♠, 2♣. Is 2♣ forcing?

Many thanks

[Bbradley62]

Example 1. Non-forcing, but seldom passed in reality.
Example 2. New Minor Forcing. Artificial and forcing one round.
Example 3. Non-forcing. Responder has no more than 9-10 points.
Example 4. Non-forcing.
Example 5. Non-forcing?
Example 6. Non-forcing, but seldom passed in reality.

[helene_t]

1. Some play this as conventional (gazilli) which is forcing, but if it is a natural bid then it is 11-17(18) like in other natural systems, except that playing 2/1 in most styles is can be a 3-card suit. Anyway, not forcing.

2. Most play this as some kind of convention (CBS, NMF, XYZ, Magister, Crowhurst or w/e) which is forcing. If it is natural then it is not forcing. This isn't related to whether you play 2/1 or not, it is a separate issue.

3. No not forcing, just 6-9 or such. In any natural system.

4. Not forcing. If you play the 2♣ bid in (2) as conventional then 2♥ is a sign-off, if not then 2♥ has a wider range, like 6-11 points. Again, this is not related to whether you play 2/1 or not.

5. No, this shows a minimum opener with six hearts, responder will often pass.

6. No (unless you play it as a convention but that is far from standard). 11-17(18) and not forcing. As in other natural systems. Again, it is not related to whether you play 2/1 or not.

[fromageGB]

I agree with all the answers above, and would say that all are non-forcing unless agreed otherwise.

Certainly it is useful for responder to be able to make a "nothing to do with clubs" forcing bid of 2♣ in sequence 2, such as new minor forcing, as this enables inferences such as in helene's comments on sequence 4, but if the 1NT is a defined limited range, such as 12-14, and denies 6 hearts or another 4 card suit, then it is good to be able to bid 2♣ to play. So it depends on the rest of the system.

As to "2♣ seldom passed in reality" even if it is not conventional, this is simply because responder will of course give preference to hearts unless there is a good reason not to. It is not forcing at all.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#0 In short - 2/1 seq. are fairly similar to standard seq., as long as you have no
2/1 response.

#1 No - unless, you play 2C as artifical, otherwise seq. with a forcing NT are
similar to seq. with a standard 1 NT response, and in standard 2C would be NF

#2 Yes, new suits by responder are forcing, most would play 2C as artifical (e.g. NMF)

#3 No - see #0

#4 Yes, see #2 - but if you play 2C as NWF, than 2H is usally played as NF

#5 No - see #0

#6 No - see #0

With kind regards
Marlowe