[flytoox]

I think it is passable. If you worry pd will pass it, jump shift to 2M. I am not going to argue which way is better. Only that if you are playing with me, be prepare for it:)

[flytoox]

Flame, on Nov 30 2004, 07:08 PM, said:

we play 1 over 1 as forcing.

This is different from 1 over 1. This is rebid 1 over 1 response.

[daswallow]

I play that the 1♠ bid here is forcing, unless responder scraped up a bid with a sub-minimum hand in which case it can be passed.

[KiwiBridge]

I play only responders new suits are forcing.

[pclayton]

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Dec 1 2004, 03:43 PM, said:

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

Reverse is FORCING, Phil. Differences between 2♣ and reverse are as following, imho:
1) 2♣ opening forces to 3M or 4m even if responder has nothing. That is, responder has to respond twice withh minimum of 0 hcp.
2) With a one-level opening, responder can pass. Since responder has something to respond, reverse is forcing one more round. That is, if you can respond (minimum of 5 hcp or so) once, you have to bid again if partner reverses.

I orginally voted for forcing. Upon reflection, I changed my mind. (It is very rare to stop at 1M, isn't it?). With dead mimimum, 3=4=5=1 (or 3=4=4=2), I would rather to pass. Well, if opps find their play, so be it. They would not pass my 1NT anyway, if my partner doesn't have a strong hand. I would raise to 2M with 4-card or 3 good support, of course.

[pclayton]

HeartA; In our system, reverse is NOT forcing. Just like in Precision; would anyone treat 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ as forcing?

Sigh....I hate to be harsh here, but there are a lot of comments that tell me that some of the posters just don't grasp the whole idea of a 1/1/1 being forcing. I'm not looking for a primer on Audrey Grant here - I'm looking at the deeper issues about not jumping with a 5-4 18-20 count and raising to 2♠ on total tricks alone. As well as how this interplays with my 2♣ opener.

Maybe I should have posted this in a different section of BBF.

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Dec 1 2004, 05:47 PM, said:

HeartA; In our system, reverse is NOT forcing.  Just like in Precision; would anyone treat 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ as forcing?

1♦-1♠-2♥ is forcing, in sayc and 2/1, and most of the natural system, I believe.

Precision is different. 1D opening limits the hand to 15hcp (assuming 1♣=16+). Though 1D opening is also limited (to 20 or 21), it has a much broader range. A reverse hand opposite a hand that can respond, game is very close. Even if responder has dead minimum, game is still very possible. I know, if you hold ♠QJxxxx, ♥xx, ♦xx, ♣Jxx, and responded 1S over pd's 1D opening, game is not likely when pd reverses to 2H. But hey, pd may have 3 ♠ and is false-reversing ♥ to wait for your clarification.

[the hog]

AQJx
Kxx
x
AKQxx

How are you going to bid this hand sensibly unless
1) 1S is forcing OR
2) You have a 2N gadget?

From what I have observed here, very few have a 2N gadget.

Someone, I forgot who it was, made a comment about responding on a 3 or 4 point hand? Really?? Unless you play 1C as a 1 round force as some of the Italians do and as in Polish Club, this is warped in my opinion.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Dec 1 2004, 04:43 PM, said:

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

Phil, I don't want to tell you how to bid, (wait, yes I do) but if your reverse isn't forcing, you should use your jump shift (1C-1H-2S) as a fit for responder's suit and something (splinter, fragment, etc). And use 1♠ rebid as forcing/not forcing as you see fit.

Ben

[mike777]

I was the one who made that comment about light replies....

Since we play 2c=22 HCP or equivalent p wants me to respond with an Ace or KJ in long hearts or some other nice distributional suits.

As I mentioned before with more I can XYZ or maybe even with just that in some cases.

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Dec 1 2004, 03:47 PM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 1 2004, 04:43 PM, said:

Upon reflection, because of our 2♣ opening, even our reverses aren't forcing. Accordingly this rebid shouldn't be either.

I still like the Ogust idea, as I think responder should have the latitude to raise with 3 card support; although it rates to be a constructive hand. Responder should always raise to 2 with any 4 card support however.

I think this is the point that a lot of the folks that play a normal 2♣ are missing.

Phil, I don't want to tell you how to bid, (wait, yes I do) but if your reverse isn't forcing, you should use your jump shift (1C-1H-2S) as a fit for responder's suit and something (splinter, fragment, etc). And use 1♠ rebid as forcing/not forcing as you see fit.

Ben

Ben - as a side issue, I'm thinking about changing the nature of the jump shifts, as I mull through this argument. Back in Montana, we used to play something called Morris Jump Shifts; which showed shape, not strength. Axxxx, x, x, AQxxxx was a 2♠ rebid after 1♣ - 1♥. A mini-spinter makes some sense too; its similar to 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♦.

[EricK]

Jlall, on Dec 2 2004, 07:32 AM, said:

NF is standard bridge. I also find NF very useful since i am a believer in responding very light. I could not imagine passing a 1C opener with xxx QJxxx xxx xx. I just couldnt.

Exactly what would you bid after 1♣ 1♥ 2♠?

Give partner a "GF" 4225 or 4135 and you will surely end up too high.

Eric

[inquiry]

Well, the discussion is clearly divided into two camps. The 1♠ is forcing and the 1♠ is not forcing. I have switched to the 1♠ is forcing camp in the past few years... having said that, I have passed this forcing 1♠ bid. The reason I think I can pass a forcing bid, is that my partner will never hide support for my first suit with the 1♠ rebid (we have mulitple artificial raises with good hands) and thus the 1♠ rebid is always assumed to be natural (and forcing). If I busted a gut to respond with a singleton in partners first suit (on say 3 points), I have broken discipline and passed. BTW, my jump shift to 2♠ even with 1♠ forcing shows 6-5 or 7-5 type hand and is absolutely positively forcing. So I guess if phil had not forced us to say 1♠ can't be "almost forcing" I might have gone with that answer.

[HeartA]

inquiry, on Dec 2 2004, 09:53 AM, said:

.... So I guess if phil had not forced us to say 1♠ can't be "almost forcing" I might have gone with that answer.

I am for "almost forcing" as well. Since this is not an option, I have to be on the NF side, though I voted for forcing . Ben, could you change my vote?

[PriorKnowledge]

1C 1H 1S is forcing under modern expert interpretation. That reserves the 1C 1H 2S for distributional monsters or true game-force hands.

20 years ago, it was non-forcing, but problem hands kept coming up. The 18-point hands are a problem. If you game force with a jump-shift when partner gives u a courtesy 5-6 response, you end in a hopeless game. If you bid a non-forcing 1S, you may play there when game if available.

Take this hand: AKx Qxx x AKQxxx... You open 1C, partner bids 1H. Now what?

A forcing 1S is perfect. If partner has S-Qxxx and goodies, 4S may be the best spot or 3N or 5C. Or maybe not even game. You need the bid forcing and you don't want to waste space with a 2S or GF the hand prematurely.

[HeartA]

PriorKnowledge, on Dec 2 2004, 02:44 PM, said:

1C 1H 1S is forcing under modern expert interpretation. That reserves the 1C 1H 2S for distributional monsters or true game-force hands.

20 years ago, it was non-forcing, but problem hands kept coming up. The 18-point hands are a problem. If you game force with a jump-shift when partner gives u a courtesy 5-6 response, you end in a hopeless game. If you bid a non-forcing 1S, you may play there when game if available.

Take this hand:  AKx Qxx x AKQxxx... You open 1C, partner bids 1H. Now what?

A forcing 1S is perfect. If partner has S-Qxxx and goodies, 4S may be the best spot or 3N or 5C. Or maybe not even game. You need the bid forcing and you don't want to waste space with a 2S or GF the hand prematurely.

Holding ♠AKx, ♥Qxx, ♦x, ♣AKQxxx, 2♠ is the correct bid after 1♥ response. 1♠ should guarantee 4-card.