[junyi_zhu]

It's very odd. One most important issue hasn't been mentioned by anybody here.
If you play 1S forcing, you got make your responder's range way more wider than non-forcing treatment, in that case, you would have a tougher time. In standard treatment, responder can pass 1S with good 5 HCP and most 6 HCP and some bad 7 HCP without basic tolerance in opener's first suit. However, if you make 1S forcing, you have to bid something here. So your 1NT range is wider, 2S range is wider, 2 level rebid range is also wider and you may not be able to handle it well, because often would invite 3 level and get passed. For standard treatment, you can pass 1S with this hand:
Sxxx HAJTxx Dxxxx Cx, over 1C 1H 1S, now you just can't. So you have to bid something which would affect your bidding accuracy, which can be a huge negative effect in a long run. a good 7 to normal 10 HCP 1NT rebid is rated to be more accurate than a good 5 to normal 10 HCP 1NT. However, people just neglect that part. Another problem is that opener's range is also wider, 1S rebid can cover from 11 to 20 after 3 bids. I don't call it a bidding success. For example, do you invite to 3S with good 16 if partner raises you to 2S? Partner can be as weak as good 5. or as good as bad 10. Do you really think it's playable?

[the hog]

"Do you really think it's playable? "

Well I have played this way for over a year and I certainly think its playable. Mind you we don't respond with the rubbish that some posters to this thread have said they would respond on. Your AJTxx would be an absolute dead minimum.

Passing 1S is 2 handed bridge imo. You are giving the opponents a licence to come into the auction, and this is something I don't call a "bidding success".

One thing I would definitely do as opener, however , is to rebid 1N on all balanced hands and not 1S on xxxx xx xxx xxxx.

Playing this style also means that you can do one of the following
Make the reverse categorically a gf
Or play 1C 1H 2S as a mini splinter.

Both of the above treatments have merit and allow far more useful continuations than the 16 or 17+ 2S bid that some others here suggest, which then involve blackout and other complications to ensure you don't end up in the stratosphere.

[inquiry]

junyi_zhu, on Dec 2 2004, 06:30 PM, said:

It's very odd. One most important issue hasn't been mentioned by anybody here.
If you play 1S forcing, you got make your responder's range way more wider than non-forcing treatment, in that case, you would have a tougher time.

I play this as "forcing" but I have passed it twice that I can remember. One reason I can get away with this pass, is partner will never have a huge balanced hand (more than 19) or a four card fit for my suit, or a strong three card fit with a good first suit, or a temporizing bid with three card fit, or any four card fit for my 1♥, or a strong hand with 6-5 or 5-5 distribution. So while forcing, it is "almost never, ever passed"

Quote

In standard treatment, responder can pass 1S with good 5 HCP and most 6 HCP and some bad 7 HCP without basic tolerance in opener's first suit.  However, if you make 1S forcing, you have to bid something here. So your 1NT range is wider, 2S range is wider, 2 level rebid range is also wider and you may not be able to handle it well, because often would invite 3 level and get passed. For standard treatment, you can pass 1S with this hand: Sxxx HAJTxx Dxxxx Cx, over 1C 1H 1S, now you just can't.

I would never pass the 1♠ rebid with and ACE here. Partner may hold, for instance, S-AKQx H-Kx D-Qx C-Axxxx, for instance. With the hand with five points, I would rebid 2♥.

Quote

So you have to bid something which would affect your bidding accuracy, which can be a huge negative effect in a long run. a good 7 to normal 10 HCP 1NT rebid is rated to be more accurate than a good 5 to normal 10 HCP 1NT. However, people just neglect that part. Another problem is that opener's range is also wider, 1S rebid can cover from 11 to 20 after 3 bids. I don't call it a bidding success. For example, do you invite to 3S with good 16 if partner raises you to 2S? Partner can be as weak as good 5. or as good as bad 10. Do you really think it's playable?

With 16hcp, if my bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-2S, my parnter will pass. Simple as that. I use xyz to show a "sound" raise to 2S, so the 2S raise will never be anywhere near a 10 count, not even 9, and that counts distribution. So the raise is say a modest five to bad 8, and may not include four card support. A 16 count? We aren't going anywhere. SEE the XYZ thread.

[Fluffy]

Jumping to 2♠ with 19 HCP is ok, but 1♠ is also ok, and might be better often.

For example I posted a hand long ago where 6♦ was makeable on an impossible hand, I held a 4054 20 HCP, I was one of the few allowed to rebid 1♠ after 1♦-1♥, when partner rebid 3♥ I could easilly count 30 HCP in our line with no fit and stopped at 3NT getting 70% (sadly 6♥ was making due to lucky layout).

[kayser]

I would like to divide the question into two parts:

1. Is the rebid forcing in a temorary partnership?
2. What is the most sound treatment for a "natural" system in general?

My answer to the first one is that it is forcing. There are drawbacks, but there is less risk that your p will be upset if you end up in a hopless 4♠ after 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♠-4♠, than if you pass down a making game.

My opinion on the second one is that I think it is better off as non-forcing, but it heavily depends on what you promise with a 1/1.

I am in favour of bidding 1/1 with as little as 0 hcp (especially when using 5-card M) to rescue a vulenerable disaster. However, the probelm with this treatment is that you risk a 2NT respons, showing 18--19 balanced, which is also a disaster. Now, in my current partnership we are evaluating concealing most 18--19 balanced in the 1M (4-card showing) rebids, with the only risk of playing your 5+-card suit (which you always have on a rescue operation like 1m-1x-2NT-3x) on the three level.

[civill]

pclayton, on Nov 30 2004, 12:17 AM, said:

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - ?

Please don't use terms like 'almost forcing'. Does it make a difference if Responder starts with 1♦? How does playing xyz change this structure?

Thanks in advance.

Not forcing if dont play xyz.
But it will be strange that there is no competitive with weak responder.

[cf_John0]

Agree with Civill.

[WrecksVee]

I feel that in standard bidding without discussion that this is not forcing. Perhaps this is old fashioned but checking Truscott's Bidding Dictionary written in mid 90's lists this as standard meaning and makes no mention of the forcing treatment. I feel the hand limiting arguments are correct and without further discussion the forcing idea will lead to more problems than the traditional meaning.

OTOH since I learned Kaplan Sheinwold before standard (yes, I was very confused when exposed to the bulk of American tournament bridge players....but that is another story) I am used to this being a forcing bid. Anyone interested should check out the excellent summary on the Bridge World site. The KS solution is to limit Responder's hand with 1NT which is not natural but just denies more than 8 HCP. All other bids show 9+. This is a detailed system agreement in line with the style of KS.

[junyi_zhu]

civill, on Dec 9 2004, 07:39 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 30 2004, 12:17 AM, said:

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - ?

Please don't use terms like 'almost forcing'. Does it make a difference if Responder starts with 1♦? How does playing xyz change this structure?

Thanks in advance.

Not forcing if dont play xyz.
But it will be strange that there is no competitive with weak responder.

It's no strange at all, that usually means misfit.