[pclayton]

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.

[mike777]

My partner's rules, not mine so:

My partner will only bid a jump shift with 20 or equal trick taking.
He denies a balanced/semi balanced 18-19 or 14-16 or balanced 17.

Of course he may only have 10 or less hcp for his 2 bids also.

So i guess with 3-4 hcp I can pass.

If more, maybe XYZ will help me, since we play that.

[EricK]

Can I use the phrase "Forcing, in principle"?

Suppose we are playing XYZ (so a 2♣ rebid by responder is a puppet to 2♦), then it is tempting to respond 1♥ to 1♣ with a very weak 4450 hand.

If playing Walsh responses and the first bid is 1♦, then I suppose responder could have a very weak 3361 hand, trying to bail out in Moysian 1M or, failing that, 2♦.

But if responder had a genuine response initially, then he has to bid.

Eric

[Free]

Since you could jump to show reverse, 1♠ doesn't show extra values. With 4-1-4-4 you would've opened 1♦, so you either have a balanced hand, or a reverse, both without extra strength. Conclusion: 1♠ is passable.

After a 1♦ opener, things change. Opener could have a strong hand with 4-1-4-4. If you can see that there's no fit opposite such hand, you can still pass imo. Otherwise just bid.

[luke warm]

not forcing, tho i realize it's becoming more forcing in the community

[the hog]

100% forcing in any sane partnership.

[inquiry]

100% forcing.... but in my system noe 1♠ rebid (and one 1♥ rebid is not only not forcing, it promises only 3-card suit.

That auction is... specifically,
1♣-1♦
1M

I play on that specific auction the one of a major can be (but does not have to be), a balanced 11-13. After 1C-1D, my 1NT rebid shows 17-19 balanced. Long story, but misho converted me to this abut 2 years ago and it works great.

Ben

[PriorKnowledge]

I used to play it non-forcing, but I am convinced the modern practice of 100% forcing is superior.

And I agree with Inquiry that it may only be a 3-card suit (fragment bid).

And I agree with pclayton that "almost forcing" is nonsense and is the same as non-forcing. A bid is either forcing or not. "Almost forcing" is as useful to bidding as "almost survived" to a patient.

There are too many hands where a GF J/S showing a 2-suited hand is not appropriate, but you need to continue the auction.

If you wish to respond a 1/1 with 3-4, you must be prepared to play the hand in at least 1N. If that frightens you, I suggest you pass the opening bid.

[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Nov 30 2004, 01:26 PM, said:

100% forcing in any sane partnership.

them's strong words, ron... this is exactly why that great convention flannery is used by so many

it's also a good reason to play canape openings

[hrothgar]

100% forcing by agreement

[pclayton]

OK: let me throw something else into the soup here. My 2♣ opener is made on limited hands: 4-5 losers, at least 5 controls, usually +/- 19-21 HCP, but could be less (a LOT less actually). Hands such as:

---

---

and even:

---

all qualify. By the way, the 3rd hand is a 2♠ rebid after 2♣-2♦ (0-1 control; less than 6 points).

Does this treatment make a forcing 1/1/1 less desirable? Isn't hand #3 the main reason for treating the one level rebid as forcing, so opener doesn't have to make a jump shift on hand only worth a one round force?

[mila85]

Qxxx
Jxxxx
xxx
x
1♣-(pas)-?

3HCP->pass
But in MP I would bid 1♥ or 1♦.
Then I pass 1♠ (forcing).

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Nov 30 2004, 12:11 PM, said:

OK: let me throw something else into the soup here. My 2♣ opener is made on limited hands: 4-5 losers, at least 5 controls, usually +/- 19-21 HCP, but could be less (a LOT less actually). Hands such as:

---

---

and even:

---

all qualify. By the way, the 3rd hand is a 2♠ rebid after 2♣-2♦ (0-1 control; less than 6 points).

Does this treatment make a forcing 1/1/1 less desirable? Isn't hand #3 the main reason for treating the one level rebid as forcing, so opener doesn't have to make a jump shift on hand only worth a one round force?

I also open the second hand you showed 2♣. The first hand is a not related, as you can't have that hand and open 1♣. The third hand might be one you that I would open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ on. Of course I can have any old nasty minimum hand as well for the 1♠ rebid. I would be somewhat surprised if opening this hand and rebidding 2♠ (presumably natural and non-forcing) is a good strategy. Since you could have a suit very much like your second example or a suit like this (or like the first example), will make it very difficult effectively after your 2♣=2♦ auctions. The only good thing you got going for you is that you know you are high enough, what you don't know is where you belong.

BTW, anyone considering this 1♠ as forcing probably needs to adopt xyz convention so that 2♠ raise is just a "you forced me to bid" kind of thing. So you can go through 2♣ with all goodish hands with or without support but not with GF value... you can even define differences between the immediate jump to 3♠ and the 2♣ bid followed by the jump to 3♠.

ben

[pclayton]

My concern about having a 1/1/1 forcing isn't that I'm trapped into a raise, but its what to do with some hands where you just want to play 1♠. Something like: Kxx, QJxx, xxxx, xx come to mind. Pard opens 1♣; you try 1♥, now 1♠. Seems like a good place to play? I now have to distort with 1N, or 2♠, or break discipline and pass.

[EricK]

pclayton, on Nov 30 2004, 06:13 PM, said:

My concern about having a 1/1/1 forcing isn't that I'm trapped into a raise, but its what to do with some hands where you just want to play 1♠. Something like: Kxx, QJxx, xxxx, xx come to mind. Pard opens 1♣; you try 1♥, now 1♠. Seems like a good place to play? I now have to distort with 1N, or 2♠, or break discipline and pass.

If you were playing a 4 card major system and partner opened 1♠, would you pass?

Eric

[pclayton]

EricK, on Nov 30 2004, 10:22 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 30 2004, 06:13 PM, said:

My concern about having a 1/1/1 forcing isn't that I'm trapped into a raise, but its what to do with some hands where you just want to play 1♠. Something like: Kxx, QJxx, xxxx, xx come to mind. Pard opens 1♣; you try 1♥, now 1♠. Seems like a good place to play? I now have to distort with 1N, or 2♠, or break discipline and pass.

If you were playing a 4 card major system and partner opened 1♠, would you pass?

Eric

No, I'd probably raise to 2♠. Frankly, I love 4-3's, especially when the short hand is taking ruffs. I also like the idea that the 2♠ raise can be made with three trump. Perhaps with a dog 3433 the best rebid is 1N, not the 2♠ raise.

Eric, you got me thinking about another idea. Much like 1 minor - 1 major - 2 major - 2N is sort of an Ogust ask about opener's trump (3 or 4) and strength, maybe:

1x - 1y - 1z - 2z - 2N can be the same thing. 2N asks:

3♣ - Minimum with 3 trump (example hand)
3♦ - Maximum with 3 trump: Kxx, AQxx, xxxx, xx
3♥ - Minimum with 4 trump: Kxxx, QJxx, xxx, xx
3♠ - Maximum, 4 trump and balanced: Kxxx, AQxx, xxx, xx
3N - Maximum, 4 trump and 4333: although this doesn't make sense - maybe a void splinter here?
4x - Splinter; 4 trump - Kxxx, AJxx, xxxx, x
4y - Picture Jump; Kxxx, AQxxx, xx, xx
4z - Another type of picture jump.

[Flame]

we play 1 over 1 as forcing.

[Fluffy]

1 over 1, forcing ´till 1NT.

It doesn´t rhyme in spanish, but we still use it .

[han]

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 11:03 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 30 2004, 01:26 PM, said:

100% forcing in any sane partnership.

them's strong words, ron... this is exactly why that great convention flannery is used by so many

it's also a good reason to play canape openings

What does that great convention flannery have to do with the auction 1D-1H-1S?

[sceptic]

I am no expert, butr I thought hand 3 better 1Club opener and a 2Spade rebid