[Adam1105]

Is the 2♦ bid 1) forcing 2) non forcing 3) forcing or non forcing decided by partnership?

---

[Hanoi5]

3. Always 3.

After 1x-1y-1N there should be some kind of checking bid. Some people play 'New Minor Forcing', some people play 2♣ checkback, some people play two-way chackback, where 2♣ shows an inviting hand or a signoff in Diamonds and 2♦ is GF. And that's only in the place where I live.

[MrAce]

Adam1105, on 2013-November-07, 17:00, said:

Is the 2♦ bid 1) forcing 2) non forcing 3) forcing or non forcing decided by partnership?

---

You need a bid that starts forcing bids without jumping all over the place.

That would be either 2 club or diamonds. If you do not have an agreement i would take 2♣ as check back stayman (forcing ) and 2♦ in that case becomes 4♠ +5-6 diamonds and willing to play there.

The logical reason why to prefer clubs over diamonds as forcing bid is obvious. It will give you more space to investigate over 2♣ and keep the auction low.

[the hog]

Adam1105, on 2013-November-07, 17:00, said:

Is the 2♦ bid 1) forcing 2) non forcing 3) forcing or non forcing decided by partnership?

---

In standard bridge, 2D would be non forcing. Some posters are adding a convention here - which makes if forcing. However it is important to remember this IS a convention added on by partners. It is NOT part of any standard system. Once opener has limited his hand with a 1NT bid, only reverses and jumps are forcing.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on 2013-November-07, 17:09, said:

After 1x-1y-1N there should be some kind of checking bid. Some people play 'New Minor Forcing', some people play 2♣ checkback, some people play two-way chackback, where 2♣ shows an inviting hand or a signoff in Diamonds and 2♦ is GF. And that's only in the place where I live.

More on "Checkback": Checkback Stayman (the use of 2♣ to ask about opener's holding in responder's major or in an unbid major) was invented in England by Eric Crowhurst. The similar convention "New Minor Forcing" was invented, I think, in North America, and uses an unbid minor (2♣ if both are bid or both unbid) as the checkback bid. Somewhere along the way, Two Way Checkback was invented as an analogue with Two Way Stayman: both 2♣ and 2♦ are used, the former with invitational values, the latter game forcing. Also in the mix is something variously called "XY-NT" or "Two Way NMF" or "Modified Two Way Stayman" (the latter comes afaik from Max Hardy) in which 2♣ is a relay to 2♦ where responder either has an invitational hand or intends to pass 2♦. I suppose there are variations on all these themes, including what people call them (I've heard "Modified Two Way Stayman" called "Two Way Checkback" by some). The "XY-NT" nomenclature probably comes from the extension of the principle to auction where opener rebids a suit at the one level - leading to the convention called "XYZ".

Which of these is "best"? I don't really know. From the standpoint of memory, perhaps XYZ and XY-NT together (I have seen some writers include the NT auctions in what they call "XYZ").

the hog, on 2013-November-07, 18:07, said:

In standard bridge, 2D would be non forcing. Some posters are adding a convention here - which makes if forcing. However it is important to remember this IS a convention added on by partners. It is NOT part of any standard system. Once opener has limited his hand with a 1NT bid, only reverses and jumps are forcing.

"Checkback" (full name "Checkback Stayman") is a very useful convention, but I wouldn't call it "standard". To me, a "standard" is either something explicitly set forth by some authority, so anyone can read it and see what it is, or it's one of those "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it" things. The latter leads to chaos and is to be deprecated IMO. in any case, the closest thing I know of to a "standard" is Alan Truscott's The Bidding Dictionary wherein he defines 2m in the sequence 1♥-1♠-1NT-2m as "suggesting an end to the auction; partner is not barred but usually passes".

[kenberg]

If I play in the acbl indy, I suggest playing SAYC with nmf (New Minor Forcing) and capp (Cappelletti). Neither is part of SAYC so technically 2♦ is not forcing. But almost everyone plays some version of nmf and thinks that it is part of standard bidding, and most expect to be playing capp.

I suppose some might play that 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦ is forcing while 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ is not. I could see some point in that. But I cannot think of a single partnership that plays 2♦ as forcing in either auction. I am not speaking here of Precision players, I don't know their ways.

So: Technically, it is non-forcing unless the partnership agrees to play it as forcing, but I would never pass it playong with a pick-up, and it is forcing with every regular partner I have ever had.


Historical note: New Minor Forcing was once called PLOB, and acronym for Petty Little Odious Bid. Presumably some Goren disciple regarded it as such. Somewhere I think I still have an early edition of Hardy's Five Card Majors (Western Style) where he mentions this.

As to comparing it with 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣, I think most play both as forcing. What the difference is has to be agrees to, w/o discussion I just bid the better of the two minors as my nmf bid. No doubt other methods are better, I just don't bother.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2013-November-07, 19:00, said:

I suppose some might play that 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦ is forcing while 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ is not. I could see some point in that. But I cannot think of a single partnership that plays 2♦ as forcing in either auction.

Both would be forcing for people who play 2-way checkback.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-07, 19:24, said:

Both would be forcing for people who play 2-way checkback.

Certainly. But also for me if I just agree to play nmf. And I would expect that a more or less random pick-up would treat it as forcing.

In Goren it was not forcing, but also, in a less ancient environment, the acbl SAYC booklet
http://web2.acbl.org...gle%20pages.pdf
says, on page 4, that both 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣ and 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦are non-forcing.

in my experience, most pick-ups who suggest playing SAYC regard both sequences as forcing.

More generally the SAYC booklet announces: "However, after a 1NT rebid by opener, bids of a new suit at the next higher level are non-forcing."

So one answer to the OP question is: "In SAYC, as written in the acbl booklet, it is non-forcing."

Another answer is "In my experience, the entire world plays it as forcing".

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2013-November-07, 20:38, said:

Certainly. But also for me if I just agree to play nmf. And I would expect that a more or less random pick-up would treat it as forcing.

Surely not in the second sequence. I thought that when both minors are "new", NMF is 2♣.

Quote

in my experience, most pick-ups who suggest playing SAYC regard both sequences as forcing.
Another answer is "In my experience, the entire world plays it as forcing".

I find your first sentence difficult to believe, and your second as completely untrue, because some players in the entire world play Acol.

[blackshoe]

"Petty little odious bid" (the term) is apparently from a comment Alphonse Moyse made in The Bridge World's "Master Solvers' Club".

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-November-07, 19:00, said:

I suppose some might play that 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦ is forcing while 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ is not. I could see some point in that. But I cannot think of a single partnership that plays 2♦ as forcing in either auction.

Did you mean "in both auctions"? People who play NMF play it as forcing in the first auction, probably not forcing in the second.

[RSClyde]

kenberg, on 2013-November-07, 19:00, said:

I suppose some might play that 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦ is forcing while 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ is not. I could see some point in that. But I cannot think of a single partnership that plays 2♦ as forcing in either auction. I am not speaking here of Precision players, I don't know their ways.

Really? I play that as forcing. It can't be THAT uncommon. I play XYZ so I've got 2 way checkback going in all sorts of auctions like:
1♣ P 1♥ 1♠
X* P ?

and even the same auction with a pass instead of support double. There are ways to play minors too, but you have to play clubs at the 3 level. Otherwise just suck it up and bid/pass 1nt.

[aguahombre]

When the auction is :

1♥-1♠
1NT...All the reasons for 2-way checkback have gone away, if we thought we needed them before.

The responses to 2♣ cover all we need to cover --spade support or not, and further narrowing of the range for the NT rebid. This assumes, of course, that the NT rebid is a NT rebid and not a 2m rebid. It also assumes that Responder would not have bid 1S in the first place with game strength and a longer minor.

[RSClyde]

aguahombre, on 2013-November-11, 21:19, said:

When the auction is :

1♥-1♠
1NT...All the reasons for 2-way checkback have gone away, if we thought we needed them before.

The responses to 2♣ cover all we need to cover --spade support or not, and further narrowing of the range for the NT rebid. This assumes, of course, that the NT rebid is a NT rebid and not a 2m rebid. It also assumes that Responder would not have bid 1S in the first place with game strength and a longer minor.

I agree that if you have a game force and only 4 spades then starting with 1♠ is wrong. But by playing 2♣ as a transfer to 2♦ (or s check back if responder bids again) you can still play 2♦ as a GF. This gains when I want to show an invitational 2 suiter because 3m is invitational, whereas with the forcing hand I want to play that as a slam try. Where's the loss?

[aguahombre]

Yes, if you used 2c as an either/or transfer things would be different. But, if 2C is a true (and the only) checkback, Opener can use 2D as part of the continuation structure. This gives us all we have ever needed, because we have discussed the possible continuations and sign-offs...and we can still play in 2D if appropriate by simply bidding 2D instead of 2C.

BTW: Bidding 1S with only four pieces an game or slam values is only "wrong" IMO when Responder has a longer minor. The 2C checkback structure can handle balanced slammish hands with only four Spades, since Opener's size and shape are quickly set in concrete; all that is needed then is to agree on what is forcing.

[RSClyde]

aguahombre, on 2013-November-12, 10:32, said:

Yes, if you used 2c as an either/or transfer things would be different. But, if 2C is a true (and the only) checkback, Opener can use 2D as part of the continuation structure. This gives us all we have ever needed, because we have discussed the possible continuations and sign-offs...and we can still play in 2D if appropriate by simply bidding 2D instead of 2C.

BTW: Bidding 1S with only four pieces an game or slam values is only "wrong" IMO when Responder has a longer minor. The 2C checkback structure can handle balanced slammish hands with only four Spades, since Opener's size and shape are quickly set in concrete; all that is needed then is to agree on what is forcing.

If you rebid 1nt on a wider variety of shapes as we do, you still need some room to probe.
I can still ask about 3 card spade support by bidding 2♥ over 2♦ to show an invite with 5 spades and bidding 2♠ over 2♦ to show an invite with 6. (2♥ direct over 1nt shows an invite with hearts)

[mike777]

Adam1105, on 2013-November-07, 17:00, said:

Is the 2♦ bid 1) forcing 2) non forcing 3) forcing or non forcing decided by partnership?

---

KISS forcing yes!


You don't ask the more important question...forcing to what?