[awm]

Suppose you sit down with a pickup partner and agree to play standard bidding. Which of these auctions would you consider forcing:

1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠

1♠-2♦-2♠

1♠-2♦-2NT

1♠-2♦-3♦

1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠

1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠

1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠

1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣

1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣

Hopefully we all have answers to these with our regular partners. But I'm more interested in what people consider to be standard.

[HeartA]

1♦-(2♣)-2♠: forcing
1♠-2♦-2♠: forcing
1♠-2♦-2NT: non-forcing
1♠-2♦-3♦: forcing
1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠: forcing
1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠: non-forcing (invitational)
1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠: non-forcing (invitational)
1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣: forcing
1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣: forcing

[olegru]

Afraid I don't know what is standard too good.
Too much difference with previouse answer.

1♦-(2♣)-2♠: forcing (with regular partner non-forsing )
1♠-2♦-2♠: nonforcing (with regular partner forsing )
1♠-2♦-2NT: non-forcing
1♠-2♦-3♦: non-forcing (with regular partner forsing )
1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠: forcing
1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠: non-forcing (invitational)
1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠: forsing (with regular partner invitational)
1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣: non-forcing (with regular partner forsing round)
1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣: invitational

[inquiry]

Some of you clealry seem to know standard... :-) For the rest of you, I repeat the right answers give above.
Forcing
1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠
1♠-2♦-2♠ (after 2/1 responder promises a 2nd bid)
1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠ (2D showed nice hand, 3S now forcing, 2S would be good but not forcing)
1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣
1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣ (Garbage stayman? Not in standard)

Not forcing
1♠-2♦-2NT
1♠-2♦-3♦
1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠
1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠ (didn't use 4th suit forcing)

[Gerben42]

Wow, thanks for this update, I would have gotten several wrong, especially I play most of them the other way around anyway.

[HeartA]

inquiry, on Apr 13 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

Some of  you clealry seem to know standard... :-)  For the rest of you, I repeat the right answers give above.
Forcing
1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠
1♠-2♦-2♠ (after 2/1 responder promises a 2nd bid)
1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠ (2D showed nice hand, 3S now forcing, 2S would be good but not forcing)
1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣
1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣ (Garbage stayman? Not in standard)

Not forcing
1♠-2♦-2NT
1♠-2♦-3♦
1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠
1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠ (didn't use 4th suit forcing)

Though I am not sure of the real "standard", I don't agree with Ben's treatment. First of all, after 2/1 response and with a fit (major or minor), the bid should force to at least 3 of the major or 4 of the minor. If one takes 1S-2D-2H-2S as 5-2 "fit", I don't agree either. Without a real fit, 2/1 responder should bid 2NT or 3D, none of which are forcing. Similarly, after 1S-2D-3D, it should be forced to 3NT or 4D.

In the sequence 1S-2D-2H-3S, responder has 10-11 hcp with 3-card support for S, inviting game. While 1S-2D-2H-2S, responder set the trump for early slam trial (slow arrival).

[luke warm]

i'd play 3 and 4 as forcing, the rest not

[Chamaco]

Quote

1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠

Forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit.

Quote

1♠-2♦-2♠

Forcing 1R.

Quote

1♠-2♦-2NT

Nonforcing in "standard".

Quote

1♠-2♦-3♦

Nonforcing in "standard".

Quote

1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠

Nonforcing

Quote

1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠

Nonforcing

Quote

1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠

Nonforcing.
There is a point of playing it forcing if not using strong jumpshifts.

Quote

1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣

Forcing in standard.
There is a point in using such sequences as invitational only, but then one needs a tool for responder's slamgoing hands with a 5 card major, such as specific Stayman developments which are definitely not standard.

Quote

1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣

This should be a "Raptor hand" = 4S and longer clubs.
It is forcing to game, with a hand better suited for play in a suit, often a slam try.

[helene_t]

Just in case you run into a Dutch pick-up:
1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠ Ooops there's 50% chance this is forcing. Default Biedermeijer is that two of a suit ranking higher than the opening suit is the only non-forcing freebid.
1♠-2♦-2♠ Most would say non-forcing (which is one of the most disgusting aspects of Biedermeijer IMHO). Make sure you agree to play 2/1 always GF to avoid this kind of misunderstandings.
1♠-2♦-2NT Nonforcing
1♠-2♦-3♦ Forcing but that's a new development so not everybody knows it.
1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠ Non-forcing.
1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠ Slam invite. We play principle of fast arrival so this must be stronger than 4♠
1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠ Non-forcing (the requirement for a SJS are looser in NL than in USA so responder tends not to have a GF hand with a 6-card major).
1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣ GF. Some would even say slam invite. My teacher prefered to play this as a one round force, but that's a minority opinion.
1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣ Invitational is classic but I think most would say forcing. I'm not sure, though.

[joker_gib]

In french standard !

1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠

Forcing

1♠-2♦-2♠

Forcing because responder promises a 2nd bid

1♠-2♦-2NT

Forcing because 2♦ is 11+ and 2NT is 14+. 2♠ would be min

1♠-2♦-3♦

Forcing (again, 2♠ would be min)

1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠

Non Forcing

1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠

Forcing, slam invite (some play as invitational)

1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠

Non Forcing (6♠ - 10-12)

1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣

Forcing game

1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣

Forcing game

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Apr 14 2005, 03:47 AM, said:

1♠-2♦-3♦ Forcing but that's a new development

I am lost. Forcing?? What do you want me to rebid on

A10974
7
KQ105
Q72

after

1♠ - 2♦
??

Am I not allowed to support diamonds? Why would I want to force if partner responded 2♦ on

83
K974
AJ943
K84

3♦ is where we belong, so do you really mean that the system forces us to get overboard because I can't make a single raise to show a minimum? Change that system immediately is my advice!

Roland

[Free]

Belgian standard:

1♦-(2♣ overcall)-2♠
Not forcing

1♠-2♦-2♠
Not forcing (I disagree, but most play it this way)

1♠-2♦-2NT
Not forcing

1♠-2♦-3♦
Not forcing

1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠
Not forcing

1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠
GF, slam try

1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠
Not forcing

1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣
Forcing 1 round

1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣
GF

[whereagles]

Roland, in French standard, you bid the 11 hcp 5-4 hand as

1♠ 2♦
2♠ ...
3♦

Pard probably won't pass 2♠, so you'll get the chance to support diams later having shown a min already. A direct 3♦ would be game forcing and would show a med or max hand.

Note: contrary to what joker_gib said, I'm not sure 2♠ is forcing in French standard. I think responder is allowed to pass 2♠ with 10 or a bad 11, especially with a residual fit for spades, e.g.

xxx
Qxx
AKxxx
Jx

This one is definitely worth a (non GF) 2/1 response but probably should pass a 2♠, since that shows at the very best 14 hcp.

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Apr 14 2005, 10:58 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 14 2005, 03:47 AM, said:

1♠-2♦-3♦ Forcing but that's a new development

I am lost. Forcing?? What do you want me to rebid on

A10974
7
KQ105
Q72

after

1♠ - 2♦
??

Either you open 2♠ (Muiderberg), or you rebid either 2♠ or 3♦ and hope for the best. Or, more likely, you throw your system book in the trash can. Btw, playing 3♦ as non-forcing is not better since you would get rebid problems with some slightly stronger hands.

[Gerben42]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ is a "need to discuss" anyway, I would never try this one without agreement, as it could mean:

* NF with ♣
* F with ♣
* Some kind of convention (probably not without agreement but the first two are bad enough)

AK1097
7
KQ105
Q72

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

I can't support ♦ now because that's not forcing?! Aaargh! Guess nothing is perfect, and guess that is why playing 2/1 GF works so well.

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠ - Pass
This is a typical death trap and why you should play weak jump shifts. Then 3♠ is forcing and 2♠ instead of 3♠ is invitational. A Sayc hand for this auction would look something like this.

---

This might make but probably won't. As an added bonus you have to tell opps it's invitational and they will be happy to double you if the trumps are not breaking.

I think 2-level WJS should be part of the standard teaching system because it is a general concept of taking away space with a weak, well-described hand, whereas with strong jump shifts you take space from yourself. I'm sure strong jump shifts work well for slam bidding when they come up, but for most players:

a) when they finally come up you will have forgotten the followup auction
slam bidding is rare
c) going down in a 3-level 6-1 fit is not fun

[joker_gib]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2005, 04:18 AM, said:

Note: contrary to what joker_gib said, I'm not sure 2♠ is forcing in French standard. I think responder is allowed to pass 2♠ with 10 or a bad 11, especially with a residual fit for spades, e.g.

By making a 2 over 1 response, the responder always promises a 2nd bid so, no, he's not allowed to pass !!

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

in a pickup partnership, I would assume most of your Seqeunces
as non forcing. Especially I would not assume, that a 2/1 bid
promises another bid. From this follows, that several of your seq.
are nonforcing.

That's standard, at least that's was it one or two years ago,
when I was more often online than nowadays, but the community
does not change so fast. And my last visits to BBO did not
contradict this view.

I know, that a 2/1 bid promises another bid, but I would not be
surpriesed if my unknown
partner passes, the self rating, the list of fancy conventions,
and the list of systems give no clue about this central point.

The only seq. I would assume as forcing is your 2nd last,
responder makes a transfer bid and bids a new suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[HeartA]

Walddk, on Apr 14 2005, 03:58 AM, said:

I am lost. Forcing?? What do you want me to rebid on

A10974
7
KQ105
Q72

after

1♠ - 2♦
??

Am I not allowed to support diamonds? Why would I want to force if partner responded 2♦ on

83
K974
AJ943
K84

3♦ is where we belong, so do you really mean that the system forces us to get overboard because I can't make a single raise to show a minimum? Change that system immediately is my advice!

Roland

Since we are talking about "standard", ♠AT974,♥7,♦KQT5,♣Q72 is not qualified for opening.