[han]

Bridge World Standard version 2001 offers the following explanation:

Quote

A simple new-suit response over an overcall is forcing (by an unpassed hand). If at the two level, it is forcing to the next level of opener’s suit.

What is meant here by "next level"?

Take for instance the auction 1S-(2C)-2D, is this forcing to 2S or 3S? Or the auction 1C-(1S)-2H, is this forcing to 3C or 4C?

As an example, you hold xx AKx KJxxx xxx. And the bidding goes 1S-(2C) to you. Would you bid 2D? If you do, which of partner's follow-ups below game would be non-forcing (e.g. 2H, 2S, 2NT, 3D).

[Chamaco]

I suppose this means something like that:

In an UNCONTESTED auction, 1H-(p)-2D, 2D promises a rebid even if opener rebids 2H which would be forcing 1 round;

In a CONTESTED auction, 1H-(1S)-2D, now if opener rebids 2S, it is nonforcing, it can be passed, different from the uncontested case.

[mike777]

Hannie, on Apr 16 2005, 11:51 AM, said:

Bridge World Standard version 2001 offers the following explanation:

Quote

A simple new-suit response over an overcall is forcing (by an unpassed hand). If at the two level, it is forcing to the next level of opener’s suit.

What is meant here by "next level"?

Take for instance the auction 1S-(2C)-2D, is this forcing to 2S or 3S? Or the auction 1C-(1S)-2H, is this forcing to 3C or 4C?

As an example, you hold xx AKx KJxxx xxx. And the bidding goes 1S-(2C) to you. Would you bid 2D? If you do, which of partner's follow-ups below game would be non-forcing (e.g. 2H, 2S, 2NT, 3D).

Great Questions.

With given hand I would X and pass most responses, raise D.

[han]

Mike,

That's what my friend did when holding this hand too (he wasn't playing with me at the time). I told him that I thought double was really wrong, and that bidding 2D directly is much better. His argument was that 2D forces the bidding to a high level, but I don't believe that.

Interesting that you share his opinion.

[LH2650]

Hannie, on Apr 16 2005, 11:51 AM, said:

What is meant here by "next level"?

Take for instance the auction 1S-(2C)-2D, is this forcing to 2S or 3S? Or the auction 1C-(1S)-2H, is this forcing to 3C or 4C?

The literal interpretation of the wording is that your first auction is forcing to 3 spades, and your second is forcing to 3 clubs. This is strange, since in the absence of interference, you could get out at 3 diamonds in the first auction.

Note that this is the SAYC and 2/1 Forum. In SAYC, I believe that these bids have the same implications as they would without interference. Therefore the first would be nonforcing if opener rebid 2N or 3D. If opener rebid 2H, then he could pass your 2S continuation.

[Fluffy]

It measn 1♠-2♥-3♣ is forcing untill 3♠.

It meanst 1♠-2♣-2♥ is only forcing for partner .

[mike777]

Hannie, on Apr 16 2005, 02:14 PM, said:

Mike,

That's what my friend did when holding this hand too (he wasn't playing with me at the time). I told him that I thought double was really wrong, and that bidding 2D directly is much better. His argument was that 2D forces the bidding to a high level, but I don't believe that.

Interesting that you share his opinion.

Most often in BWS a bid of Double or cuebid wins the postmortem at the bar and most points in the magazine as I can explain how it shows my hand perfectly.