[Brandal]

Rebound, on Apr 24 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 24 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

New suit by unpassed hand is always forcing.

Roland

I consider this to be so fundamental to standard bidding that I'm surprised it even came up for discussion.

But then, I once had a pickup partner pass after this uncontested auction: 1♥-2♥-2♠ so go figure. I know it's not the same thing, but it shows no matter how many millions of people there are who would consider this a forcing bid, you can always find one exception lol.

I'm not surprised by anything anymore,
since I've been visiting myhands traveller
from tournaments I've played in.......

On almost every board played by say 40 tables,
there are at least 20 different contracts,usually
stretching from about 1000 to -1000 or so.

[the hog]

Despite what some posters have said Brandal, the sequence:
1D 1S 2D 2H is NOT forcing in traditional Acol. To be honest however, I do not know of many people who still play this as nf. (I do know of some). It does seem like trying to stop on the head of a pin. Most Acol players today would play this as forcing, certainly most tournament players would do so.

[HeartA]

Brandal, on Apr 24 2005, 09:59 AM, said:

Would it be fair to say 4th suit is gameforce,3rd suit is
roundforce?

Or is that wrong,based on what you guys say?

yep.

[Fluffy]

Around here most people play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ non forcing, and 2♦ as anything. But besides that new suits (unless 1NT rebid) are forcing.

[helene_t]

2♥ here should just be a relay. You can play negative relays here if you want, so that a raise to 3♦ would be forcing.

And opener shouldn't rebid his 5-card diamonds. If this hand is not within the 1NT-interval, he should rebid 1NT, otherwise open 1NT.

If you don't play relays, it makes some sense to play this as non-forcing in Acol since opener is slightly more likely to rebid 5-cards than in strong-NT systems. But in any natural strong-NT system, 2♥ should be forcing. I think the confusion in Scandinavia and Netherlands is related to the fact that some 40 years ago we took over the English Acol system, changed from weak NT to strong NT, and forgot to change the rest of the system accordingly.

When teaching Dutch Acol to beginners, teachers contradict each other about this issue. I've even seen in the Dutch BF magazine "Bridge" the advise to beginners that responder's second bid should be defined differently at IMPs and at matchpoints. Incredible.

[Brandal]

Fluffy, on Apr 24 2005, 08:56 PM, said:

Around here most people play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ non forcing, and 2♦ as anything. But besides that new suits (unless 1NT rebid) are forcing.

I play 4 card openings,and 5 card S,so unless 4S-3-3-3
I open 1C with 4,does that have a bearing on the case?

I mean,since 1c-1s-2c-2h can be nonforcing,why not
1d-1s-2d-2h?

To my recollection,I've "never" been sitting playing on the
2 level with obvious gamestrong cards,so I must be doing
SOMETHING right.......right?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

it is forcing for one round, altough it may
not show hearts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Brandal]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 25 2005, 03:43 AM, said:

Hi,

it is forcing for one round, altough it may
not show hearts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Opener can have 4 hearts,how do you find heartfit
if responders 2h in this scenario doesn't necessarily
show hearts?

And is 1D-1S-1NT-2H any different?
Still not necessarily have hearts,roundforce?

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Apr 24 2005, 07:19 PM, said:

Despite what some posters have said Brandal, the sequence:
1D 1S 2D 2H is NOT forcing in traditional Acol. To be honest however, I do not know of many people who still play this as nf. (I do know of some). It does seem like trying to stop on the head of a pin. Most Acol players today would play this as forcing, certainly most tournament players would do so.

Back in 77-78 when I learned bridge,we learned Goren,
I then played precision for several years when I had a
regular partner and we played in tournaments here,in
the early 80's.

I recall having a book on Acol,but never liked those strong
2 openings,never seemed to get them

[P_Marlowe]

Brandal, on Apr 25 2005, 03:55 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 25 2005, 03:43 AM, said:

Hi,

it is forcing for one round, altough it may
not show hearts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Opener can have 4 hearts,how do you find heartfit
if responders 2h in this scenario doesn't necessarily
show hearts?

And is 1D-1S-1NT-2H any different?
Still not necessarily have hearts,roundforce?

Hi,

I play 3rd suit forcing.

The scenario A

1D - 1S
2D - 2H

is slightly different from scenario B

1D - 1S
1NT - 2H

playing 3rd suit forcing.

The meaning of 2H in scenario A, is
similar to the meaning of 2D in the
NMF sequence

1C - 1S
2C - 2D

i.e. 2H asks for 3 card support in spade,
stopper in hearts, minimum maximum,
and also about a 4 card heart suit,
but only in cases were opener holds a
maximum.

Sometimes you will loose a 4-4 fit in hearts,
but only in cases were opener has a mimimum
opening.

In scenario B 2H is nonforcing and shows at least
5-4 in the mayors.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

100% Forcing.

Suppose you have
♠KQxxx
♥KJxx
♦x
♣xxx

Now after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ you might improve your contract by bidding a NF 2♥ but usually you just get overboard. Pass.

[pclayton]

Gerben42, on Apr 25 2005, 01:29 AM, said:

100% Forcing.

Suppose you have
♠KQxxx
♥KJxx
♦x
♣xxx

Now after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ you might improve your contract by bidding a NF 2♥ but usually you just get overboard. Pass.

And the reason people play it as non-forcing is when Opener has to rebid 2♣ on:

x
AQxx
xx
AQxxxx

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Apr 25 2005, 09:25 AM, said:

And the reason people play it as non-forcing is when Opener has to rebid 2♣ on:

x
AQxx
xx
AQxxxx

Yes, on some occasions, you could improve contracts by biddig (non-forcing) 2♥. In most cases, you will find pd has no fit for your majors and you get over-board. Besides, when you pass pd's 2♣/2♦, opps might decide to balance, probably 2♥.

The principal is, when you don't have strength for game, don't try to improve contracts with a unfit hand. Stop ASAP. Save the (new suit) bidding for stronger hands.

[han]

I have played this both as forcing and non-forcing. Currently I play it as forcing (and potentially artificial), and we play reverse Flannery. When we played it as non-forcing, we played 1m-1S-2m-2NT as forcing, and used it to show GF 5-4 hands. With GF 5-5 we used to bid 3H immediately.

Without discussion I would always assume that a new suit by responder is forcing.

[Fluffy]

Brandal, on Apr 25 2005, 08:41 AM, said:

I mean,since 1c-1s-2c-2h can be nonforcing,why not
1d-1s-2d-2h?

Because 1♠ bidder is unnlimited, and having the cheapest voice as a forcing one keeps the bidding open to exchange more info, while the winning of being able to bid 2♥ to play it is not very good.

So what I mena is the ratio of having a strong hand with 3+♥ is much more than having 5♠-4♥ and a weak hand, also the gaining from having the bid you need is higher for the forcing one.


With one partner I play 1m-2♥ as 4♥+5♠ 6-9 so it has even less sense to me .

[joker_gib]

With a pick up partner I woud consider it F1 round as this is a new suit !

In my system :

F1 round !

Same as 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦ F1 round

NF bids are :

1♣ - 2♦ = 5♥+4♦+ NF
1♦ - 2♥ = 5♠ + 4♥+ NF

Alain

[Winstonm]

I wonder if there is any value in playing canape' responses in this one precise sequence? That would allow both forcing and non-forcing rebids without introducing an artificial aspect to the bidding.

WinstonM

[adf]

My regular partner and I play nonforcing here, but I would expect forcing with an unknown partner. However, it rarely comes up. I'm not worried about getting too high with a GF hand, even after 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣. After opener's third bid, I should be able to place the contract. Also, even if a 5=4=1=3 might not improve the contact with a 2♥ bid, I expect that a 5=5=1=2 would. Anyone care to run a simulation?

[Brandal]

adf, on May 1 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

My regular partner and I play nonforcing here, but I would expect forcing with an unknown partner.

This was my point,the opps who did this,clearly was
if not unknown,then didn't have enough playing together
to iron out all aspects of a system.

So even if a couple of people replying laugh at us for
considering it nonforcing,it can also be a matter of
agreement within a regular partnership.

I agree with those saying with pickup partner it needs
to be roundforce.

Everything in bridge has its pros and cons,what matters
is finding a way for MY partnership(s) that works ok.

I think the main issue is frequency,how often would I like
to bid a NF 2H,how often do I wish 2H was RF....