[Gerben42]

I am wondering how people play sequences like:

(1♦) 1♥ (p) 2♣

and

(1♠) 2♣ (p) 2♥

Is this forcing or not?
What would a jump in a new suit (3-level) be? Natural and (non)forcing, i.e. the other hand, or a fitjump?

Note that I chose two sequences that are not Rubens transfer sequences.

[mikeh]

I play them as forcing and I don't know anyone who doesn't. I'm not stating that to imply that 'no-one plays them non-forcing'...only as a statement that in my relatively limited world, the forcing meaning seems universal.

[awm]

I've seen either forcing or non-forcing constructive around here. Personally I prefer the non-forcing treatment for the first example, since one-level overcalls can be pretty lousy and there are a lot of hands where you'd want to respond in case partner has a maximum but have no real interest in getting higher opposite some random 8-count with decent hearts. I prefer the second example forcing because a two-level overcall promises real values (and a bit narrower range) for me than the one-level bid.

[skjaeran]

Both would be forcing for me.

[gordontd]

I play them as constructive but not forcing. To force, one has first to cue-bid.

At the one-level and the three-level I'd play them as forcing.

A jump in a new suit would be a fit-bid.

[mgoetze]

I would normally assume forcing. I recently played with someone who wanted them to be non-forcing, about 8-11. I wanted to play Robson-Segal. We noticed that this is not really compatible, as there are no forcing bids without a fit left. I would be very happy if someone could propose a solution for this problem, until then I'll prefer forcing.

[Lurpoa]

yes forcing, definitively _ unless a passed hand

2♣ can be a 4card
2♥ is 5 card

a jump in that position is a weak 5 card, prempt and competitive

[Phil]

I've played them forcing for years and found myself passing with good 6 card suits and 7 counts. More recently, I've been playing a jump shift in response to an overcall if 3rd chair does not bid as a good hand but NF, although over a 2 level overcall they can sensibly be used as forcing. This assumes we are at the 3 level and not higher. Playing this way, I think you can play NF or NF/constructive much more comfortably.

Fit jumps are fine, but they are more valuable in competitive auctions. When 3rd chair passes, there is a good chance its our hand.

[Fluffy]

The second one is forcing for me, but my 2 over 1 overcalls are really sound.


The first one I play as non forcing, but my definition is "forcing unless you overcalled with crap". Because it is not totally forcing, 3♣ is now forcing.


About what is standard aroudn me, I think 98% players don't even know. But they will pass the second one often.

[blackshoe]

Non-forcing constructive, for me. I agree with Fluffy, I think a lot of players around here haven't actually thought about it.

[gnasher]

I play new suits as forcing and jump new suits as fit. I'm sure that fit jumps are right, and I'm sure that opposite a two-level overcall new suits should be forcing.

Facing a one-level overcall, I think there's a good case for playing new suits as non-forcing. You almost never have a hand that wants to insist on game opposite a simple overcall. If I did have such a hand, I could live with having to guess which game to play in, treat a doubleton as support, or risk a non-forcing new-suit bid.

[Siegmund]

NF constructive for me.

I can't recall a partner who explicitly discussed the difference between these two sequences (after a 1-level overcall vs. after a 2-level overcall), incidentally -- in the case of your first auction, NFC has been nearly universal when I've filled out a card at a partnership desk.

With my regular partner the jump shift is a fit bid, but I wouldn't assume that without discussion.

[andy_h]

I play 1/1 is forcing, 2/1 is NF but constructive, 2/2 etc are forcing. Although I'm starting to like 3/1 as forcing when 3rd hand has passed since it's very useful when it comes up and doesn't create awkward auctions if I have to start with a cue-bid with LHO bidding again. It just means I'm giving up FSJ when I can just put those hands in one of my raises.

[P_Marlowe]

NF, but NF does not mean crap.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

I have always played (1♦) 1♥ (p) 2♣ as non-forcing. The 1♠ shows some spades and some values, the 2♣ shows a hand that is more or less worthy of a 2♣ bid even if partner had not come in. Such hands come up fairly often and I would not want to give up this natural meaning.

By default, I treat (1♦) 2♣ (p) 2♥ as non-forcing and this seems to be the way it is usually intended. I am far from certain that this is best. I think that somewhere in Mike Lawrence's Complete Book of Overcalls (and I believe he has an update that I haven't bought) he prefers forcing but accepts that most people play it as non-forcing. Maybe I'll get the update for myself as a Christmas present.

[han]

I play both as NF and the jump is forcing. Playing the first auction as forcing strikes me as odd unless you play sound overcalls.

[han]

 mgoetze, on 2010-December-01, 13:30, said:

I would normally assume forcing. I recently played with someone who wanted them to be non-forcing, about 8-11. I wanted to play Robson-Segal. We noticed that this is not really compatible, as there are no forcing bids without a fit left. I would be very happy if someone could propose a solution for this problem, until then I'll prefer forcing.

Proposed solution: don't play Robson Segal.

I think that the bridgematters website has a nice interview with Eric Rodwell. I couldn't say it any better than he did.

[mgoetze]

 han, on 2010-December-02, 07:47, said:

Proposed solution: don't play Robson Segal.

Thanks Han, that sure helped.

Anyway, I understand from your other post that you forgo fit jumps in these auctions. How do you define 2NT?

[fromageGB]

For me it's definitely forcing if I haven't passed. I have no other method of making a forcing bid, as a cue bid would be a transfer.

For others around here I think it is a mixture of all three - forcing, non-forcing, and no agreement. Just recently the opponents' bidding stopped in a making partscore, with a good fit and game values, because responder thought it was forcing and opener didn't. Unfortunately for me, the game unavoidably goes off with wasted values, finesses wrong.

[mgoetze]

 han, on 2010-December-02, 07:47, said:

Proposed solution: don't play Robson Segal.

I think that the bridgematters website has a nice interview with Eric Rodwell. I couldn't say it any better than he did.

Well, I reread the interview (it's been a year or so), but I don't feel enlightened.

Quote

BridgeMatters: Negative Free Bids in competitive auctions—do you like them in standard or just with a strong club base?

Eric Rodwell: It is something that I only play with a couple of partners. It is difficult to play because you have a lot of trouble clarifying the better hands. If you just put everything in an omnibus multi-meaning negative double, and then have the eventual three level jump raise by the opponents, you are just going to have terrible trouble sorting it out. Playing standard, I definitely don’t like them. I just want to be able to make my forcing free bid. The only time I play them is playing a strong club system where my partner’s hand is limited. As for . . . Negative Free Bids, I recommend not using them.

So basically I should only play NFBs in conjunction with a strong club or the like. But what are the ". . ." NFBs he recommends not using?