[kenrexford]

Two auctions seem to have strange "expert standard" understandings, apparently. They just seem insane to me.

Auction #1:

1♣-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♥???

If this sequence forcing? Or, would Responder always go through 2♦ with a hand that would force ghame, such that 2♥ is passable?

Auction #2:

1♣-P-1♥-(1♠)
2♣-P-2♦???

Same general question -- is 2♦ forcing, or would any GF hand with hearts and diamonds go through 2♠?

For both of these, assume Responder could jump to show 5-5 GF.

[mich-b]

kenrexford, on Jun 5 2010, 10:39 PM, said:

Two auctions seem to have strange "expert standard" understandings, apparently.  They just seem insane to me.

Auction #1:

1♣-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♥???

If this sequence forcing?  Or, would Responder always go through 2♦ with a hand that would force ghame, such that 2♥ is passable?.

2♥ is forcing (1 round) , with 4+ ♥s
2♦ is forcing without 4♥s.
I know some experts play a nf 2♥ here, but I don't think it is standard.

kenrexford, on Jun 5 2010, 10:39 PM, said:

Auction #2:

1♣-P-1♥-(1♠)
2♣-P-2♦???

Same general question -- is 2♦ forcing, or would any GF hand with hearts and diamonds go through 2♠?

For both of these, assume Responder could jump to show 5-5 GF.

2♦ is natural and NF.
Strong hands can choose between a GF 2♠, a double (if they can stand a penalty pass) or 3♦.
Edit : Sorry, misread the auction as
1♣-P-1♥-(1♠)
P-P-2♦???
With the original auction 2 , 2♦ for me is F1.

[mike777]

I guess we might need discussion.



2h=natural and nf

here I assume 2d would be art and 100% game force




-----------


example two....2d=art and 100% gf.

here I just assume 2d=art and 100% game force.
-----------


I note 100% the opp of the post above me.

[barmar]

Standard is that a new suit by an unpassed responder is a natural 1-round force.

[whereagles]

seems like we have different standards... I learned it was NF lol

Still, you can play it both ways. I prefer ken's way #2.

1m 1M
2m 1st step = F1

[CarlRitner]

barmar, on Jun 6 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Standard is that a new suit by an unpassed responder is a natural 1-round force.

That's what I learned (uncontested auction #1). F-1.

Example #2 is NF.

That seems pretty foundational.

[Bbradley62]

Carl, on Jun 6 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 6 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Standard is that a new suit by an unpassed responder is a natural 1-round force.

That's what I learned (uncontested auction #1). F-1.

Example #2 is NF.

That seems pretty foundational.

This in an inaccurate generalization. The auction 1m-1S-1N-2H is non-forcing, with responder showing 5S and 4H and asking opener to sign off at the 2 level. With an invitational hand (or better), responder uses New Minor Forcing, allowing opener to reveal a possible 4-4 H fit as part of investigating game.

OP is asking about "expert standard", and I don't claim to know anything about that, so I'll leave that conversation to the experts.

[Free]

For me both are forcing. Not sure if this is expert standard...

First one is obviously forcing since I play reversed Flannery. It's pretty popular these days, so I guess most play 2♥ here as forcing.

Second one is less obvious. If opener has long ♣ and responder has a misfit, he better passes instead of looking for a better contract. Obviously 2♦ is forcing if there's no intervention. With the intervention however you may find reasons to make it NF, like opener probably doesn't have a 3 card support. Still I think you've found a playable part score, so why risk it by bidding to another part score? That's why I play this as forcing, although I'm not claiming that this is the best approach.

[kenrexford]

Free, on Jun 7 2010, 03:31 AM, said:

For me both are forcing.  Not sure if this is expert standard...

First one is obviously forcing since I play reversed Flannery.  It's pretty popular these days, so I guess most play 2♥ here as forcing.

Second one is less obvious.  If opener has long ♣ and responder has a misfit, he better passes instead of looking for a better contract.  Obviously 2♦ is forcing if there's no intervention.  With the intervention however you may find reasons to make it NF, like opener probably doesn't have a 3 card support.  Still I think you've found a playable part score, so why risk it by bidding to another part score?  That's why I play this as forcing, although I'm not claiming that this is the best approach. 

♠Qxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxxxx ♣--?
♠Qxx ♥Kxxxx ♦Q10xxx ♣--?
♠Qxx ♥Kxxx ♦Q10xxxx ♣--?

When there is no spade raise, Responder having spades seems reasonably likely.

Not that this answers anything, but "we found a playable spot" seems to be an overbid.

[Free]

Opener will not have a lousy 6 card ♣ since he can pass. So he either has a good 6 card or at least a 7 card ♣. If opener has some ♠s with that as well, how big is the chance of him having 3 ♦s? If he doesn't, the opps will probably bid 2♠ (direct or after a Dbl).

In both cases it's probably a reasonable spot and there are no guarantees we won't make thing worse by bidding. If you get Doubled in 2♣ you can still run to 2♦ and hope for the best. I admit that it's definitely possible 2♦ is a better spot, we just don't know.

If you play 2♦ as NF, I'd definitely suggest you treat it as longer ♦, to avoid opener bidding 2♥ on 2-2 in the reds.

[CarlRitner]

Bbradley62, on Jun 7 2010, 12:44 AM, said:

Carl, on Jun 6 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 6 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Standard is that a new suit by an unpassed responder is a natural 1-round force.

That's what I learned (uncontested auction #1). F-1.

Example #2 is NF.

That seems pretty foundational.

This in an inaccurate generalization. The auction 1m-1S-1N-2H is non-forcing, with responder showing 5S and 4H and asking opener to sign off at the 2 level. With an invitational hand (or better), responder uses New Minor Forcing, allowing opener to reveal a possible 4-4 H fit as part of investigating game.

I'm sorry, I missed the notrump bid in the example shown.

I looked up what I thought was the original example in The Bidding Dictionary afterward, and that still says forcing.

I think I am going to stick with reading my books.

[pirate22]

The responer to the opening bid is using low level transfers. the latest style,and the rebid by opener shows the quality,so not forcing according to the openers rebid

[awm]

I think the standard is that a new suit by responder is forcing one round. There are a few exceptions:

1 Opener has rebid 1nt. Now responder must jump or reverse to force (although nmf is a common convention)

2 Responder is a passed hand

3 Responder made a prior non-forcing call

4 Responder's bid is at the game level

5 Opener passed the opponents' one-level overcall (basically implies a weak nt so really same as number 1)

I would say that both the given sequences are forcing in standard (obviously one could agree otherwise)