[ardf10987]

Need a little help. In BBO, with an occasional p and w/o specific agreement, ops always silent, what do you think about... 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠. It's forcing or not?

[toothbrush]

NF

[Free]

NF, partner reversed, but you have a weak hand with lots of ♠s.

[goodwintr]

Doesn't opener's reverse promise that he will bid once more? Responder might have a weak hand with a fistful of spades; but he might also have a good hand with five or more spades. Most people have a way for responder to show a "negative" hand, which might include bidding 2S with five or more in the suit, and then passing if opener next bids 3D.

[Double !]

non-negotiable
2 Spades is absolutely forcing. because,
reverser promises a rebid (or else don't reverse) and, therefore, 2S does not guarantee a minimum response. It simply shows 5+ spades.

DHL

[whereagles]

Absolutely forcing or non-forcing, depending on what you agreed

[FrancesHinden]

Traditional methods in England are that 2S is non-forcing.
Opener's reverse shows extra values but not a game force.

Many people now play 2S as forcing, but that isn't standard.

[temp3600]

After such a reverse, I would take any bid by responder below game as forcing at least one round.

[mikeh]

There are (at least) two schools of thought in NA re the power shown by a reverse. One school would reverse with a decent 16 count: the other (to which I belong) plays the reverse as stronger: if I held a 16 count on this auction, it would be a very good 3=4=5=1 or so.

IMHO, 2♠ should be forcing. I appreciate that the UK style may be (or maybe 'used to be') that such a bid is non-forcing, but that style, to me, means that responder, with good ♠'s and enough to gf, must consume valuable bidding space in our constructive auctions.

In the NA style, no matter which school you belong to re reverses, I think the reverse promises another bid. It is that promise, rather than the meaning of responder's bid, that makes 2♠ forcing.

This is one little-discussed argument for playing weak jump shift responses: in that style, you have no qualms about using this sequence as a force anyway.

[mghmaine]

I read this thread some hours ago and what was interesting to me is that there was such difference of opinion on this subject, One would think that bidding over reverses would be a rather elementary subject, but here we have a relatively even split on the forcing/non-forcing question. It makes one (me) wonder if what one has been doing is standard or not.

There are conventions to deal with bidding after reverses. New York expert Monroe Ingberman long ago established a convention now known as Ingberman, which is available in BBO System Notes. Ingberman was attempting to deal with the problem that a reverse opposite 6-7 hcp simply lacked the power to force to game. That this was a problem suggests that, absent/prior to this convention, there was no way to stop short of game after a reverse.

A similar convention is known as Lebensohl Over Reverses. This is commonly described as a convention to allow the partnership to stop short of game after a reverse. That wording also suggests that the problem was no way to pass.

Note that BBO System uses Ingberman and defines 2♠ as absolutely forcing. Right or wrong, I use Ingberman and allow it to be passed by a minimum non-fitting reverser. This has caused no conflicts. I note that Monroe Ingberman played responder's suit rebid as "semi-forcing" (meaning non-forcing), allowing passes only by a min non-fitter.

In my partnership, 1m-2M is a strong J/S. If you play weak J/Ss you will hate it when partner has a non-fitting reverse, but it may change the way you want to play a 2♠ rebid in the example sequence, as a weak 6-carder may have been eliminated.

[awm]

My impression is that this is one of many areas where the standards are changing. In "old-style" bridge, there were very few forcing bids. The basic rules were:

A new suit bid by (unpassed hand) responder is forcing
A jump in a new suit after our side opens is forcing to game
A reverse is forcing for one round
An opening 2♣ is of course forcing
Other bids are normally not forcing

Under these rules, after a reverse basically the only way to force is to bid the fourth suit. So a rebid of 2♠, or a 2NT call, or 3♣ or 3♥ would all be non-forcing. A jump to 3♠ is forcing because all jumps show extras and the reverse promises "just short of game values."

These "old-style" rules also have implications like 1♠-2♣-2♠ being non-forcing.

The modern trend has been to play more and more forcing bids, to allow our side to get a detailed picture of partner's shape without fear of being dropped in the wrong contract. This bidding style has many advantages (especially for slam bidding and finding the best game) and a few disadvantages (it's harder to stop in a low-level partscore on misfit hands). This creates a situation where "standard practice" which is based on systems defined many years ago and only rarely changed (including things like acol and standard american) tends to be very different from what one would assume opposite an expert partner with minimum discussion (this is something more like bridge world standard or BBO advanced).

So in this situation, virtually all experts circa 1950 probably played 2♠ as not forcing. Standard systems defined in that era define it as not forcing. But if you look at expert partnerships based on a natural style today, probably over 90% of them will play 2♠ as a one round force (and also probably using some form of ingberman or lebensohl for signoff-oriented hands). If you sit down opposite a good player and agree to play "2/1" without discussion, it's a good bet 2♠ is forcing.

These sorts of changes happen naturally over time and are not necessarily a bad thing. For example, it used to be that most people played 16-18 notrumps, but now (if undiscussed) I would assume a 15-17 opening range. It used to be that 1NT-2♥ was to play, and then as transfers became popular people started to ask partner "do you play transfers," and now it's reached the point where if you agree "standard bidding" or even don't bother to make an agreement, you will normally assume a jacoby transfer.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

matter of partnership agreement, main question:
Is the reverse already forcing to game?

For me: NF, non-negotiable to cite another poster .
Why should I be forced to play on the 3 level with no fit
and with a bare minimum, and you will play on the 3 level,
because 2NT will be artificial.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MickyB]

awm, on Jan 8 2006, 10:22 PM, said:

My impression is that this is one of many areas where the standards are changing. In "old-style" bridge, there were very few forcing bids. The basic rules were:

A new suit bid by (unpassed hand) responder is forcing
A jump in a new suit after our side opens is forcing to game
A reverse is forcing for one round
An opening 2♣ is of course forcing
Other bids are normally not forcing

In the US maybe, in the UK the first three rules didn't apply...and still don't for average club player!

[Stephen Tu]

Bridge World Standard, it's forcing. I would assume forcing with an American expert, if undiscussed.

SAYC notes are silent on the subject, so nothing can be assumed there.

Online, no discussion I don't assume anything; with a strong hand with spades I'd bid something else, and as opener I wouldn't ever pass.

[Winstonm]

It's forcing to me although Roland would dispute this and prove me wrong - again.
However, I still don't see the point in showing a powerful hand just so I can put on the brakes at exactly 2S when it happens to be right - I'll take my chances at a higher contract which gives this 2S bid more flexibilty and use.

Winston

[luke warm]

of course opener's reverse is forcing for at least one round, but i can't see how responder's simple rebid of a suit can be forcing... i'd think there are other ways to force but no other way to show a 6223 7 count

[adhoc3]

'no specific' agreement ... what would you take 1D---2S? Weak jump shift? If yes, 1D-1S-2H-2S should be absolutely forcing.

[luke warm]

adhoc3, on Jan 8 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

'no specific' agreement ... what would you take 1D---2S? Weak jump shift? If yes, 1D-1S-2H-2S should be absolutely forcing.

not arguing here, trying to understand... why should a 6223 7 count be forcing? or do you think that's a wjs hand?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 8 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

adhoc3, on Jan 8 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

'no specific' agreement ... what would you take 1D---2S? Weak jump shift? If yes, 1D-1S-2H-2S should be absolutely forcing.

not arguing here, trying to understand... why should a 6223 7 count be forcing? or do you think that's a wjs hand?

The other side of this argument: what is the need for a 6332 7 count to be able to stop in 2S opposite a good 17 or better. If I were so weak as to not want to encourage any game I take preference via 2N back to opener's longer suit - which can easily be 6 cards in length - the only time I'd really want this bid to be non-foring for 1 round is if I held a 6 count with 5251 pattern or a really awful 6241.

Along with this there is the question of my jump rebid. If 2S is a 1-round force then my jump rebid can be a near solid suit, helpful for sure when partner's only card in my suit is stiff J or Q or 10. If I have a broken suit or simply length and a decent enough hand, it seems to me that it is easier overall to just be able to bid 2S without worrying about a pass from partner.

But there are good viewpoints the other way, and a lot has to do with the nature of opener's reverse - if a 16 count is good enough, there is more to be said for the non-forcing use of the rebid.

Winston