[diana_eva]

I'm confused. What happened? I thought you played with blue and had a misunderstanding.

So you were not his pd, that misunderstanding occurred between blue and one of your mentees?

In that case, I feel it's inevitable that your mentee will be exposed to different treatments. No harm in her finding out that some people don't play 2H as forcing, even if ACBL SAYC says it's forcing.

[Trinidad]

Wayne_LV, on 2014-July-28, 16:01, said:

Yes, I realize that, but an "Expert" insisted that it was NOT forcing and implied anyone that thought it was forcing is a moron.

It may be moronic to play a system (like SAYC) where 2♥ is forcing. But it is more moronic to agree to play SAYC and then try to bid a non forcing 2♥, because it would be superior to play it as non forcing.

Anyone who bids like that is an Unlucky Expert (from S.J. Simon) and fails to understand the fundamentals of bridge: It is a partnership game. The aim of the game is to score as good as possible as a team. Winning the post-mortem is not the aim of the game.

Those who win the post-mortem usually lose the game.

Rik

[Trinidad]

To participate in the post-mortem anyway:

It may well be that 2♥ or 2♠ is a better contract than 2♣ (they aren't on the actual deal) but there is no way for responder to know that. So, unless responder holds a genuine major two-suiter (which is so rare that you shouldn't build your system around it), it cannot possibly be right for responder to decide unilaterally to play in 2M. Since responder is not in the position to decide to play in 2M, it is not logical to play 2♥ as a sign-off in the major of opener's preference.

Note that this auction is very different from the auction: 1♣-Pass-2♥ (Reverse Flannery, showing 5♠ and 4♥, non forcing but constructive). In that case, opener could hold a variety of hands, including hands with genuine support for either (or even both) major(s). On the actual auction opener has shown a minimum opening with 6(5)+ clubs. He has denied 4 spades and -to a degree depending on partnership style- is less likely to have 3 spades.

Rik

[helene_t]

If 2♥ is nonforcing (btw, does that mean "invitational" or does it mean "sign-off"?), you need 2♦ as an artificial force. This is clearly beyond the scope of SAYC.

Personally I find it moronic to play natural responses to a 1♣ opening. Actually, the natural 1♣ opening itself is fairly moronic. If forced to play natural responses to a natural 1♣ opening, I would certainly find it moronic to play this 2♥ bid as natural - 2♦ as a transfer to hearts and 2♥ as a transfer to spades is clearly the only sensible way to go.

Long time before I started playing duplicate, my father taught me an otherwise natural system in which the 2♣ rebid was an artificial force. Since he and his p won the East-Danish championship playing that system it is probably not more moronic than so many other ridicolous systems played by Danish top players in those years. At least it was more fun.

If forced to play natural methods throughout, I wonder if it would be better to play 2♥ as game forcing or whether it should just be a one round force. Probably both are approximately equally moronic, although non-forcing is clearly much worse.

But generally I just play whatever method we are less likely to forget and don't worry if it is moronic or not. And if the agreement is SAYC, well, as Rik says, it would be moronic to play anything other than SAYC.

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2014-July-29, 18:11, said:

I'm confused. What happened? I thought you played with blue and had a misunderstanding.

So you were not his pd, that misunderstanding occurred between blue and one of your mentees?

In that case, I feel it's inevitable that your mentee will be exposed to different treatments. No harm in her finding out that some people don't play 2H as forcing, even if ACBL SAYC says it's forcing.

I disagree

If Blue said it is better to play 2d as forcing only and suggested to the mentee you would have a point, however this was not the case IMO.
From my subjective experience I believe, whoever has such a strong opinion on a subject like this and express himself so strongly while shuts the door for opposition by using words like "anyone who plays this otherwise is a moron/less than 2 digit IQ" is an expert wanna be intermediate at best because I don't believe an advanced player would do this let alone an expert . Especially in the presence of mentees. So I agree with Wayne.

Having said that I also agree with Rik about agreeing to play SAYC and then trying to make a non-forcing bid by making a bid that's announced as forcing upto the system your pd thinks you are playing and then expecting pd to read your mind and when all fails to be frustrated and embarrassing himself was the only moronic act as far as I see it.

I admit I play 2d as forcing and 2h non-forcing with only agreement. In 30 something years I played both versions depending on what pd prefers. Non forcing version has the benefit of stopping at 2h, it's a jackpot if you happen to find a 4-4 5-4 fit at MP while others are playing their 5-1 5-2 6-1 fit. But honestly that does not happen a lot, you usually end up playing 4-3 fit or even worse if opener has 6-4 minors.
It usually awards very good when responder has 5-5 majors weak and/or void in opener minor.

With the risk of being called a moron or called to have less than 2 digit IQ, I have to say that playing both 2 red suits as forcing is not as bad as it is advertised IMHO.

It gives more flexibility for right siding the NT contracts. After all if we are going to make a lot of noise on our way to 3 NT and give road maps to enemy we better play it from the correct hand.
It also has some other benefits but i think I made my point.

I confess that I like 2d being the only forcing gate, however I would never see other version as moronic or people who uses other version as IQ poor. And even if I did for a momentarily insanity, I would definitely not go head and seal it in a public bridge forum for the second time.

[diana_eva]

I also agree with wayne. If they agreed to play sayc, they play sayc, and 2H is forcing because the booklet says so.

However, since blue happens to be a dear friend of mine and my mentor, I asked him what happened, and I'd like to put him in a slightly better light

1) Postmortem with the mentee was nice and friendly. Blue told her she should have passed 2H because he was not aware that in ACBL SAYC it is forcing. However he never implied she's a moron for not passing nor told her anything unfriendly.
2) The strong 2-digit IQ/moronic bids argument took place between blue and wayne, in private - not in the presence of the mentee.

3) Blue has awful people skills, but he is a real expert. Implying that he can't be a real expert because he doesn't know the booklet by heart made him come post that aggressive stuff here.

[biggerclub]

We should change the name of the game to WMPDW ("what my partner did wrong").

Also, I don't believe that the fact that there are multiple other forcing bids available to R, makes any other bid less forcing. PASS is not a bad place to start the analysis of possible bids, holding a stiff in partner's 6-card suit.

I spend a fair amount of time at the table wondering, not what a particular bid will mean, but rather what my partner will think it means.

[Zelandakh]

Mentor to Mentee: "What your partner describes is actually a very good way of playing but is not a part of SAYC. Many players, even very good ones, say they are playing SAYC but actually are just playing some personalised version of Standard American. For now I recommend you to stick with SAYC as that gives you a default system that can be used with a wide range of partners. Later on you will learn about some extra things that you can use with a regular partner should you choose to agree it."

As opposed to: "I'll show them who's right. Take a look at this BBF thread."

To blue haze, you may or not be an expert playing SABH but you should not give lessons in a bidding system that you have not bothered to read up on and understand. A simple response would have been "I do not know what the bid means in SAYC but it is clearly better to play it as non-forcing. I am sorry if I misled you." A real expert takes responsibility for their part in a bad result. Making unnecessary calls with a high chance of being misunderstood is a sure-fire recipe for getting bad boards from time to time. Man up and accept your part in this one.

[damitall]

Ladies and Gentlemen,the other day I held Kxxxx,xxx,KQxxx,void club.The auction followed exactly like the one posed here.I bid 2 diamonds. Now is it the other minor forcing or just forcing.? The sayc says new suit forcing.I feel this is not a satisfactory situation at all.Partner has been given the option of correcting to 2 spades but 2 diamonds/2 hearts must be nonforcing.The responder has other forcing bids available to him.The system perhaps never gave enough attention to such an awkward situation.I endorse the views of the EXPERT fully and suggest the system be amended accordingly.With warm regards to all you bridge colleagues.

[somajigoma]

Friends if one has agreed to play SAYC then 2H IS a forcing bid at least for one round.However,I would like to give my humble vote in the negative.Opener can have three spades or he may have even a 4 card support for responders second suit but even a three level contract or 2 NT will be in jeopardy as the responders hand if unbalanced 6- 7 HCP will be useless for a contract in a suit not held by him will fail miserably. A two level contract in responders suit is where responders hand can score tricks.Openers quick tricks will always be available in any contract. One other senior member has already described such a hand. I feel that SAYC has been formulated for the newcomers who do not use gadgets and conventions.The argument will go on forever.Sadly,I feel this is a lacuna in the system more for the advanced players .I being an advocate by profession will be hard pressed to defend either sides.My namaste to all my bridge friends.

[Stephen Tu]

damitall, on 2014-July-30, 11:13, said:

Ladies and Gentlemen,the other day I held Kxxxx,xxx,KQxxx,void club.The auction followed exactly like the one posed here.I bid 2 diamonds. Now is it the other minor forcing or just forcing.? The sayc says new suit forcing.I feel this is not a satisfactory situation at all.Partner has been given the option of correcting to 2 spades but 2 diamonds/2 hearts must be nonforcing.The responder has other forcing bids available to him.The system perhaps never gave enough attention to such an awkward situation.I endorse the views of the EXPERT fully and suggest the system be amended accordingly.With warm regards to all you bridge colleagues.

1 - Amending the system is unrealistic. It hasn't been changed significantly for the 25+ years it's been around. Despite its many serious flaws, way bigger problems than this auction.

2 - Playing 2d as the only force is not called "new minor forcing" here. NMF is only the term when 1nt is the rebid. Here 2d as the only force has been called "Bourke relay" after a '96 bridgeworld article by Bourke/Bird.

3 - Agree with MrAce that playing both as forcing is totally playable. It's not like I've won/lost a ton of MP having a NF 2H available/not available. Mostly I remember problems from partners assuming one agreement was standard without discussion, while the other assumed the other. (I still think 2H forcing is standard without agreement due to historical reasons, even if 2H NF is even/gaining in popularity. Certainly 2H forcing is std if "SAYC" is the agreement.) People played with both forcing for decades before SAYC was ever published, and many still play it, if it was really so horrible it would have died out.

4 - 2d, at least, has to be forcing. If you make responder jump to force, it's going to be impossible to both sort out 5-4 hands from 5-5 hands and invitational vs. GF hands below the 3nt level.

[hobaaher]

Dear All,I am more than ever confused by the statements made by both sides.As per SAYC booklet any new suit by the responder after opener rebids a suit is a forcing bid.When I see the hands given by damitall and also as argued by the Expert,I am bamboozled and put my right index finger in my mouth.Very confusing ! But such is the game of Bridge where " I am right and you are wrong "never ends ,more so after the 52 cards are exposed.ha ha ha.Good night.

[Stephen Tu]

hobaaher, on 2014-July-30, 12:24, said:

Dear All,I am more than ever confused by the statements made by both sides.As per SAYC booklet any new suit by the responder after opener rebids a suit is a forcing bid.When I see the hands given by damitall and also as argued by the Expert,I am bamboozled and put my right index finger in my mouth.Very confusing !

There's not much to be confused about. It's absolutely forcing according to the SAYC booklet, and historical SA practice. It's forcing even in current Bridge World Standard, the system formed by consensus polls of the advanced/expert oriented magazine. It's true that a significantly large portion of adv+ players are playing 1c-1s-2c-2h nf, but it's really not "standard" IMO yet. There are a lot of common gadgets adv+ players play that aren't "standard", they are quick checks before game time if playing with a new partner.

So what is there to be bamboozled about? No matter how you play a treatment, there will be hands that don't fit well with that treatment, where you wish you were playing something else. If you have a weak hand 5-5 in the majors, you might wish you were playing a NF 2H. But then again it's no guarantee of good result. Partner might be 1246 or 1237, clubs could still play better for all you know. And if you have a stronger hand, sometimes you'd prefer to have a natural forcing 2H available, it can lead to smoother auctions. For example, 1c-1s-2d!-3c-?. Say you had a strong GF 5431 hand, but no diamond stopper. After 3c, you kind of have to bid 3H, but now partner doesn't know if you have that hand, looking for a diamond stopper, or if you have say a 5-5 S/H hand looking for 3 cd heart fit. What does he do with x xxx AJx AQJxxx? If 2H were forcing, you wouldn't have this problem, a GF 5-5 hand can jump to 3H over 2c, 1c-1s-2c-3h, where the 5-4 hand can bid 2H, then maybe 3d if partner didn't bid 2nt, which he can more often than over an artificial 2d knowing you have hearts. And the 5-5 invitational hand can bid 2H, followed by 3H NF. If 2H is NF to cater to weak both major hands, to me it seems it gets harder to describe either GF or inv 5-5 major hands, and also 5-4 major inv hands. There's no truly "free lunch", if you cater to getting to improving the partial, game/slam bidding can become more difficult.

And I would hesitate to call anyone an "expert" who thought that anyone who thought 2H was forcing in standard was a moron. A real expert should know that it is today played both ways by good players, and that historically it was originally forcing for most, and that it is probably assumed forcing without agreement.

[8po]

not sure what's he point here. it's forcing by sayc rules and it can be non-forcing by pdship agreement if u guys got other ways to force in this case. now go to sleep and good night

[biggerclub]

damitall, on 2014-July-30, 11:13, said:

Ladies and Gentlemen,the other day I held Kxxxx,xxx,KQxxx,void club.The auction followed exactly like the one posed here.I bid 2 diamonds. Now is it the other minor forcing or just forcing.? The sayc says new suit forcing.I feel this is not a satisfactory situation at all.Partner has been given the option of correcting to 2 spades but 2 diamonds/2 hearts must be nonforcing.The responder has other forcing bids available to him.The system perhaps never gave enough attention to such an awkward situation.I endorse the views of the EXPERT fully and suggest the system be amended accordingly.With warm regards to all you bridge colleagues.

Why is PASS such a difficult bid to make? If you get doubled, then a new suit is not forcing. Otherwise it's a misfit. The best idea is to stop bidding. Immediately. If not sooner.

Quit fantasizing that there is a better fit somewhere.

[johnu]

blue haze, on 2014-July-29, 13:25, said:

I am the obnoxious expert/beginner who said -- 2H is NON FORCING

I'm not surprised an "expert" such as yourself hasn't read the SAYC pamphlet which is not really designed for expert partnerships. However, is it too hard to understand that playing 2♥ as non-forcing is not part of the book SAYC? Pretty much every "book" system has a bunch of bad sequences that could be improved on, but if you do so, you are no longer playing the "book" system.

[Wayne_LV]

One final posting on this "much to do about nothing" thread that should never have been started:

I use BBO Skill http://bboskill.com/ as a barometer for unfamiliar players. It is not perfect, but the BBO Skill ratings usually agree with my gut feel and assessment using BBO MyHands.

My own BBO Skill rating is "Advanced" and I am perfectly happy with that assessment even though it will never change. This rating is based on almost 18,000 hands played on BBO over a long period of time. I have a "handicap" of -.18 IMP supposedly due to playing with weaker players and that has never changed and seems it never will. My regular partner, who plays 90+ % of her hands with me has a higher rating based on fewer hands - go figure!

More importantly I think BBO Skill is right far more than wrong in its assessment of BBO players skill level.

That said, blue haze is rated as Expert by BBO Skill and his MyHands win record supports that rating. In prior postings I used the term "self appointed Experts" extensively. I want to make clear that that is not the case with blue haze. All indications are that he is a Real Expert player deserving of the respect of that skill level. I say this to make sure everyone understands that the skill level of blue haze is not and never has been an issue. He is undoubtedly an excellent player deserving of the Expert rating.

The reason I am normally skeptical of any BBO player with an Expert rating and no star is due to the number of "Experts" that are nowhere near that level.

This morning I kibbed a table of 4 "Experts" and acquired the BBO Skill rating for all of them. BBO skill rated 1 as Intermediate -, 2 as Advanced, 1 as Advanced + ; not a single Expert there. As is normally the case with games in the main room, table turnover was fast and furious. I acquired the BBO Skill rating for the new players as the came and went. This was over a period of maybe 20 minutes. In that time frame there was only ONE player that appeared at the table with a Skill Level that was the same as BBO Skill and it was a self rating of Advanced. One honest player out of 7 that came and went in the space of less than a half hour.

This is pretty typical of what I see day in and day out. That is why I am skeptical of anyone with an Expert rating because few really are Experts and some are not even good Intermediates. I am sure this is a contributor to the rapid table turnover in most BBO club room games - these "Experts" very quickly show their real level of play and either get booted or leave in shame.

Kudos to BBO for now replacing these table hoppers with a free GiB in the Main and Relaxed rooms to complete the hand. I wish this feature would be expanded to all public clubs.

Good bridging,

Wayne

[Zelandakh]

Just a note on that Wayne, even though it has been done to death plenty of times. Back when I was playing with a regular partner BBOSkill also rated me as Expert. Had it been around when I was with the previous partner, playing my strong club system, I believe it would have given me a World Class label. You really should not believe everything you see there.

On the other side, one of the best players on BBF (considerably stronger than you or I) is Han Peters. His current BBOSkill rating is Intermediate. On top of that the rating of Advanced is given to any player with a positive score, which is quite far removed from the way the guidelines say it should work. Even if the relative rankings were 100% correct, the majority of the Advanced band would actually be Intermediate. But the fact is that they are not correct, not even close, because they effectively do not rate the opposition at all.

Where BBOSkill is most useful is within a closed group such as a small club that mixes well rather than having cliques. Here you can get a reasonable assessment of the relative rankings. You still have to ignore the actual ranking but that is not really a problem unless you are using it to justify calling yourself a ranking that your real world results have not earned.

[whereagles]

I know of an advanced player who has "novice" in his profile LOL

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on 2014-July-31, 12:37, said:

I know of an advanced player who has "novice" in his profile LOL

I have seen a number of expert and world class players who have "novice" in their profiles.