[tgphelps]

I call myself an "advanced beginner", meaning that I have read a number of books on the game, and think I understand the basics, but not all the "fancy conventions". But I haven't played 1,000 boards total.

I'm finally teaching my wife the game, and yesterday we were playing in the local 0-20 MP "teaching game". (I'm over 20, and she has about 1 MP, so we average under 20.) The director of that (slow-paced) game also teaches bridge at the local club, so I assume anything he says is true. We play 2/1 GF with few bells and whistles.

But yesterday, my wife opened 1H, I responded 1S, and she called the director over for advice. He told her to just bid her second suit (2D), because a new suit by opener when neither of us has passed is FORCING. I was startled. I have read that some (all?) people play that a second suit by opener at the 1-level is forcing, but I've hever heard anyone say that ANY new suit by opener, when neither of us has passed, is forcing. I questioned him on this, to make sure he hadn't misspoke, but he confirmed it.

Is he right? Have I misunderstood this very basic principle for a long time?

[DavidKok]

No, the director is wrong. The rebid here would be not forcing, showing up to approximately 17 points. With 18 or more your wife has to make a jump shift (3♦), committing the partnership to game.
More sophisticated methods exist, but the simple set of rebids on the uninterrupted sequence 1♥-1♠ in a strong NT (15-17) system is

• 1NT: 12-14 5♥332.
  
• 2♣: 11-17 4(+)♣, not forcing.·
  
• 2♦: 11-17 4(+)♦, not forcing.·
  
• 2♥: 11-14 6(+)♥, not forcing.·
  
• 2♠: 11-14 4♠, not forcing.·
  
• 2NT: 18-19 5♥332, not forcing.·
  
• 3♣: 18+ 4(+)♣, game forcing.
  
• 3♦: 18+ 4(+)♦, game forcing.
  
• 3♥: 15-17 6(+)♥, not forcing.·
  
• 3♠: 15-17 4(+)♠, not forcing.·
  
• 3NT: Does not exist(!)
  
• 4♣: 16+, 4♠, 0-1♣ (splinter), game forcing.
  
• 4♦: 16+, 4♠, 0-1♦ (splinter), game forcing.
  
• 4♥: 18+ 6(+)♥, game forcing ( )
  
• 4♠: 18+ 4♠ no-splinter, so 4=5=2=2 or a singleton ace or king in a minor suit unsuitable for a splinter, game forcing.

All the limited bids are not forcing, though in practice it pays to stretch to find another bid over 2♣, 2♦ and 2NT in particular. Over the 2m bids responder can give false preference, which is often the best choice.
A second popular style is to have the 2♥ rebid show approximately 11-17 and the 3♥ jump commit the partnership to game. Make sure to discuss which variant you are playing.
At higher level this whole structure is less common, with partnerships including loads of tools and gadgets here to avoid having to jump much with strong hands. The above is mostly a good approach for learning. I've simplified the descriptions down to point ranges for the sake of communication, but as always a point count method is no substitute for hand evaluation.

[tgphelps]

If you're scoring at home, here's what happened next: I had a 6-point hand, and 4-2-4-3 shape (2 hearts and 4 diamonds). So, I was going to happily pass 2D. But the director assured me that was forcing, so, while he was looking over my shoulder, I bid 3D. And we ended up at 3NT, down 1.

[Stephen Tu]

tgphelps, on 2024-March-24, 06:51, said:

Is he right? Have I misunderstood this very basic principle for a long time?

Not in standard systems. Jump shift by opener is GF, reverse by opener is F1 (and promises 3rd bid by opener for most). Otherwise non-jump suit bids that are higher ranking at 1 level or lower ranking than original suit at 2 level are NF (but wide ranging) without special agreements.

I wouldn't trust everything random directors/teachers say to be true, if they aren't confirmed by the books. The books will tend to be more accurate, particularly if they were written by champion authors. The only thing you have to look out for is the age of the books if about bidding, as styles in certain areas have changed over the years. But not on this topic.

[jdiana]

If you haven't discovered this book already, I recommend Bid Better, Play Better by Dorothy Truscott. It might be a bit dated in some ways but Chapter 2 on forcing bids is IMO a very good start on this topic. From that chapter: "Principle #4. A new suit by opener is not forcing."

(This would be subject to "Principle #5. A jump shift . . by either player is game forcing." and "Principle #9. A reverse is forcing for one round." )

All consistent with what others have said above.

[blackshoe]

I think your director has confused "new suit by opener" with "new suit by responder" which is a different kettle of fish.

And now I have to go and read Dorothy again.

[Cyberyeti]

Classically it's not forcing, although we play it as "forcing if you really had a response" which works best if you take the minority view that 4th suit is not forcing to game at the 2 level.

[jillybean]

tgphelps, on 2024-March-24, 06:51, said:

The director of that (slow-paced) game also teaches bridge at the local club, so I assume anything he says is true. We play 2/1 GF with few bells and whistles.

Warning. There are many well meaning people who are kind enough to offer help to newer players. There are so many ways to play this game, what is truth for one pair, is not for another. If you are playing 2/1 I'd suggest you find a 2/1 author or player whose style you like and learn from them. Failing that, keep an open mind and be aware that you are going to hear one "rule" from a one player and a contradictory "rule" from another player another day.
Just like players, Directors have their own style and don't everything.

How I play, a new suit by responder is 100% forcing, new suit by opener is sometimes forcing.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-April-11, 07:07, said:

How I play, a new suit by responder is 100% forcing, new suit by opener is sometimes forcing.

Does one really have to search for Dorothy or ask the TD here?
Surely natural logic is that a new suit by responder is forcing (he did not deny having all the remaining points) and a new suit by opener higher than simple repetition of his first suit is forcing (he is willing to play at 3 level or higher despite apparent misfit).

[msheald]

My partner and I play that any new suit is forcing, whether bid by responder or opener. There is no "right" or "wrong" in bridge bidding systems. It comes down to what parteners agree to.

So, director is right in that in the system he/she is teaching, a new suit is forcing. Would that work in ALL card distributions? Obviously not. Even 1 in a million card distributions happen (That is why people play the lottery with worse odds!) However, for a team that has such a system, for them, it would make sense in that it works most of the time - again, for them. I've no qualms with those who feel that their system is otherwise. After all, if something works 50.1% of the time for a team at MP, the team should use it. Personally, I'm not good enough to bid in such a fine tuned way - but the pros are. And we all strive to get there. Best regards.

Mike

[P_Marlowe]

msheald, on 2024-April-12, 04:00, said:

My partner and I play that any new suit is forcing, whether bid by responder or opener.
<snip>

I dont think this is true, and even playable.

You can play 2D as forcing, but than most would than play 3D as nonforcing.
You may get it running with xfer, but even than I have my doubts.

[bluenikki]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-April-12, 04:13, said:

I dont think this is true, and even playable.

It is certainly playable. Norman Squire published several books about such a system. What it means is that you have to take many false false false preferences, so it's emotionally difficult..

[helene_t]

I don't think it's much less playable than standard methods - 11-17 points is already somewhat unplayable, and making it 11-19 isn't a huge difference.

Anyway, maybe it's better to learn what sequences are forcing rather than learning "new suit is forcing" and then learn umpteen exceptions. What is forcing:
- Any partscore bid when we are already in a gf (i.e. after a 2/1, after a jump shift or after FSF)
- Reverse
- Shift by responder
- New suit by responder after opener rebids their suit
- Any bid after either partner rebid their suit with a jump

[mikeh]

It is nowadays commonplace, amongst the great majority of experts and many others, to respond to 1m on almost anything, especially to 1C, regardless of whether 1C promises 2+ or 3+.

For example, holding Qxx Kxxxx xxxx x, I doubt any good player would pass a 1C opening bid. So we bid 1H…and partner bids 1S. In what universe can it be right to bid over this? And what would one bid? Indeed, I’m intentionally giving a ‘good’ responding hand. In my partnerships we’d respond to 1C with xxx Kxxxx xxx xx! And we’re very much not alone in that approach.

I think the idea that 1S would be forcing after 1m 1H arises from two factors. One is an unwillingness to jumpshift. Jumpshifts consume bidding space, which is generally undesirable. However, jumpshifts are or should be narrowly constrained and very strong, so bidding space isn’t as critical as it might otherwise be. Another is the old-fashioned view that one needs 6+ hcp to respond, so responder isn’t going to be as badly stuck as my examples suggest….responder would have passed the opening bid.

Those people who claim that opener’s non-jumpshift/non-reverse is forcing are either lying to themselves or seriously mistaken.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with two friends, both intermediates. They were adamant that one couldn’t open a weak 2M with a side Ace. So I gave them a hand such as KQ10xxx xx Axx xx and asked what they’d do. They both said ‘2S’, lol.

Btw, T-Walsh can help a great deal when responding on very weak hands, especially if one plays that ‘accepting’ the transfer shows 2-3 card support and rebidding 1N shows 18-19 (or, for me since my strong notrump is 14-16, 17-19. This avoids the problem of a 2N rebid getting us too high.

[Cyberyeti]

Mike, I disagree with the sentiment of "Those people who claim that opener’s non-jumpshift/non-reverse is forcing are either lying to themselves or seriously mistaken".

As long as the minor is not short (so you don't HAVE to bid as much), and you have ways to handle the other hand types where it causes issues, it's very playable. The adjustments we have to make are outside the scope of N/B, but we would pass both your examples as partner can't have a 19 count with 3 hearts as we have a bid that covers that among other things.

[mikeh]

Cyber, you seem to want to have it both ways. You say I’m wrong in my view of those who claim that a new suit by opener is forcing and then go on to agree that, with my example hands, you’d pass 1S. Either 1S is forcing, in which case you can’t pass (ok, you can pass once…after that you no longer have the agreement that 1S is forcing with that partner…who knows you sometimes pass) or it’s not forcing.


By the way, I doubt that any good player would rebid 1S after 1H with a 19 count, regardless of how many hearts one holds. Even if 1S were forcing, how the heck does opener catch up later when his second bid could be 11 to 19? One of the key principles of standard bidding, using wide range 1 suit openings, is that opener narrows that range by his second call.

[Cyberyeti]

Mike, our agreement is "forcing if you had a real response". Catching up is not difficult, but requires 4SF not GF at the one or two level.

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-13, 16:15, said:

Mike, our agreement is "forcing if you had a real response". Catching up is not difficult, but requires 4SF not GF at the one or two level.

There is such a thing as "intended as forcing." In Kaplan-Sheinwold, 1m - 1H - 1S is such, even though it may be stopper rather than 4-card length.

In the Master Solvers Club, Theodore Lightner maintained that if a player had not opened with a forcing bid, they had no "absolute force" on the second round. Not even a jumpshift.

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2024-April-13, 18:26, said:

There is such a thing as "intended as forcing." In Kaplan-Sheinwold, 1m - 1H - 1S is such, even though it may be stopper rather than 4-card length.

In the Master Solvers Club, Theodore Lightner maintained that if a player had not opened with a forcing bid, they had no "absolute force" on the second round. Not even a jumpshift.

Well 1♥-1♠-4♣ would seem pretty forcing

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-14, 08:20, said:

Well 1♥-1♠-4♣ would seem pretty forcing

Exactly.

But if you responded with xxxx _ xx xxxxxxx.... You haven't been doubled yet.

Keep in mind that Lightner was playing in a strong-two context. Where you would not be pressured to open 1♥ with a huge two-suiter.