[mikl_plkcc]

In natural bidding, the following sequence is generally treated as non-forcing:
Sequence A: 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♦, which shows a preference to ♦, suggesting something like 5 ♠ and 4 ♦.

However, I have read an argument on
Sequence B: 1♦-1♠-2NT-3♦ being forcing or not. Some argue that it is non-forcing on the principle that 2NT is a limit bid, some argue that it is forcing as it is a new suit at the 3-level, and you never improve a partial at the expense of accurate game bidding.

I am now getting confused when a responder natural second bid is forcing, after opener makes a limit bid.

Sequence C:
1♦-1♠-1NT-2♥, showing 5 ♠ and 4 ♦. Is it forcing or not? In other words, can the responder hold just 6 total points, offering a choice between 2♥ and 2♠?

Sequence D:
1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥. Is it forcing or not, as the opener hasn't got a chance to show any 4-card ♥ suit yet?

Sequence E:
1♦-1♠-2NT-3♥. Is it forcing or not?

Sequence H:
1♦-1♠-3♦-3♥. The "standard" is that 3♦ shows 16-18 points so it is non-forcing and is a limit bid, is 3♥ forcing or not? Also, is it possible to play a wide-ranging simple rebid, such that 3♦ shows a strong, 19+ single-suited hand to force ♦ as trump, to avoid this problem?

Sequence F:
1♦-1♠-2NT-3♠. Is it forcing (a strong, GF, single suited ♠ hand) or not (merely to improve the contract)?
Sequence G:
1♦-1♠-3♦-3♠. Is it forcing or just to improve the contract?

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: This is typically something that needs to be discussed within your partnership.

There are plus and minus to either approach.
I'm not sure if there is a universal standard
I prefer to treat 2!H as forcing

Comment 2: The existence of bandaids like reverse Flannery suggests that (some folks at least) are unhappy with either definition

[Stephen Tu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-25, 08:36, said:

In natural bidding, the following sequence is generally treated as non-forcing:
Sequence A: 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♦, which shows a preference to ♦, suggesting something like 5 ♠ and 4 ♦.

If it's played natural, it could easily be 4 spades 4 diamonds, 4 spades 5+ diamonds.
In the very old days, everything at the 2 level was NF, you had to jump to force. But people found this was inadequate, you had problems describing invitational hands, and things like differentiating 5s-5h from 5s-4h and he like. So thus gadgets like new minor forcing, checkback stayman, 2-way checkback, xyz etc. were invented. These days I see that most are using *both* 2c & 2d after 1nt artificially, and the only NF bids at 2 level are 1d-1s-1nt-2h and 1d-1s-1nt-2s. (People using 2c puppets to 2d, then passing the 2d, to get back to diamonds).

Quote

However, I have read an argument on
Sequence B: 1♦-1♠-2NT-3♦ being forcing or not. Some argue that it is non-forcing on the principle that 2NT is a limit bid, some argue that it is forcing as it is a new suit at the 3-level, and you never improve a partial at the expense of accurate game bidding.

Without gadgets, you want to play it as forcing, as there are many more hands that make game or slam and want to have easy ways to force and set trumps, than hands where 3d makes but 2nt does not. With gadgets (e.g. Wolff signoff), you can cater to hands that stretched to respond and want to signoff in a partial.

Quote

Sequence C:
1♦-1♠-1NT-2♥, showing 5 ♠ and 4 ♦. Is it forcing or not? In other words, can the responder hold just 6 total points, offering a choice between 2♥ and 2♠?

NF by virtually everyone.

Quote

Sequence D:
1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥. Is it forcing or not, as the opener hasn't got a chance to show any 4-card ♥ suit yet?

Sequence E:
1♦-1♠-2NT-3♥. Is it forcing or not?

Forcing by virtually everyone. Sequence E should arguably be 5-5, go through a gadget (new minor, or 3d if playing wolff) with 5-4.

Quote

1♦-1♠-3♦-3♥. The "standard" is that 3♦ shows 16-18 points so it is non-forcing and is a limit bid, is 3♥ forcing or not? Also, is it possible to play a wide-ranging simple rebid, such that 3♦ shows a strong, 19+ single-suited hand to force ♦ as trump, to avoid this problem?

Forcing. It's way more important and common to find the right game than hands where one partial can make but another can't.
Using 3d jump rebid as forcing is playable if you are playing K-S style with a 2c semi-artificial rebid by opener as basically F1. Using 2d rebid as 12-18 wide range is probably unplayable.

Quote

Sequence F:
1♦-1♠-2NT-3♠. Is it forcing (a strong, GF, single suited ♠ hand) or not (merely to improve the contract)?
Sequence G:
1♦-1♠-3♦-3♠. Is it forcing or just to improve the contract?

Both forcing, again being able to find right games has a lot more points at stake than occasionally being able to find a better partial.

[mikl_plkcc]

Can the above be summarised in two sentences, in regard to responder's second bid?

A new suit bid is forcing, unless the rebid is 1NT.
Any suit bid after an opener jump rebid is forcing.

(I am not talking about responder's jump rebid here. I think some play it as NF invitational and some play it as game forcing, depending on how you show 3-card limit raise and the use of certain conventions like F1NT, checkback, etc.)

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-25, 09:53, said:

Can the above be summarised in two sentences, in regard to responder's second bid?

A new suit bid is forcing, unless the rebid is 1NT.
Any suit bid after an opener jump rebid is forcing.

(I am not talking about responder's jump rebid here. I think some play it as NF invitational and some play it as game forcing, depending on how you show 3-card limit raise and the use of certain conventions like F1NT, checkback, etc.)

Playing standard, a new suit by responder would be forcing, showing inv.+.
If you have agreed to play NMF / 3rd suit forcing this changes, the artificial bid covers all inv.+ hand (except inv. raises of openers minor,
jump rebiding responders suit),
other suit bids get nonforcing, due to to the fact, that responder will have at most inv. strength.
If you have agreed to play 2-way checkback, minor suit bids cover all gf hand and most inv. hands.

You can play the same structure after a 1NT or a 2NT rebid, although it is more common to play
a new suit after a 2NT rebid as forcing.
In the end stopping in a partial after a 2NT rebid is not worth it, but you need room to find a
5-3, 6-2 fit for responders major or a 4-4 in hearts, if responders suit was spade.

Similar if opener makes a jump rebid, any bid by responder should be forcing to game, if responder
is broke he should pass, ..., and yes sometimes you wished it would be different.

You could summarize this: After a jump rebid by opener, if responder bids on the 3 level it should be
forcing to game, ..., system matters obv., but kepping it simple has its adv.

[Stephen Tu]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-25, 09:53, said:

Can the above be summarised in two sentences, in regard to responder's second bid?

A new suit bid is forcing, unless the rebid is 1nt.

This was the original ancient rule, but these days almost all but beginners play a new minor suit as forcing, so it reduces to new suit is forcing except 1m-1s-1nt-2h

[jillybean]

 Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-25, 15:05, said:

This was the original ancient rule, but these days almost all but beginners play a new minor suit as forcing, so it reduces to new suit is forcing except 1m-1s-1nt-2h

Great explanation

[mikl_plkcc]

 Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-25, 15:05, said:

This was the original ancient rule, but these days almost all but beginners play a new minor suit as forcing, so it reduces to new suit is forcing except 1m-1s-1nt-2h

I play the old fashioned checkback Stayman with my regular partner, not NMF or two way.

And I have messed up two times tonight, one was that I had a game forcing hand, used checkback but failed to find a fit, and forgot to force afterwards fearing an unstopped suit. We ended up playing 2♠ in a 5-2 fit making 4 when the correct contract was 3NT.

Another was I bid 4SF at the 2-level (our agreement is F1, therefore can be used with invitational hand), partner responded 2NT confirming a stopper in the 4th suit but on an HCP basis we didn't have enough to play 2NT (on a total point basis it was enough to play 3 of a suit). I didn't pull to a suit contract (4522 shape) and 2NT ended up down 2, while 3♦ would make.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

in my opinion it is relevant, if you happen to play weak or strong NT.
If you play weak NT, i.e. the rebid is showing some sort of strong NT, the need to be able
to go looking for a better partial drops. Hence playing new suit by responder at the 2 level
the old fashoned way, works pretty well.

There is no big difference between NMF or old fashioned Checkback, ... again I would say,
that NMF / simple Checkback work better in a strong NT system, than in a weak NT system.
NMF / simple Checkback try to enable you to stay low as much as possible, which is more
important, if the rebid showed a weak NT.

My only request to my p, after we swithced from strong NT to weak NT, was to replace
NMF with something more elaborate, nothing to extreme, my memory is limited.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[shyams]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-25, 16:20, said:

... I had a game forcing hand, used checkback but failed to find a fit, and forgot to force afterwards fearing an unstopped suit. We ended up playing 2♠ in a 5-2 fit making 4 when the correct contract was 3NT.

You had 13 HCP and a 5-3-2-3 shape. Your partner opened your doubleton.

I'd bid game every time, esp. at IMPs. Even if your partner has no stoppers in the fourth suit (and has ♥xxx), there is a 60+% chance that the ♥ suit will split 4-3 for them and they can only run 4 winners in that suit.

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-25, 16:20, said:

Another was I bid 4SF at the 2-level (our agreement is F1, therefore can be used with invitational hand), partner responded 2NT confirming a stopper in the 4th suit but on an HCP basis we didn't have enough to play 2NT (on a total point basis it was enough to play 3 of a suit). I didn't pull to a suit contract (4522 shape) and 2NT ended up down 2, while 3♦ would make.

You had a diamond fit for partner and a fairly limited hand. The use of 4th suit force feels wrong.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-25, 16:20, said:

<snip>
Another was I bid 4SF at the 2-level (our agreement is F1, therefore can be used with invitational hand), partner responded 2NT confirming a stopper in the 4th suit but on an HCP basis we didn't have enough to play 2NT (on a total point basis it was enough to play 3 of a suit). I didn't pull to a suit contract (4522 shape) and 2NT ended up down 2, while 3♦ would make.

Obv. a matter of agrement, and yours may differ, I do play FSF as F1, but if you bid 3D over this is forcing and showes a slam interested hand.

With a fit and inv. values raises partners suit, if he has more than min and a stopper, he will bid 3NT.

[mikl_plkcc]

 shyams, on 2025-April-26, 04:50, said:

You had 13 HCP and a 5-3-2-3 shape. Your partner opened your doubleton.

I'd bid game every time, esp. at IMPs. Even if your partner has no stoppers in the fourth suit (and has ♥xxx), there is a 60+% chance that the ♥ suit will split 4-3 for them and they can only run 4 winners in that suit.


You had a diamond fit for partner and a fairly limited hand. The use of 4th suit force feels wrong.

So what should I have bid? 2♦ would be a preference on a minimum and 3♦ would be forcing in our methods (we play second round jump by responder = game forcing), and I still want to probe for a major suit fit if possible.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 05:58, said:

So what should I have bid? 2♦ would be a preference on a minimum and 3♦ would be forcing in our methods (we play second round jump by responder = game forcing), and I still want to probe for a major suit fit if possible.

Ok, this an uncommon method, i.e. FSF showes exactly inv. values, I would suggest you revert to standard, a 3D jump raise in the 2nd round is an
inv. raise. I heard about your FSF style, I am not saying it is unplayable, but most players play FSF as GF, the few holdouts,
among those you will find my partnership, play FSF as inv.+,
so I would say the 3rd style (yours) proved to be difficult.

But anyway, if you play this way, you should have corrected 2NT to 3D, as you said.
Keep in mind, that the robots dont play it that way.

On a side note, if you ask for advice, but play unusual methods, ..., it is better
if you tell about those methods before hand, be prepared to skip the comment unplayable.
But who knowes, what is a common / uncommon method, difficult.

[shyams]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 05:58, said:

So what should I have bid? 2♦ would be a preference on a minimum and 3♦ would be forcing in our methods (we play second round jump by responder = game forcing), and I still want to probe for a major suit fit if possible.

A. If I interpret your style (based on your contrarian responses to other people's suggestions here), perhaps you ought to get rid of your bad agreements and "rules"
Take your latest response to my post. You ignored the higher IMPact discussion on not bidding game on the first board.
Ask yourself (and don't tell me/us), was it because you disagree with my post or because you fully agreed but chickened out at the table?
If I were to speculate based on your previous posts (in all thread), I'd guess that you disagreed with bidding 3NT absent the stoppers in hearts.

B. You had 8 HCP (♠xx ♥KQxxx ♦K10xx ♣xx). I'm guessing partner opened 1♦ - 1♥; 1NT. If, due to your system constraints, you need to bid 2♦, then so be it. It does not always mean partner (and perhaps opponents) will settle there; you may well get another chance to rebid diamonds.

[Stephen Tu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 05:58, said:

So what should I have bid? 2♦ would be a preference on a minimum and 3♦ would be forcing in our methods (we play second round jump by responder = game forcing), and I still want to probe for a major suit fit if possible.

If you actually had inv with diamonds, and your methods are such that 4sf then 3d is inv, then after 4sf and 2nt, you should complete your description with 3d. 3d will rate to be a safer partial than 2nt.

I believe on your actual hand you were like 2542 relatively weak (8 count?), and partner was 3154. In this case you were too weak for 4sf, you should just bid 2d. There is no reason for you to trot out 4sf on 8. If you have game in hearts, *partner will bid again*. If partner has 1354, min strength hand, they were supposed to raise hearts immediately. If partner has 1354 with extras, *they will bid 2H after your preference to 2d*.

[mikl_plkcc]

 P_Marlowe, on 2025-April-26, 06:42, said:

Ok, this an uncommon method, i.e. FSF showes exactly inv. values, I would suggest you revert to standard, a 3D jump raise in the 2nd round is an
inv. raise. I heard about your FSF style, I am not saying it is unplayable, but most players play FSF as GF, the few holdouts,
among those you will find my partnership, play FSF as inv.+,
so I would say the 3rd style (yours) proved to be difficult.

But anyway, if you play this way, you should have corrected 2NT to 3D, as you said.
Keep in mind, that the robots dont play it that way.

On a side note, if you ask for advice, but play unusual methods, ..., it is better
if you tell about those methods before hand, be prepared to skip the comment unplayable.
But who knowes, what is a common / uncommon method, difficult.

The reason we have decided on second round jump = forcing is to avoid bidding problems such as holding 13 points and 3-card support and no way to force, for example, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♥ has to be a 3-card GF for us because we play 4SF as invitational+ at the 2-level (I know some styles always start with a 2/1 bypassing 4-card ♠ suit holding a GF hand, that 1/1 then jump is invitational, and 2/1 then jump is GF (the jump isn't needed if 2/1 is GF), to avoid this ambiguity, but I prefer bidding 4-card suits up the line, so a 2/1 will deny 4 ♠ unless 5m4S. A style which regularly bypass 4-card suits require extensive use of gadgets to recover skipped 4-4 fits, which is too complicated for me to play. By never bypassing suits, we can have useful negative inference about the hand shape.). If this sequence is invitational, our 4SF has to be GF, and I think that 4SGF is worse than 4SF1 at the 2-level for the purpose of locating our best fit. We have adopted a gadget for a 3-card limit raise in a major as well.

And I don't intend our 4SF as exactly invitational at the 2-level (our agreement is that 4SF is 4 spades at 1-level, F1 at 2-level, GF at 3-level), the 4SF bidder can bid on the show GF strength.

My judgement was that my hand was enough to invite in case of a 5-3 major fit, but not strong enough to play 2NT, due to the 2 doubletons adding 2 distributional points, and NT hands are evaluated using HCP only.

[mikl_plkcc]

 Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-26, 08:46, said:

If you actually had inv with diamonds, and your methods are such that 4sf then 3d is inv, then after 4sf and 2nt, you should complete your description with 3d. 3d will rate to be a safer partial than 2nt.

I believe on your actual hand you were like 2542 relatively weak (8 count?), and partner was 3154. In this case you were too weak for 4sf, you should just bid 2d. There is no reason for you to trot out 4sf on 8. If you have game in hearts, *partner will bid again*. If partner has 1354, min strength hand, they were supposed to raise hearts immediately. If partner has 1354 with extras, *they will bid 2H after your preference to 2d*.

Yes, you were correct, partner had 3154.

However, partner isn't allowed to raise hearts with 1354 immediately under any circumstances, because it is a lie on a major length. Partner must bid 2♣ to show 5-4 in the minors. Therefore it was totally my mistake because I was confused on the previous matter that I shouldn't attempt to correct 2NT to 3♦, because with a 2NT opener rebid, the partnership is guaranteed 23+ HCP (assuming responder never responds light - but it then contradicts the recommendations from another thread discussing 2♣ opening that the responder should stretch to bid a major even with a sub-minimum - it is so confusing now and I can't make my maths work!) so 2NT should be safe, but in this case my hand was suddenly 2 points less than promised when the contract was NT instead of a suit, and without enough strength, it is much better to play in a 9-card suit fit.

[Stephen Tu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 12:19, said:

However, partner isn't allowed to raise hearts with 1354 immediately under any circumstances, because it is a lie on a major length. Partner must bid 2♣ to show 5-4 in the minors.

Arguably another one of your rules that you have invented that should be unlearned in favor of rules better players actually use.
In any case it makes no difference on this hand; you miss the 5-3 heart fit when partner is minimum, but still should bid only 2d, you will still find the heart fit when parner has extra values. 4sf on 8 count is going to make your side overbid too frequently.

[mikl_plkcc]

 Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-26, 13:33, said:

Arguably another one of your rules that you have invented that should be unlearned in favor of rules better players actually use.
In any case it makes no difference on this hand; you miss the 5-3 heart fit when partner is minimum, but still should bid only 2d, you will still find the heart fit when parner has extra values. 4sf on 8 count is going to make your side overbid too frequently.

I didn't invent such rules. Similar rules like these (because 1♥ shows 4, so you must have 4 to raise) are written in textbooks in beginner courses (although my 4sf was probably a mistake in hand evaluation - I didn't know what to do when HCP and total points differed significantly before we found our fit).

[Stephen Tu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-26, 14:16, said:

I didn't invent such rules. Similar rules like these (because 1♥ shows 4, so you must have 4 to raise) are written in textbooks in beginner courses (although my 4sf was probably a mistake in hand evaluation - I didn't know what to do when HCP and total points differed significantly before we found our fit).

Beginner textbooks will often advocate over-simplified rules to minimize the number of rules beginners have to learn. They will often omit example hands where their simplified rules leave a lot of very flawed options and lead to inferior contracts.

In any case, you should know that raising M response on 3 with min-range 5431 shapes is a super-common style among better players. The idea is this way:

- you find 5-3 fits that may otherwise be missed, and play a higher scoring major than minor.

- you simplify the auction and reveal less information when responder has 5+ M and game values, as they can just jump to game

- although you will land in a 4-3 Moysian sometimes, here it is the short hand taking the ruff in the singleton so it is more likely to play well. You indicated in other posts having difficulty playing Moysians, perhaps you need more experience. The main things when playing Moysians are: cater to opp's trumps breaking 4-2, don't assume 3-3 unless no hope otherwise, avoid trumping in the 4cd hand if you can (dump a loser instead, or sometimes a winner!) if not playing a cross-ruff line, and set up your side suits earlier rather than later (even if it enables opp to ruff one, you just hope they are ruffing from their natural trump winners).

- if responder has game values and 4 cd M, and doesn't wish to play 4M in a 4-3 fit, they can do things like offer 3nt instead (then opener can pull back to 4M with real 4 support), or use lower forcing bids to confirm 4 cd support or not.

YMMV if you play in France where I understand they are allergic to raising majors on 3.