[CSGibson]

R/W matchpoints. We're playing fit jumps, but not negative free bids, if that makes a difference.

Is 2♥ forcing in the following auction:

(1♣)-1♦-(2♣)-2♥,
(p)-?

[fake_user+double 1@forums.bridgebase.com]

forcing in that it promises at least another bid

DHL

[aguahombre]

"We're playing fit jumps, but not negative free bids, if that makes a difference." (Gibson)


I vote forcing for one round, but it doesn't fit into a "negative free bids" discussion, by the definition I know.
NFB's apply to pard of opener, IMO. But, if you play fit jumps I think 2H has to be forcing (can't use 3H).

P.S. Old dog having trouble with new methods of quoting someone.

[straube]

CSGibson, on 2010-October-19, 00:28, said:

R/W matchpoints. We're playing fit jumps, but not negative free bids, if that makes a difference.

Is 2♥ forcing in the following auction:

(1♣)-1♦-(2♣)-2♥,
(p)-?

Imo not forcing. We're the defending side and partner's overcall does not promise the values of an opening bid. The overcall does not necessarily support fit-finding to the degree that an opening bid hopefully would. A bid of 2H is then much more likely to be desired as competitive or pre-balancing action against a 2C contract than as a hand that wants to force.

I think that standard is that a simple 2-level bid over partner's 1-level overcall is nf.
Most play that a 2/2 is nf.
Most play that a 1/1 is forcing (because the bidding is so low), but I think the older style was that this was nf.
I think most play that a 3/2 is forcing.

Probably on this hand you need to start out with a responsive double to force...unless you're not big enough or have the right shape to handle partner's response.

[Fluffy]

Not forcing, competitive bids at a diferent level non forcing, jumps are forcing. If you play fit bids then I am not that sure.

[WGF_Flame]

This is not forcing.

[Phil]

I also voted at bridgewinners. Will that screw up the tally?

[gwnn]

Non-forcing. Overcalls don't promise the world.

[CSGibson]

Phil, on 2010-October-20, 10:56, said:

I also voted at bridgewinners. Will that screw up the tally?

I've had a hard time with this poll. I made it here, and then they took down the site for a day. So I headed over to Bridge Winners and made a poll there, only their polling feature was messed up, and when you clicked on the poll it came up as an error. Then one of the site admins at Bridge Winners redid my poll, but now the polling options are screwed up because it was meant to be a two-part poll, but got reformatted as a 1 part poll. All because I thought this should be forcing, and my partner did not (which it sounds like he is in the majority, which is not surprising to me at all since he's probably discussed this auction before, and I have not).

[bucky]

I think the real answer to this question is to have agreement with partner. But if you just want to talk about the treatment based on merit, I'd vote for non-forcing but constructive. It is important to be able to compete, especially when your suit is major. Also, the 1♦ overcall can be relatively light, so you need a really big hand to want to absolutely force the auction (or a hand with hearts plus diamond fit, which can be shown by 3♥). Therefore, based on frequency, I think it is more optimal to use 2♥ here as encouraging, partner should bid again with a good hand or with heart fit. In the rare case that you have a huge hand and want to force no matter what, you'd have to either jump to 4♥ or overload the 3♣ cuebid.

[han]

I think the real answer to this question is to have the agreement with partner that this is not forcing.

[peachy]

CSGibson, on 2010-October-19, 00:28, said:

R/W matchpoints. We're playing fit jumps, but not negative free bids, if that makes a difference.

Is 2♥ forcing in the following auction:

(1♣)-1♦-(2♣)-2♥,
(p)-?

The "negative freebid" terminology belongs to the opening side. The question you should settle with partner is "Is new suit forcing after we overcall". And whether the answer is Yes or No, what exceptions there might be. I am probably old school but I like NSF by unpassed hand, NF but constructive by passed hand (implies tolerance or some support) and NF signoffish after they double (with some assurance that my suit plays better than partner's suit).

[FrancesHinden]

It's not just a matter of whether you play "new suit forcing" after an overcall, it depends what responder does.

FWIW, my agreement is that:
- If everyone else is bidding, my new suit is not forcing, good hands have to start with a double (or artificial 2NT bid in some auctions)
- If partner overcalls and third hand passes, then a non-jump new suit is forcing

so we play

1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ as non-forcing, but
1♣ - 1♥ - Pass - 2♦ as forcing

(the idea being that if third hand passes it is much more likely to be your hand; if third hand bids it's more likely you will want to compete in a non-forcing manner)

[P_Marlowe]

As always a matter of agreement, but if someone wants to play
with me, he will need a lot of arguing, until I agree to forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If you use Rubens Transfer Advances, then 2♥ = forcing 1 round ( because there is "no room" for transfers).

But in Frances' examples, both are solved with Transfer Advances.
In addition, you can show a weak, invite, or GF ♥ raise in her examples with the Transfer structure;
OR show the Diam suit AND a Ht fit at the 2-level: 2♣>> transfer to 2♦, then bid 2♥.

[whereagles]

CSGibson, on 2010-October-19, 00:28, said:

R/W matchpoints. We're playing fit jumps, but not negative free bids, if that makes a difference.

Is 2♥ forcing in the following auction:

(1♣)-1♦-(2♣)-2♥,
(p)-?

You can define it any way you like it. My definition is "forcing if RHO doesn't bid", which would make this particular sequence as not forcing.

[the hog]

I have always played Frances' style that if responder bids something, a new suit is nf, however if responder passes, a new suit is forcing.

Somewhat off topic, but on a similar vein, has anyone played that

1X (1Y) now....lower ranking than opener is forcing; higher ranking is nf?
The Borin's used to play this and used to swear by this method.