[frank0]

I copy the rules here, I try to find some example of each case but I'm not sure whether it's right. Can anyone tell me whether my example on each rule is correct or not? Or even better, provides an example for me.
(a) Vulnerability exerts influence solely in that some situations are forcing only when our side is vulnerable against not. Those situations include at least when the opponents bid at or above game and our side has shown strength or itself bid game nonpreemptively (but there is no agreement on other cases).
[

North's pass is forcing only when vul vs non

---

(b) If we have been forced to game but have not bid game, competitive situations thereafter above the game level are forcing.
No idea about this.
© If we have bid game nonpreemptively, the default applies.
Which defalt?
(d) If we have invited game and the invitation has not been declined, competitive situations thereafter are forcing only as high as where the force would have expired noncompetitively.
I don't understand what's "as high as where the force would have expired noncompetitively"?
(e) A two-notrump opening does not create a force if the opponents bid.

pass is non-forcing

---

(f) If a two-club opening is overcalled, responder’s pass is forcing at every level.

pass is forcing

---

(g) No force is created after
(1) our penalty double or penalty pass of a takeout double when the partnership is not otherwise committed to further bidding;
(2) an opponent raises over our takeout double, simple overcall, or jump-overcall of a preemptive opening;
(3) an opponent’s preemptive bid over our one-over-one response;
(4) a strength-showing redouble by an already-limited hand.
(h) A strength-showing redouble by an unlimited hand creates a force to at least a level dictated by the logic of the auction
(g)123 is clear for me but not (g)4 or (h)

[Vampyr]

frank0, on 2011-August-01, 17:06, said:

(b) If we have been forced to game but have not bid game, competitive situations thereafter above the game level are forcing.
No idea about this.

I was unable to inseret a diagram, but anyway if it goes:

1♥-P-2NT-3♠
P-4♠-

If 2NT is game-forcing, then opening side cannot pass out 4♠.

Quote

© If we have bid game nonpreemptively, the default applies.
Which defalt?

This is unclear. One might think that (b) is the default, but the situation seems to have been covered in (a).

Quote

(d) If we have invited game and the invitation has not been declined, competitive situations thereafter are forcing only as high as where the force would have expired noncompetitively.
I don't understand what's "as high as where the force would have expired noncompetitively"?

1♠-X-2NT

If 2NT is a raise to 3♠ or better, then the partnership is forced to 3♠ and are not in a forcing situation against anything higher.

Quote

(g) No force is created after
(4) a strength-showing redouble by an already-limited hand.

For example, P-P-1♣-X-XX

Quote

(h) A strength-showing redouble by an unlimited hand creates a force to at least a level dictated by the logic of the auction.

Not too sure about this one. Perhaps in the example above, if the redoubler is not a passed hand, the partnership is forced up to the level of 2NT (or 3 of opener's suit?) since the "logic" suggests at least an opening hand facing at least an invitational hand.

[nige1]

♥ Come back ♥ Lurpoa ♥ All is forgiven ♥

[Lurpoa]

♥♥♥

frank0, on 2011-August-01, 17:06, said:

I copy the rules here, I try to find some example of each case but I'm not sure whether it's right. Can anyone tell me whether my example on each rule is correct or not? Or even better, provides an example for me.
...

♥♥♥

The introduction to the paragraph, you are quoting, sets the general framework (the default) to understand the specic cases, for which you are looking for examples.

QUOTE BWS2001:


When a call could logically be interpreted as either forcing or nonforcing and there is no explicit agreement:
In general:

In a competitive situation, treat as nonforcing; in a non-competitive situation, treat as forcing or nonforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer.

UNQUOTE


And yes, we agree, that "which seems more sensible to the observer", is not a very "scientific" rule. It asks for good understanding of common bidding practices and of BWS2001 in particular.

This BWS2001-paragraph is trying to solve a very delicate and very rare problem when we cannot "logically interprete the bid as either forcing or nonforcing ". You should be aware that with all the guidelines given in BWS2001, those situations are very rare.

If still there is any doubt, this paragraph is trying to give further guidelines, of which not the less important; competitive versus non-competitive.

Rather than we trying to find examples, of cases, which "you" cannot interprete (we cannot think for you) - we hope you do undertand this-, it would be better that you submit us the sequences you cannot interprete, with all the help the BWS-document is providing.


♥♥♥


PS:

We are unable to read you bidding diagrams. They are too small. Is there anybody else who has that same problem ? Why is that ?

♥♥♥