[Adam1105]

OK. (Thank you very much for taking the time on this small question.) For me the 1♠ bid is forcing South to bid. Always. For my South partner, it wasn't. He/she passed. I've made this bid many times and nobody ever passed. (Both playing SAYC.)

---

[ahydra]

Matter of agreements. I play it as nf so that partner can pass on a minimum response. But there are arguments for playing it as forcing to 1N so as to not have to jump to 2S with a big hand.

Note that in general responder should keep the bidding open with ~8+ HCP, even taking false preference if necessary, to cater for a 17, 18 HCP hand opposite.

ahydra

[eagles123]

NF but should only pass with some real shite hand imo

[gordontd]

I think it's more common to play it as forcing if you could be rebidding a strong balanced hand. For those of who would rebid 2NT with all such strong balanced hands, and for whom the 1S rebid shows an unbalanced hand, I think it's normal for it not to be forcing - if you want to force you can rebid 2S.

[helene_t]

In SAYC it is not forcing.

Playing it as forcing allows the 2♠ rebid to be more well-defined (or you could use it for something different so that all hands with spades bid 1♠) but I prefer to play it as nonforcing. It is good to be able to stop in 1♠ when responder has five points and 3-card spade support.

Think of the alternative: Responder bids again with his five points but since he could have nine points, opener will make a third bid with his 16 points. Now you end up in 2NT with a combined 21 points.

Playing it as nonforcing also means that whenever responder raises spades, he promises four card support. This allows opener to make descriptive game tries because you don't need the nonforcing but forward-going 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥ bids for his 3rd turn.

Nonforcing doesn't mean "weak", though. The maximum is 17 HCPs or some modest 18. Responder should never pass with 4-card support unless his initial response was a semipsyche with a boring 3-count or less. He can pass with a 5/6-count with exactly three spades.

[kenberg]

I began bridge 50+ years ago reading Goren and it was nf. I still like it as nf.

An often neglected point about f versus nf: If 1S is nf and partner bids over this, you have slightly more information than you have when the bid is forcing. You know that he could have passed but chose not to. You can assume partner does not have a 3=5=2=3 hand with a 5 count. He could, and probably would, pass 1S with that.

The above is about the only time when 1S is passed. It seems that there are advantages to letting him pass with that hand but if a partnership worries that they might be missing a game then they can play it as forcing.

[NickRW]

For those that like it nf, how do you rebid with Axxx x AKQx AJxx?

[helene_t]

Yes, very strong 4144 hands are a problem. With this particular hand I would just bid 1♠, if partner passes it it may be ok, but if you don't like opening 2nt with a small singleton it could be a tad stronger. I would rebid 2♠, then. Not ideal, but I don't remember last time it came up.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree it's NF in SAYC, but I think the 2♠ bid is a little wasted for the purpose of showing a hand too big for 1♠ and consumes unnecessary space in constructive auctions. We play 1♠ as "forcing if you had a real 1♥ response".

[inquiry]

I prefer to play 1♠ as forcing.

[nige1]

IMO 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ is non-forcing, except by agreement. Especially nowadays, when responder might dredge up a reply on a weak hand
e.g. ♠ x x x ♥ Q x x x x ♦ x ♣ x x x.x. To force, opener can rebid 2♠. IMO woolly obfuscations like "virtually/almost/semi-forcing" shouldn't be allowed.

[monikrazy]

If you dislike playing 1S as NF you might want to consider looking into the Ingberman convention after reverses. This can handle light reverses by opener very efficiently and allow partnership to sign off at the 3 level when the responder is weak or there is a misfit. With a gadget like this, you will probably not be nearly as worried about responder passing.

Quote

For those that like it nf, how do you rebid with Axxx x AKQx AJxx?

1S. The real problem comes when partner continues bidding with 2H. Pass, 2N and 3C all viable contingent on scoring and vulnerability.

[kenberg]

NickRW, on 2016-January-18, 08:17, said:

For those that like it nf, how do you rebid with Axxx x AKQx AJxx?

I think 1S is ok. I indicated partner would probably pass this when holding at least some 3=5=2=3 shapes with five highs. For example with Qxx / Kxxxxx / xx / xxx. With a combined 23 count, no fit, and and no particular source of tricks beyond my high cards, I am fine with this.

Further, if 1S is forcing I am not sure what I expect him to do. Not 2H, I hope. I suppose he bids 1NT. Holding the strong hand you give me, I would much rather choose my next call knowing that partner bid 1NT because he thought it right rather than, perhaps, because system required that he bid something and 1NT was the best he could do.

[ggwhiz]

I expect (guess?) that the majority view is that 1♠ is non forcing but the hands that would pass after responding are south of 5% so if you played it as forcing it would take a long time to actually run into a pass over it.

Tools such as mentioned above (Ingberman or lebensohl over a reverse) and with the ability to recover a 4-4 spade fit after a 2nt or even a 1nt bid I see a lot of pairs choosing those bids instead of 1♠. Also, I can't bear to pass if partner opens 1 of a minor and I have a stiff on some real junk but will make a courtesy 2nd call with an 8 count.

[gszes]

You hold J43 9876 void QJ5432 you WILL bid 1h. When p bids 1s you will pass because you have essentially lied about having a "real" response. When seen from this light the 1s bid was never ever completely forcing. It was forcing only to those hand that were "real" responses. Then the concept of a one bid hand was introduced and suddenly that 1s bid was non forcing to any hand with 3 spades and less than say a fair 8 count. More recently the 1s bid has been used to show an unbalanced hand and with this more accurate distributional information a few more misfit hands will decide to pass. I admit to preferring 1s forcing to any "real" response no matter if 1s shows an unbalanced hand or not (the criteria I use to decide when to bid 1s vs 1n with a balanced hand takes almost 2 pages of notes). It is always a balancing act trying to find the right strain while not wasting too much space in the bidding and keeping the bidding alive will pay off with huge dividends on occasion. Just don't be shocked if someone else is taught differently and drops you like a hot potato for seemingly no good reason. Bridge is always about being on the same page.

[Caitlynne]

Opener's 1S rebid is non-forcing in standard (i.e., without any prior agreement) but, since opener has to have a monster to jump shift to 2S, responder must allow for the possibility that opener may have a very good hand (up to 18 HCP) and, as a consequence, 1S very rarely is passed (particularly when responder holds 4 card support). For example, opener might very well bid 1S with a hand like AQxx, Axx, AQJxx, x. That's a rock, but it is not good enough for 2S. In any case, 1S is flexible and you want to hear what responder says because the hand might play well in diamonds, hearts, spades, or no trump.

Typically, responder passes the 1S rebid only with marginal responding values accompanied by 3 card spade support and either poor support for opener's first suit (or no way to get there systemically - which, for example, might happen if the opening bid were 1C and the partnership plays XYZ). It is rare, albeit possible, for responder to pass 1S with 4 card spade support.

With Qxx, Axxx, xx, xxxx as responder, I would pass 1S.

With Jxxx, Kxxx, Jx, xxxx as responder, I would also pass 1S. This is a really bad hand that was barely (only marginally) worth a response to 1D.

With xx, AQxx, Qxx, xxxx as responder, I would bid 1NT. I have far too much to fail to give opener another chance should s/he be sitting on a rock.

With Jx, Kxxx, Jxx, Jxxx as responder, I also would bid 1NT. This time, I am not really trying to give opener another chance, but rather trying to get to our best spot.

With xx, KQxx, Jxxx, xxx as responder, I would take a preference that returns us to 2D. It would be even clearer to do this holding a hand with better diamond support such as xx, KJxx, Jxxxx, xx.

With Qxxx, Axxx, xx, xxx as responder, I would raise to 2S. I am not ashamed of this response (although I could easily have another Queen or so) and I have 4 card spade support. Even if partner is minimum and goes down in 2S, the opponents likely can go plus in a contract of their own.

With Qxxx, AQxx, Qx, xxx as responder, I would raise to 3S. 10 HCP and all honor cards appear to be working well.

[iandayre]

monikrazy, on 2016-January-18, 13:13, said:

If you dislike playing 1S as NF you might want to consider looking into the Ingberman convention after reverses. This can handle light reverses by opener very efficiently and allow partnership to sign off at the 3 level when the responder is weak or there is a misfit. With a gadget like this, you will probably not be nearly as worried about responder passing.



1S. The real problem comes when partner continues bidding with 2H. Pass, 2N and 3C all viable contingent on scoring and vulnerability.

I don't see how Ingberman (or Lebensohl) would apply. Bidding 2S in this auction is a jump shift, not a reverse.

[steve2005]

1♠ is just plain NF.

I don't remember whether I saw it here or on bridgewinnners.com , but most people advocated responding to 1♣ or 1♦ on very little (perhaps 3 or 4 hcp) perhaps even 0 HCP, when you are short in opener's minor.

Now if your doing this to keep out of a bad 1♣ or 1♦ contract you will be passing 1♠ as bidding again will almost guarantee getting too high.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, if 1♠ is 100% forcing, there is no strict reason to define 1♠ as a natural call other than force of habit. and rebid issues. Same could be said for 2♠, as well or alternatively.

For me, for instance, 1♠ is not reliably 4-card but is typically reliable as to diamonds. Hence, with 3154 pattern, I might bid 1♠ rather than 2♣ to advertise my 4+ diamond suit (if 1♦ is better minor), and only 4-card if 4144. That allows Responder to better pick between 1NT and 3♦, or to explore a diamond slam, or whatever else he might have in mind. Granted, this is a unique treatment and rare in this sequence.

However, tweak the auction to 1♣-P-1♥-P-1♠. Now, Opener has a problem with 3145 shape with non-minimum but not enough to reverse (especially with the stiff in hearts as a negative value). A 1♠ rebid, perhaps followed up with 2♦ later, works well to describe the tweener hand somewhat more effectively. Maybe 1♣-1♥, 1♠-1NT, 2♦ as 3145 and 15-16 HCP?

On the wild side, I strongly considered, for a while, reversing the meanings of 1♠ and 1NT, in a sense. Thus, 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT = 4-card spades, minimum, typically unbalanced. 1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠ = balanced, or a number of other possibilities. The downside to this is wrong-siding some 1NT contracts (although you mitigate this by right-siding the 1NT contracts where Opener has four spades); against this you wrong-side 2♠ contract s unless you employ transfers, with 2♣ checkback and perhaps 2♠ as a space-consuming GF checkback (but with less to show). The upside is the ability to relay to 1NT and then bid something else instead, for breaks in the relay, etc.

[Charlie Yu]

steve2005, on 2016-January-19, 15:31, said:

1♠ is just plain NF.

I don't remember whether I saw it here or on bridgewinnners.com , but most people advocated responding to 1♣ or 1♦ on very little (perhaps 3 or 4 hcp) perhaps even 0 HCP, when you are short in opener's minor.

Now if your doing this to keep out of a bad 1♣ or 1♦ contract you will be passing 1♠ as bidding again will almost guarantee getting too high.

Responding on 0 points is almost always a bad idea, partner will often bid way too high.

If you play WJS, 1H rebid is usually real and no point to play 1S NF.