[SteveMoe]

Consider a principle: When partner makes a limited rebid at the 3-level or higher that is non-forcing, bidding on is forcing until game is reached.

So 1X - 1Y - 2N and 1X - 1Y - 3X are both non-forcing. You have to make your next bid at the 3-level.

Best to play in 2N or 3X when responder is weak, instead of trying to play in 3Y. Here by agreement pass is responder's only non-forcing option.

Also true: using these bids as forward going maximizes expected value - that is you have more degrees of freedom in auctions where you need to force to game and may have slam. This is also consistent with the idea that we bid strain before game, and game before slam.

[akwoo]

I think all this stuff about principles or lists of forcing or non-forcing auctions is still way too complicated for a beginner. The beginner can't memorize anything more than a line or two. The beginner can't figure out anything at the table.

The simple rules are as follows:

1) New suits by responder below game are forcing for one round.
2) New suits by opener above 2 of their opening bid suit and below game are forcing for one round.

Everything else is nonforcing.

Is this optimal? No. Is this standard with anyone not playing Stone Age Acol? No. But I have a partner who insists on this, not wanting to risk any disasters, and we do fine. Not having a better bidding system costs us on average a board a session, and it's well within the realms of possibility that the brain space we're saving lets us win back that board by giving us more brainpower to play the cards better.

[spotlight7]

B.J. Becker won numerous national championships using a grand

total of three conventions. Take out doubles, 4NT* and GSF.



For beginners and also many intermediates keeping the bidding reasonably

simple is a very good idea. The best is often the enemy of the good.



All three auctions are forcing in standard methods. If you wish to add some additional

methods over a 2N rebid, "Washington Standard" by Steve Robinson is a very good approach.



For those of you that respond very light to an opening bid, Wolff sign off is one popular option.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-August-18, 10:00, said:

1S-1NT
2NT-3H

In Acol at least this sequence is traditionally not forcing. The stronger your requirement for a 2/1 response, the stronger is the argument against this. The interesting case is probably the "2/1 forcing to 2NT" case, which goes back to the comment made by Vampyr.

kenberg, on 2016-August-18, 10:00, said:

For example, if it had begun 1D-1S-2H, I trust 2S and 3D are both forcing bids, and I think the 3D is game forcing. This assumes Lebensohl is being played over a reverse.

As you are no doubt aware the traditional approach after a reverse, in Acol at least, is for both 2♠ and 3♦ to be non-forcing. Playing Lebensohl does indeed change that so that 3♦ is a clear game force. The 2♠ rebid is less clear - modern standard is for this to be forcing but it is quite possible to play it as non-forcing too, as indeed it is in my system (there are some reasons why this makes more sense in that context).

kenberg, on 2016-August-18, 10:00, said:

It would be good if [Fred, maybe BBO has done this somewhere and I just don't know about it?] there was an easily accessible list of common auctions that are classified into f/nf. Players who wish goul still go there own way, but many would just say "Let's do it as listed".

For the reverse case there is Mike's stickied thread of course. A more general document is difficult because the rules for the forcing nature of calls are too different between major natural systems (2/1 GF, SA, SAYC, Acol, SEF/Forum D, etc) to be able to draw firm conclusions in boundary cases.