BBO Discussion Forums: Forcing terms - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2

Forcing terms forcing, forcing for one round, promising a rebid, game forcing, etc

#1 User is offline   Wainfleet 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 2020-June-11

Posted 2020-September-26, 12:27

Is my understanding of these terms correct?

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

3. A bid that promises a rebid. Self explanatory. This is what I used to think was meant by Forcing for One Round If it's not the same as 2, is there a short way of describing it?

4. Game forcing. GF for short. 3NT, 4H/S or 5C/D. Not the same as 5.

5. Forcing to 3NT. the auction can stop at 4C/4D. Not the same as 4.

Thanks
0

#2 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,640
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-September-26, 13:26

View PostWainfleet, on 2020-September-26, 12:27, said:

Is my understanding of these terms correct?

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

3. A bid that promises a rebid. Self explanatory. This is what I used to think was meant by Forcing for One Round If it's not the same as 2, is there a short way of describing it?




More or less, and you are right, bridge terminology is often confusing (attacking the opponent's contract is called defending, cue-bid can mean almost anything, a Puppet is the guy pulling the strings, and so on).

My understanding of mainstream (US) terminology is that a bid that does not promise a rebid is called 'forcing for one round' and a bid that does is called 'forcing and promises a rebid'. Some Italian theoreticians call them F1 and F2 which is certainly shorter but not self-explanatory or unambiguous; others use F and F1 to mean the same things. Italian players usually call them 'forzante' (forcing) and 'autoforzante' (self-forcing) which is much better.
0

#3 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,471
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-September-26, 15:19

One of the important corollaries to the F3N type situations (and we have auctions that are forcing to plenty of other places) is that they set up forcing passes below that level.

So for example 1-P-2N(forcing to 3, not game forcing for us, limit or better)-3-P is forcing
0

#4 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,498
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2020-September-26, 17:41

Agree with Wainfleet that we can usefully distinguish ...
  • F/1 or F = "Forcing" Partner must not pass unless his RHO doubles or bids.
  • F/A or F/R = "Auto-forcing" Forcing and promises a rebid (below game).
  • F/G = "Game-forcing" We must not stop short of game unless we double opponents for penalty.
  • F/2NT = "Forcing to level" We must not pass below 2NT (or whatever).
  • F/SA = "Forcing to suit agreement" Some have this agreement about a cue-reply to a T/O double. e.g. (1) X (P) 2.
  • F/P = "Forcing-pass" Creates forcing-pass context. (We must not pass out opponents undoubled).

Edited to Include suggestions by Helene-T, Pesceton, Mycroft, and others.
1

#5 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,135
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2020-September-26, 19:03

Almost perfect! Just a few things:

1. Forcing: If partner's RHO passes, partner must not pass (i.e. partner must assure we get one more turn). May or may not promise a rebid, i.e. it is forcing for at least one round.

The short term for promising a rebid is auto-forcing, but that is mostly used in France. It doesn't literally promise a rebid: if partner jumps to game (or doubles opps, or redoubles), you can pass.

F1 means forcing I think, not necessarily auto-forcing.
... I am not at all keen on arriving at the 4 level with no idea of where our fit(s) might be. --- Zelandakh
0

#6 User is offline   apollo1201 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 2014-June-01

Posted 2020-September-27, 02:30

View Posthelene_t, on 2020-September-26, 19:03, said:

Almost perfect! Just a few things:

1. Forcing: If partner's RHO passes, partner must not pass (i.e. partner must assure we get one more turn). May or may not promise a rebid, i.e. it is forcing for at least one round.

The short term for promising a rebid is auto-forcing, but that is mostly used in France. It doesn't literally promise a rebid: if partner jumps to game (or doubles opps, or redoubles), you can pass.

F1 means forcing I think, not necessarily auto-forcing.

I was too puzzled by the forcing 珷1 round牷 if it is jute forcing 珷1 bid牷 and therefore only half a round of the table...and that 珷forcing牷 already existed.
I like the 珷auto forcing牷 term. You actually promise another bid unless partner bids game.

For instance (reverses are auto forcing for me)
1D - 1S
2H - 3NT
pass

is an ok sequence
0

#7 User is offline   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 201
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2020-September-27, 03:32

To the best of my knowledge the original term for number 2 was "One round forcing" (or maybe this is only the case in Dutch?), and indeed this promised another bid. This is a very interesting (and, if it comes up, useful) agreement to have because it makes all low bids by partner forcing! It basically says "partner, go ahead and describe your hand as much as you want, I will bid again anyway". Over time the term was replaced with "forcing for one round", and then reinterpreted as "forcing for one bid", which is just forcing (i.e. your term number 1). Maybe not entirely coincidentally, along with the term the entire agreement seems to also have fallen out of style. With a previous partner of mine I used to play redoubles as one round forcing (in the original meaning), so for example on 1-(X)-XX-P; ? any new bid by partner would be forcing (including 1NT!) because I already promised sufficient strength to play at the 2-level and probably 3-level.

However, between "Forcing up to such-and-such level" and forcing, you rarely need this agreement.
0

#8 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,439
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2020-September-27, 03:38

1 is a generic term that encompasses 2 - 5.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#9 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,640
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-September-27, 04:44

View Postgordontd, on 2020-September-27, 03:38, said:

1 is a generic term that encompasses 2 - 5.


Fair enough, but in that case #2 needs a better name. Perhaps 'Simple force' or 'Non-committal force'.
0

#10 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,640
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-September-27, 04:50

View Posthelene_t, on 2020-September-26, 19:03, said:



The short term for promising a rebid is auto-forcing, but that is mostly used in France. It doesn't literally promise a rebid: if partner jumps to game (or doubles opps, or redoubles), you can pass.

Used in Italy too, between players.
1

#11 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,439
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2020-September-27, 06:40

View Postpescetom, on 2020-September-27, 04:44, said:

Fair enough, but in that case #2 needs a better name. Perhaps 'Simple force' or 'Non-committal force'.


I'm surprised by this. To my mind "forcing for one round" is completely clear and accurate at it is.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#12 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,274
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2020-September-27, 09:13

I've heard:
  • Forcing 1 round: partner, you must give me another chance to bid.
  • Pseudo-game: Game, but can pass 4m *if 3NT was looked for and rejected*. Therefore: Pseudo-game forcing is like the OP's F3NT, but where 4m is also forcing in non-obvious situations.
  • Promises a rebid: what people are calling "auto-forcing"; I must bid again unless you make a final decision (game, usually), but I can override the "final" with sufficient strength. Most commonly to me, a 2/1 response in a Standard American, non 2/1GF context.

0

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,940
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2020-September-28, 17:30

It occurs to me that whatever meanings you decide to adopt for yourself, your opponents, and more importantly your partner, will think whatever term you use means something else.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
2

#14 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,356
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2020-September-29, 09:45

View PostWainfleet, on 2020-September-26, 12:27, said:

1. Forcing - partner must not pass, but it does not promise a rebid

2. Forcing for one round - F1 for short. I used to think that this promised a rebid (as per 3) but have read recently (I think somewhere on these forums), that this is the same as 1. That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer. One out of 1,2,3 (most likely 3) seems redundant to me.

Yes, these are the same. You can use F1 if you like but F1R is more common from my experience. The "1 round" is a reference to partner; they have to keep the bidding open for one round but on the second round they are allowed to pass absent a further force being introduced. Notice that the "must not pass" only applies if RHO passes, not generally.

View PostWainfleet, on 2020-September-26, 12:27, said:

4. Game forcing. GF for short. 3NT, 4H/S or 5C/D. Not the same as 5.

5. Forcing to 3NT. the auction can stop at 4C/4D. Not the same as 4.

In my bidding notes I use GF as a synonym for 5 and UGF for 4. There are several different terminologies used in this area so best to check exactly what is meant for any given source.
(-: Zel :-)

half-wit -- Chas_P the racist
0

#15 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,640
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-September-29, 14:23

View Postgordontd, on 2020-September-27, 06:40, said:

I'm surprised by this. To my mind "forcing for one round" is completely clear and accurate at it is.


View PostWainfleet, on 2020-September-26, 12:27, said:

That seems really odd. To me a round is like a circle, and the round is complete when the auction returns to the forcer.


I think both these interpretations of 'forcing for one round' have some merit and obviously they are in complete contradiction. Hence my suggestion for a new term.
0

#16 User is offline   smerriman 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,802
  • Joined: 2014-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-September-29, 18:42

For me forcing and forcing one round are technically identical, but I don't consider them redundant - it's all about context.

For example, if partner opens 1, then if I had to describe a 1 response, it would simply be a forcing bid. It would also be true to describe it as forcing one round, but there's simply no reason for me to do so.

On the other hand, after 1 - 1 - 2, I would describe 3 as game forcing, and 2 as 'forcing one round', even though forcing is also accurate. This is to convey the idea that 2 might be weak or strong, and we can stop short of game in the former case.
0

#17 User is offline   apollo1201 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 2014-June-01

Posted 2020-September-30, 00:12

View Postsmerriman, on 2020-September-29, 18:42, said:


On the other hand, after 1 - 1 - 2, I would describe 3 as game forcing, and 2 as 'forcing one round', even though forcing is also accurate. This is to convey the idea that 2 might be weak or strong, and we can stop short of game in the former case.

Technically, 2S is forcing because 2H was auto-forcing🤣🤣🤣
0

#18 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,356
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2020-September-30, 03:55

View Postapollo1201, on 2020-September-30, 00:12, said:

Technically, 2S is forcing because 2H was auto-forcing🤣🤣🤣

This is N/B so I feel obliged to point out that this is correct only because smerriman plays a system where 2 is forcing and 2NT is a weakness advance (also forcing), with all other calls being GF. It is not true in the general case, so if Responder has any non-forcing calls, and the vast majority of N/B players do have non-forcing calls here, then 2 is not auto-forcing.
(-: Zel :-)

half-wit -- Chas_P the racist
0

#19 User is offline   apollo1201 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 2014-June-01

Posted 2020-September-30, 11:45

View PostZelandakh, on 2020-September-30, 03:55, said:

This is N/B so I feel obliged to point out that this is correct only because smerriman plays a system where 2 is forcing and 2NT is a weakness advance (also forcing), with all other calls being GF. It is not true in the general case, so if Responder has any non-forcing calls, and the vast majority of N/B players do have non-forcing calls here, then 2 is not auto-forcing.

It was more to use the terms than to elaborate. But you are correct to point out that it is system-dependent. And as always, N/B or higher, you抎 better play the same thing as partner! For forcing or not, or forcing till where, it illustrates pretty well the need to be on the same wavelength as partner.
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,940
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2020-October-01, 14:43

Forcing: If the next opponent to call passes, the next player of our side must bid. The player of our side who made the forcing bid might or might not bid again.
Forcing to <level>: both players must keep the bidding open until <level> is reached. Once <level> is reached, subsequent bids are not forcing. If an opponent bids or doubles below <level>, pass is forcing. "level" means something like "3" or whatever.
Forcing to game: Any bid that is not game is forcing. This includes 4m.
Forcing to 3NT: This is a "forcing to <level>" situation (see above). Bids above 3NT are not forcing, so we can stop in 4m, that bid not being forcing.

Given the above, I honestly can't think of a situation that would require a "forcing one round" bid, particularly given that if I wanted to say that I would mean "you must ensure the bidding is kept open partner; I am going to bid again".
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


富二代精品国产app