[Creeksider]

My hand: ♠Qxx ♥Qxxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx

The bidding: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - ???

I understand that opener has not limited his hand, so it's still possible we have enough combined strength for game. But is opener's rebid a forcing bid? I've had good luck passing in situations like this, where the bidding indicates a misfit that would probably play poorly in game even if opener has extra strength. Yet I've also sat at a table where one of my opponents blew his top when his partner passed in this situation. Is a pass permitted? If so is it unwise?

[BunnyGo]

Creeksider, on 2011-October-27, 07:46, said:

My hand: ♠Qxx ♥Qxxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx

The bidding: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - ???

I understand that opener has not limited his hand, so it's still possible we have enough combined strength for game. But is opener's rebid a forcing bid? I've had good luck passing in situations like this, where the bidding indicates a misfit that would probably play poorly in game even if opener has extra strength. Yet I've also sat at a table where one of my opponents blew his top when his partner passed in this situation. Is a pass permitted? If so is it unwise?

So I think you meant that there was no interference. That the auction was:

1♦-1♥
1♠-??

I would not pass. Opener has not made a game forcing jump shift (so has limited his hand a little). Pass is not terrible, but I would bid 1NT nonetheless.

[Creeksider]

Yes, this is the auction. When I played this hand, those who went on to bid 1NT went down after partner bid them to a higher level, while 1♠ made with an overtrick for a nice score, so pass worked out best. But I'm less concerned with this particular hand than with the general question: is 1♠ forcing in this situation? Almost forcing? Or not forcing at all?

[Hanoi5]

1♠ is not forcing but should only be passed with hands where game is impossible, around 6-8 HCP's.

[kenrexford]

1NT for me. It is not clear that you want to play in the spade contract, notrump seems reasonable, and you are willing to hear a further bid by partner of 2♦. Switch this hand slightly to ♠Qxx ♥Qxxx ♦x ♣Kxxxx, and passing makes some sense, as you would not like the auction to continue with partner rebidding 2♦ as his third call.

As an aside for the B/I to ignore, had the opened minor been clubs, and if Responder's minors were accordingly shifted, I would even more strongly opt for 1NT, even with the parallel 3-4-5-1 shape, because partner might (in my world at least) have 3145 and a big hand.

[ggwhiz]

Creeksider, on 2011-October-27, 08:43, said:

Yes, this is the auction. When I played this hand, those who went on to bid 1NT went down after partner bid them to a higher level, while 1♠ made with an overtrick for a nice score, so pass worked out best. But I'm less concerned with this particular hand than with the general question: is 1♠ forcing in this situation? Almost forcing? Or not forcing at all?

In my partnership 1♠ is not forcing at all and I too have had good results by passing it.

However, I always had something like 2 little in the unbid suit and the ♣ K here would have me bidding 1nt.

[aguahombre]

I can't prove this, and couldn't even try. But, I have been in and seen a whole lot of these 1/1 and 1/1/1 situations over the years and have decided that passing a suit response or rebid at the one-level must average at least minus 3 IMPS per occasion.

Not counting the times when responder has totally scraped up a response with sub values and properly passes opener's rebid...when we have a minimum 6-8 response and drop, we lose the race to 1NT, or lose the part-score battle when we belong in a suit partial much too often.

Watching a great team whose opening 1♦=less than 16 (thus have more reason to stop bidding) I still saw one break-even and 3 losses totalling about 15 IMPs as a result of passing in these situations ---very, very recently.

[Creeksider]

What I'm getting from this (and further comments are certainly welcome) is that although the one-level rebid is not technically forcing, it's rarely a good idea to pass (assuming you weren't stretching to make a one-over-one to begin with), and my favorable results from passing in auctions like this may well be an aberration.

[the hog]

1S may not be forcing for some, but it is 100% forcing for me. I bid 1NT.

[mck4711]

Edit:
Post deleted.
Ahem, yes, I mixed here something totally up (thx for ur hint flameous). Obviously not a good idea to write something before having a wake-up-coffee...

[gordontd]

the hog, on 2011-October-28, 01:24, said:

1S may not be forcing for some, but it is 100% forcing for me.

What do you play a 2♠ rebid as showing?

[Flameous]

When I played natural system where this kind of sequence matters, I also played 1S (and 1C - 1D - 1H) absolutely forcing.
I used the jumps for 56 GF hands, although it might be better to use them for weak 56 hands, not sure. I actually once saw that kind of jump bid during two years.
For much more frequent use I'd use them as some sort of raise for major, ie any minisplinter or something. I just wanted to handle those 56 hands somehow because your 1-1-1 rebid is very loaded anyways.

I also never included 18-19NT in the rebid at the one lvl, I don't want yet again another hand type in that one bid. There is no problem checking back for 4 card S after 2NT, I don't quite get you there mck4711. Of course you get some occasional losses from partner passing 2NT when you might have had better S game you'd reach after 1S.

[the hog]

gordontd, on 2011-October-28, 02:19, said:

What do you play a 2♠ rebid as showing?

2S is a mini splinter, Gordon.

[aguahombre]

The jump shift can be unbalanced, and the 1S rebid can be big and balanced....eliminating the need for checkbacks after a 2NT rebid.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I am a big believer in 1S being forcing.
But despite my claim, I was not really able to find a reasonable source on
the net that backed me up, that this was / is a standard practice in what
ever region.

Playing 1S in this sequence as forcing simplifies certain sequences, but due
to the fact, that the requirements for a simple 1 level response get shaded
quite often, playing 1S in this sequence as NF makes sense.
NF = 'pass if you dont have a real 1 level response'.
And if you play 1S as NF, than opener needs to make a stronger move, if he does
not want to get passed out.


With 7HCP, even with a 4333 shape, you have a full 1 level response and pass
is not an option.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

I play that 1S is non-forcing. You can definitely play it both ways and it is up to partnership agreement.

I would pass with Qxx Kxxx xx Jxxx, but this hand is too good and I'd bid 1NT.