new suit forcing - rec.games.bridge

Message from discussion new suit forcing

Adam Beneschan

View profile

More options May 15, 3:15 pm

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge

From: Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com>

Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:15:25 -0700 (PDT)

Local: Thurs, May 15 2008 3:15 pm

Subject: Re: new suit forcing

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On May 15, 2:24 am, John Hall <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <cqOWj.23733$5b3.15283@trnddc05>,
> Tim Brown <timothybrow...@verizon.net> writes:>I apologize for a beginners question, but.. My wife and I disagree on when a
> >new suit should be forcing. I prefer a new suit to be forcing when it has a
> >higher rank (S over H), and not forcing when a lower rank (C over H). I also
> >don't like any forces against an overcall. My wife prefers all new suits
> >forcing. What is best.

> Since 1H-2C forces the bidding to a higher level than 1H-1S, most
> systems say that the 2C response requires a stronger hand than does 1S.
> It varies with the system that you are playing, but it is common to
> require something like 10 HCP for a response at the two level, whereas a
> response at the one level promises no more than 6. So if anything you
> have it the wrong way round.

Haven't there been systems where 1H-2C was nonforcing? I think Katz-
Cohen's Breakthrough might have been like this, based on what little
I've read about it (1H-1NT was unlimited, 1H-2C was nonforcing, 1H-2C
plus a sniff through the left nostril was weak... or something like
that...) I kind of suspect that was the reason that a game-
invitational (or better) 1NT response to a major was prohibited by the
GCC.

But anyway, if you do play that way, I suspect you'd need a lot of
other specialized agreements, so it's definitely not for beginners.

-- Adam

Reply to author Forward