[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-01, 14:43, said:

Given the above, I honestly can't think of a situation that would require a "forcing one round" bid

If by "forcing one round" you mean auto-forcing then an example might be (1♥) X (p) 2♥ which as we play it obliges partner to bid and promises to bid again.

blackshoe, on 2020-October-01, 14:43, said:

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".

IF that was all you wanted to say then "you must bid" would be quite sufficient
What we are saying is more like "I am going to bid again, so don't go making strength signals, just show your distribution".

[haka9]

Wainfleet, 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?

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

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

[gordontd]

haka9, on 2020-October-02, 23:55, said:

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

I think it's commonly played as forcing for one round after a one-level response, but forcing to game after a two-level response even if that two-level response was only forcing for one round (as in Acol).

[Zelandakh]

haka9, on 2020-October-02, 23:55, said:

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

What Gordon wrote - F1R after a one-level call and GF after a new suit at the 2 level. The same can also be said of a rebid in 3 of Opener's suit (1X - 1Y; 3X or 1X - 2Y; 3X) or indeed any "strong" sequence.

[Wainfleet]

gordontd, on 2020-October-03, 00:31, said:

I think it's commonly played as forcing for one round after a one-level response, but forcing to game after a two-level response even if that two-level response was only forcing for one round (as in Acol).

My understanding was that in Acol a reverse promised a rebid. Is that not so?

[Zelandakh]

Wainfleet, on 2020-October-03, 05:30, said:

My understanding was that in Acol a reverse promised a rebid. Is that not so?

That is only true if the pair is playing Lebensohl, Blackout or a similar method. In the traditional structure, 1X - 1Y; 2Z - 3X (Y>Z>X) is not forcing.