Talk:Forcing bid

Scope

As related with User:JocK's recent edits: I think it's kind of no-brainer to describe e.g. Michaels cuebid as a "forcing bid". In my opinion, such qualifiers should be omitted from (almost) all bridge conventions, as it's pretty self-telling that e.g. cue-bid of opponent's suit is a forcing, or any bid which does not denote a natural holding in the suit. Duja 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but consider Pass or correct worthy of more substantial discussion, such as Paradox responses to a strong 2C opener, so that one should not be merge/redirected into the glossary. Matchups 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts and refrain from biased opinions. If you don't like the adding of a single descriptive and factually correct word (the word "forcing") into the description of Michaels cue-bid, I think you have a problem. Also, it is a no-brainer to me that articles on Pass-or-correct bid and Forcing bid can grow into more substantial articles. JocK 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We're here to exchange the opinions, no?

If you want to be consistent, then you should add "forcing bid" to all articles in Category:Bridge conventions, because (almost) every conventional bid must be forcing by definition, as it does not denote a suggestion to play there. That makes it a no-brainer. While it is, in the strict sense, factually correct, it is so trivial that I fail to see any relevance. How on Earth could someone even think of passing e.g Michaels cuebid or Stayman? A reference of "forcing bid" makes sense only for natural or semi-natural (i.e. ones that occur in 2nd or 3rd round of a conventional sequence) bids.

This is incorrect. Certainly not all conventional bids are forcing. Many examples abound: A conventional DONT double is non-forcing. A multi-2D bid that only contains the weaker variants (the Wagner 2D) is non-forcing. The Gardener Notrump is non-forcing. And I'm sure in your bridge career you must have occasionally passed a take-out double of your partner. ;) JocK 11:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the article Forcing bid it has, in my opinion, two prospects for the future: remain a 3-sentence definition of the term (variants having been already covered in Contract bridge glossary), or become a humongous list of all possible forcing bids. I fail to see the potential of a well-defined scope; please enlighten me if I'm wrong. Duja 07:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the fuzz about counting sentences? You don't like short and snappy articles? As it stands, the article contains 11 sentences. That is fine with me. However, most likely it will grow further (with general rules/considerations when a bid is forcing). JocK 11:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you have to take everything personal? We have the same goal, and here we exchange opinions, which might coincide or not. Why such bitterness like "biased opinions", "you have a problem"? <jest>(and do you tell the same sentences to your bridge partner?)</jest> OK, you have convinced me that forcing bid can have a future. You still did not convince me that it's necessary to link it from every single convention intro. Yes, takeout double can be passed out. I have passed Blackwood on few ocassions. Would you pass out partner's Michaels cuebid 1♠-2♠ with ♠KQJ108764 and out? Why on Earth is it necessary to even mention that Splinter bid is a forcing? I consider it an offense to reader's intelligence. To exaggerate slightly, should we begin every Wikipedia biography with "John Doe is a male human who ..."? Duja 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the description of John Doe correctly so makes explicit this concerns a male (as opposed to the female Jane Doe).

You might have noticed that in the various bridge articles I have added more links than just those to Forcing bid. I don't believe one can 'over-link', the more links the better. Hope we at least agree on that!

Here is a link to a fairly good discussion and brief history of the Michael's Cuebid [1]. Of course it is possible to view every bid as either "forcing", "non-forcing" or "semi-forcing", but it is also possible to get wrapped up in the urgancy instead of understanding what partner is communicating. I believe if we manage to communicate to the reader the information which a bid means to communicate to partner, difficulties which tend to stick one's attention (such as forcing) will appear quite minor. The intent here is to communicate to a reader what is meant by a bid, no? This being the first piece of information a partner wants to understand. The reason I say this is because in a sequence such as, 1 club, 2 clubs, 4 spades ( ? ), the Michael's bid of 2 clubs would not be forcing, I don't believe. Terryeo 14:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, can you make the bidding example a bid more specific? (E.g. by putting opps bids in brackets). Are you referring to the sequence (1♣) - 2♣* - (4♠) - ?? In any case, I don't understand how later bidding could possibly change the forcing nature of an earlier bid. --JocK 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)