[Liversidge]

What exactly does it mean when a bid is described as "game forcing"?
Do they just mean that the partnership must not stop below game under any circumstances or does it just mean that the partnership must not stop below 3NT but might in some circumstances settle for 4 in a minor? And is 'unequivocally game forcing" just the same thing but with added emphasis?

For example, in lebensohl the sequence 1NT (2♠) 3♥ is described (in my book anyway) as game forcing, but the choices for opener's next bid are to raise to game with three cards, or bid 3NT with a stopper, or find a better game.

---

If the bid is game forcing then only alternatives here seem to be to bid 3NT or 4♥. I assume opener has to bid regardless of any doubts he might have, and just accept it as one of those things?

[helene_t]

Game forcing means game forcing. If you mean forcing to 3NT you say forcing to 3NT. And yes, 'unequivocally game forcing" is just the same thing but with added emphasis.

But when opener is tightly limited, such as here (he opened 1nt), I would say that responder should be allowed to pass 4m if he wants. So this is really just game forcing on opener. Responder could have 20 points so opener should never pass a part score bid once responder has bid a new suit at the 3-level. Responder, on the other hand, is in charge of the auction and can do what he wants.

Here, opener can bid 3♠. A bid in the suit of the opponents, especially when it is the cheapest bid such as here (and the only bid that doesn't bypass 3NT) doesn't promise anything in particular. It just keeps the auction open. 3NT would shows a stopper and 4m would either (depending on agreements) show a 5-card suit or be a control bid in support of hearts.

You are going to get too high on this one. Bad luck. Opener could have saved some matchpoints by passing 3♥, but next time responder has 20 points in the same sequence.

[Zelandakh]

While Helene is correct there are different authorities in this and some use "forcing to game" as a synonym for "forcing to 3NT", thus allowing the partnership to stop in 4 of a minor in certain circumstances. This is something to discuss in a serious partnership. In my own system file I use this second terminology with GF as shorthand for F->3NT and UGF meaning that 4m is never an option. The key is always whether you want to force past 4m on hands with no large fit an a suit open. If you never want to stop in 4m on such hands then the two things are identical. How you want to call them is entirely open - a rose by any other name and all that.

[steve2005]

You have to remember id you have 26 points like here between you it is bad bridge in the long run to not be in game. Also sometimes you can't make game with 26 points or even more, thems the breaks.
Here 4H looks hopeless, 3S losers and at least 1 heart loser.
If opp spades are 43 you might be able to make 3N

[Cyberyeti]

steve2005, on 2015-December-04, 09:31, said:

You have to remember id you have 26 points like here between you it is bad bridge in the long run to not be in game. Also sometimes you can't make game with 26 points or even more, thems the breaks.
Here 4H looks hopeless, 3S losers and at least 1 heart loser.
If opp spades are 43 you might be able to make 3N

Spades won't be 4-3 with the overcall, but if you're really lucky they'll be HHxxxx opposite a stiff honour, and you'll scramble 3N home via the hearts.

[oryctolagi]

The number of times I have failed to make game with 31 points or more, doesn't bear thinking about...

I think that almost all so-called game-forcing conventions have a non-game 'escape valve' somewhere. After all, the opponents may enter into a sacrifice which is worth more than the game would have been. And in my bridge-learning days, I learnt that after the sequence 2♣-2♦-2NT, the responder may pass if they have next to nothing.

[Zelandakh]

oryctolagi, on 2015-December-04, 10:55, said:

I think that almost all so-called game-forcing conventions have a non-game 'escape valve' somewhere. After all, the opponents may enter into a sacrifice which is worth more than the game would have been. And in my bridge-learning days, I learnt that after the sequence 2♣-2♦-2NT, the responder may pass if they have next to nothing.

Are you suggesting that doubling the opps for a telephone number is somehow contrary to the undisturbed auction being game-forcing? That is a rather strange idea if so. The specific auction you gave is not a game force but rather natural and non-forcing so obviously Responder is allowed to pass there. Can you find any real examples of "escape valves" in uncontested game-forcing auctions?

[fromageGB]

No escape valves. If I make a GF bid I expect partner to keep going at least until game is reached.
Opposition bids may be penalised, of course, but if below game only on a near-certainty of better score.

[dave_beer]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-04, 07:09, said:

In my own system file I use this second terminology with GF as shorthand for F->3NT and UGF meaning that 4m is never an option. The key is always whether you want to force past 4m on hands with no large fit an a suit open.

I prefer GF for game-forcing and QGF (where Q = quasi) for forcing to 3NT or 4 of a minor, usually with the further qualification that it is an agreed minor.

[zillahandp]

Means what it says you are going to game, we play this sequence as iforcing as lebensohl allows us to bid 2nt which ds 3c then 3hts is not nvitational and shows spade weakness.once in gf sit. Going slow shows slam interest

[zillahandp]

Sry is invitational

[Zelandakh]

dave_beer, on 2015-December-05, 16:01, said:

I prefer GF for game-forcing and QGF (where Q = quasi) for forcing to 3NT or 4 of a minor, usually with the further qualification that it is an agreed minor.

Yes, that sounds good to me. So long as the system file has a key somewhere that explains what the abbreviations mean I doubt it matters very much. What is important is that both partners are on the same page.