I just noticed this post, so I’m late to the party.
In a “Standard” system, 2
is absolutely forcing. One-round forcing is how I would interpret it. As Ken mentions, since responder is unlimited, he needs a forcing bid.
If this auction 1
– 1
– 2
– 2
. . . if 2
is somehow
not forcing, then presumably some sort of jump to the three-level is required to force? Barring special agreements, I think this: “
a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing” to be a fairly standard starting point for undiscussed “standard” methods. Undiscussed.
When questions like this arise, I always assume a standard system. And like the Bridge World MSC problems, I assume that partner is an expert, but that we are “not a regular partnership.” So back to undiscussed. Could the auction above be played as non-forcing? Sure, I suppose anything can be agreed to.
In Ken’s first response he mentions a similar auction:
1
– 1
– 2
– 2
. Forcing? If we play that a “new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing,” it means that yes, it is. Undiscussed, I would always assume this to be forcing. But if I can get partner to agree to it,
with discussion, I prefer to play it non-forcing, treating the 2
rebid like a 1NT rebid, and 2
like NMF. This allows the auction 1
– 1
– 2
– 2
to be played as non-forcing, just like after a 1NT rebid by opener. With the
opening and rebid, 2
is now forcing one-round, as there is no room for a forcing artificial bid. I first read about this treatment several years ago in an article by Billy Miller. I’ve seen it discussed from time to time on the forums. As I mentioned, I prefer it,
with discussion.
As always, coming to a consensus about what is "standard" is the problem. Every corner of the globe has its own firmly entrenched ideas about what is right.