BBO Discussion Forums: Responding 1NT to partner's open - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Responding 1NT to partner's open Differences if partner opens a minor?

#1 User is offline   DavidV52 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 2011-December-09

Posted 2012-March-02, 11:21

I am going through the ACBL book, Bidding in the 21st Century, and I am puzzled by a suggested response. Let's say I have 6-9 total points and partner opens a major suit, but I don't have support for the opening bid, and I don't have a new 4-card suit to bid at the 1-level. The book suggests bidding 1NT, and the examples show bidding it without stoppers in the other suits.

Given the same situation, but an opening bid in a minor suit by partner, the book recommends a 1NT response only with stoppers.

What puzzles me is the suggestion to bid 1NT without stoppers in response to a major suit. My understanding is that a 1NT bid is not forcing (as a new suit would be), so it seems to me that I could get left in a 1NT contract without stoppers.

So, my question boils down to: Am I reading correctly that I should bid 1NT in response to a major suit opening bid, even without stoppers, as described above? Thanks for your help.
1

#2 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,385
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-02, 11:58

Making a 1NT response to a 1-of-a-suit opening bid is not like other NT responses where ideally you have stoppers. Basically it's a "dustbin" bid, saying nothing more than "Partner, I have 6-9 points - but I don't have support for your suit, and I don't have a suit I can bid of my own at the 1-level". (If playing 2/1 then 6-9 becomes 6-11 or so)

So yes, you should make the bid even without stoppers. The same applies for a minor suit as well (I'm confused that the book would say you need stoppers). Partner may well pass and you are very often left in a contract without a stop in one suit. But generally the opponents can't beat 1NT just using that suit straight off (would require a ghastly break) and the contract normally has plenty of chances.

Of course, opener will often hold 5-4 or better shape, and so is often more than happy to suggest a second suit to play in, which increases the odds of playing somewhere safer.

ahydra
1

#3 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,723
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2012-March-02, 12:43

I am not familiar with the book, but are you sure that a 1NT response to a one-of-a major opening is not forcing?
0

#4 User is offline   DavidV52 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 2011-December-09

Posted 2012-March-02, 12:55

 ArtK78, on 2012-March-02, 12:43, said:

I am not familiar with the book, but are you sure that a 1NT response to a one-of-a major opening is not forcing?

Well, being a beginner, I'd have to say 'no'. Perhaps another poster can provide guidance.
1

#5 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,385
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-02, 16:22

It would depend on what system the book is describing. In England we play ACOL where 1NT is 100% non-forcing. AFAIK it's the same in SAYC. Playing 2/1, I think there are a couple of different styles - one where 1NT is forcing, and one where 1NT is "semi-forcing" (i.e. opener can only pass if he can be sure there's no game possible).

See if you can find the name of the system the book is describing, or even better, see if there are any examples of 1Major-1NT being passed.

ahydra
0

#6 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,082
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-05, 03:05

 DavidV52, on 2012-March-02, 11:21, said:

I am going through the ACBL book, Bidding in the 21st Century, and I am puzzled by a suggested response. Let's say I have 6-9 total points and partner opens a major suit, but I don't have support for the opening bid, and I don't have a new 4-card suit to bid at the 1-level. The book suggests bidding 1NT, and the examples show bidding it without stoppers in the other suits.

Given the same situation, but an opening bid in a minor suit by partner, the book recommends a 1NT response only with stoppers.

What puzzles me is the suggestion to bid 1NT without stoppers in response to a major suit. My understanding is that a 1NT bid is not forcing (as a new suit would be), so it seems to me that I could get left in a 1NT contract without stoppers.

So, my question boils down to: Am I reading correctly that I should bid 1NT in response to a major suit opening bid, even without stoppers, as described above? Thanks for your help.

1NT is the default bid, you have to choose, when you have to answer - i.e. if you have atleast 6HCP,
but have no fit for partner, have no 4 card suit to bid on the 1 level, and and are not strong enough
to go to the 2 level.

The remark to bid 1NT after a minor suit opening only with stoppers, implies, that there has to be an
alternative, say you have 4+ cards for partners minor suit, and the alternative to 1NT would be
showing the fit by raising partner.

In other words - a 1NT response to a suit opening does not show a stopper.

But it if you have alternatives, consider them, but only than.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: The above is system independ, system depend is only the number of HCPs, so that
you have to make a bid.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#7 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,741
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2012-March-05, 04:31

A 1NT response to a 1, 1 or 1 opening is typically played as just a noise to keep open the bidding on any hand that has no better bid, a dustbin bid as ahydra puts it. It does not show stoppers as otherwise you would have no response available with, inter alia, a minimum 2236 hand.

Bidding over a 1 opening may be different depending on the system being discussed since here you either have 4 card support for partner's clubs or a 4 card suit that you can bid at the 1 level. That means that in certain systems, such as Acol, a 1NT response can get a much more specific (and positive) meaning over the 1 opening. This really depends mostly on whether Responder can happily raise the clubs with a 3334 hand.

I do not know the book you are describing but if it really reads as reported here then I would suggest getting a new one is in order. For 1 - 1NT to promise stoppers in the other 3 suits is unplayable in a natural system imho.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#8 User is offline   nigel_k 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,207
  • Joined: 2009-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2012-March-05, 14:03

Even a non-forcing 1NT response is semi-conventional. If you have a minimum response and cannot raise or respond in a new suit at the one level, you have to bid 1NT regardless of shape. For example, if partner opens 1 you can respond 1NT on any of the following:

Qxx xx Axxx Jxxx. This is a 'classic' example but is hardly typical. Since you are limited to 6-9 HCP the odds are quite high that one of the side suits won't have any high cards.

xxx xx Axxx QJxx. This is an absolutely normal 1NT and there is no other possible action.

xx x Axxxx QJxxx. Again, absolutely normal and correct 1NT. No possible alternative.

xx x Axx QJxxxxx. Ditto. You aren't strong enough for 2 but cannot pass with 7 HCP so have to bid 1NT.
0

#9 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,035
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-March-06, 01:10

 ArtK78, on 2012-March-02, 12:43, said:

I am not familiar with the book, but are you sure that a 1NT response to a one-of-a major opening is not forcing?


Not everyone plays 2/1 GF. I know that many Americans don't think that this is really true.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#10 User is offline   Antrax 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,458
  • Joined: 2011-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-06, 01:23

Does this mean you've read the book and know that it doesn't describe a system that has forcing 1NT response to a 1M opener?
0

#11 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,978
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-March-06, 08:37

I haven't read it (I have read previous editions), but I'm pretty sure it describes Standard American, not 2/1.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#12 User is offline   Antrax 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,458
  • Joined: 2011-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-06, 10:51

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I was under the impression that 2/1 implies forcing 1NT but not the other way around. Is this wrong?
0

#13 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,028
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2012-March-06, 11:30

 Antrax, on 2012-March-06, 10:51, said:

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I was under the impression that 2/1 implies forcing 1NT but not the other way around. Is this wrong?

Used to be true. Now, neither implies the other.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#14 User is offline   SimonFa 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 410
  • Joined: 2011-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Dorset, England
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, sailing (yachts and dinghies),

Posted 2012-March-07, 06:30

If partner is a minimum and you have 6-9 points then ops have the balance of power and it is likely LHO is itching to bid. In this case 1NT has some preemptive value as well as keeping the bidding open if partner is stronger.

Furthermore, I have learned the hard way playing against weak NT that 1NT is notoriously difficult to defend against so now I don't worry too much about being left in it.
0

#15 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,817
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Enschede, the Netherlands
  • Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2012-March-07, 07:45

 Antrax, on 2012-March-06, 10:51, said:

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I was under the impression that 2/1 implies forcing 1NT but not the other way around. Is this wrong?

I think more people play 2/1 without forcing 1NT than forcing 1NT without 2/1. There was a thread on this a few months ago but I've lost my ability to look for them.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#16 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,879
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2012-March-07, 12:04

I would agree with you gwnn, but only because more people play 2/1 than any of the systems that are "not 2/1, but F1NT". Given that I play two of them (light-opener Precision and 60's K/S)...

But I bet fewer people play NF 1NT with 2/1GF (as opposed to "semi-forcing") than play F1NT without 2/1 GF.
0

#17 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,035
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-March-07, 12:11

 gwnn, on 2012-March-07, 07:45, said:

I think more people play 2/1 without forcing 1NT than forcing 1NT without 2/1.


I always think of Forcing (including semi-forcing) 1NT as the bastard stepchild of 2/1 GF. Generally speaking, I think that it would be foolish to take on the disadvantages of the former without the advantages of the latter.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#18 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,082
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-07, 12:22

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-07, 12:11, said:

I always think of Forcing (including semi-forcing) 1NT as the bastard stepchild of 2/1 GF. Generally speaking, I think that it would be foolish to take on the disadvantages of the former without the advantages of the latter.

Well ... playing forcing NT has its advantages, and it may well be,
that one wants to have the advantages of playing 2/1, without the
trouble to get a full blown 2/1 system up and running, espesially,
if you prefer to open light.

With kind regards
Marlowe
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#19 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,817
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Enschede, the Netherlands
  • Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2012-March-07, 16:37

 mycroft, on 2012-March-07, 12:04, said:

I would agree with you gwnn, but only because more people play 2/1 than any of the systems that are "not 2/1, but F1NT". Given that I play two of them (light-opener Precision and 60's K/S)...

But I bet fewer people play NF 1NT with 2/1GF (as opposed to "semi-forcing") than play F1NT without 2/1 GF.

Nf 1NT as in 6-9? that system DNE. I was talking about forcing (may not be passed) vs nf (may be passed). I also meant to exclude GF1NT.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users