[cherdano]

Hannie, on Nov 7 2005, 07:24 PM, said:

Adam, could you explain how 2/1 and forcing notrump change this situation? Would opener ever pass 1NT playing SAYC with 5-4 in the majors? I agree with your comment that forcing 1NT is not pretty, but it seems to me that there is no difference for this particular situation.

I suppose Adam means that responder doesn't have to blast to just because he has 10-12 pts and a 4-4 heart fit, because he was able to express his values earlier. (1S-2C-2H-3H)

Arend

[Kalvan14]

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 03:24 AM, said:

I think that this had is yet another example of the reasons why after the F1NT, responder can have great benefits by using 1st step except the pref to opener's suit as "Lebensohl/Good-bad".

Here I would strongly advocate the use of 2NT as goodbad, giving up the natural NT invite.

This way it would be possible to discriminate, in this specific case:
- good raises to 3H from bad raises to 3H
- good hands with a long minor from bad hands with a long minor
- other hand types with good/bad suport in spades

We give up the 2NT "to play" when the sequence is 1S-1NT-2H or 1S-1NT-2S (in other squences, responder will have 2X available as "Good bad relay", and still have available the natural 2NT).
I am ready to pay this price (occasionally I'll play 3M in a 5-2 fit, I've played worse contracts....).

I have been thinking along the same lines. Matter of fact, there are a lot of situations at 2 level where being able to discriminate between "good" and "bad" more than compensates the loss of 2Nt as natural bid

[Fluffy]

3♥ to me, but pass is closer than 4♥ IMO

[david_c]

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 09:24 AM, said:

Here I would strongly advocate the use of 2NT as goodbad, giving up the natural NT invite.

Meanwhile, I would strongly advocate playing 1♠:2♣ as not quite game forcing, which has many advantages, one of which is that you can use 1♠:1NT,2x:3♣ as good-bad.

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Nov 8 2005, 01:18 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 09:24 AM, said:

Here I would strongly advocate the use of 2NT as goodbad, giving up the natural NT invite.

Meanwhile, I would strongly advocate playing 1♠:2♣ as not quite game forcing, which has many advantages, one of which is that you can use 1♠:1NT,2x:3♣ as good-bad.

But you lose the option of signing off in 3C with a long, weak minor, say
x-x-xxx-AJTxxxxx

With such a hand, you don't want to pass the 1S opening, you don't want to preference to 2S, you just want to play 3 clubs, and I think 1NT forcing structure should be oriented to allow partscores in 3m.

On the other hand, 1M:3C are used by many (including myself) as artificial raises, so the use of the immediate 3C response for weak or invitational hands wit a long minor is not available.

===

Besides, the use of 3C as good bad would be unoptimal when opener's rebid is 2D or when bidding goes 1H:1NT:2H; in that case, the most efficient puppet bid is the first unbid suit at the 2 level.

[david_c]

Chamaco, on Nov 8 2005, 02:25 PM, said:

But you lose the option of signing off in 3C with a long, weak minor, say
x-x-xxx-AJTxxxxx

Indeed you do. I don't think this hand is worth worrying about, on grounds of frequency. Though perhaps 1♠:3♣ should be a weak jump shift (see next paragraph).

Quote

On the other hand, 1M:3C are used by many (including myself) as artificial raises, so the use of the immediate 3C response for weak or invitational hands wit a long minor is not available.

Serious partnerships might wish to treat a 1♠ opening differently to 1♥. Having lots of immediate raises available is very useful over 1♥. Raises are still useful over 1♠, but less so because you're guaranteed to be outranking the opponents' suits. Meanwhile, constructive bidding is harder over 1♠ than 1♥, so using jumps to show non-fit hands makes a lot of sense.

Quote

Besides, the use of 3C as good bad would be unoptimal when opener's rebid is 2D or when bidding goes 1H:1NT:2H; in that case, the most efficient puppet bid is the first unbid suit at the 2 level.

Yes, you should use 2♠ as good-bad after a 1♥ opening. My suggestion of 3♣ only applies after 1♠. I don't agree about 1♠:1NT,2♦. Sure, 2♥ is the most efficient puppet available, but it's also the most efficient way to show hearts!

[helene_t]

This is an 8 looser hand so 3♥. The singleton in pd's suit is bad news but I have some useful intermediates.

3♥ would have been GF so pd can be quite strong. 11-17(18). But you have most of the same problem without the forcing 1NT, since there are minimal hands than would rebid 2♥ even if 1NT is non-forcing. At least, some partners do.

So this is more a case for playing limited openings than a case for not playing forcing 1NT.

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Nov 8 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

Serious partnerships might wish to treat a 1♠ opening differently to 1♥. Having lots of immediate raises available is very useful over 1♥. Raises are still useful over 1♠, but less so because you're guaranteed to be outranking the opponents' suits. Meanwhile, constructive bidding is harder over 1♠ than 1♥, so using jumps to show non-fit hands makes a lot of sense.

Thinking about it,
I am more inclined to use 1S:1NT* as SEMIforcing, so that hands that would not accept any invitation would not rebid.

It seems to me that this might solve the problem, since after 1S:1NT:2H/S, an invitational responder just bid game, hence any 3-level suit bid by responder is signoff.


The 2 difficulties left are:

1- missing an 8 card major fir when responder is very weak or invitational with 3 card support

2- the way responder shall force to game with a long minor and an invitational hand: if he just bashes to 3NT, sometimes he will go down when 5m is cold; if he just bids 4/5m, sometimes a laydown 3NT will be missed.

Comments ?

[Walddk]

Hannie, on Nov 7 2005, 07:24 PM, said:

Adam, could you explain how 2/1 and forcing notrump change this situation? Would opener ever pass 1NT playing SAYC with 5-4 in the majors? I agree with your comment that forcing 1NT is not pretty, but it seems to me that there is no difference for this particular situation.

There is a significant difference if 1NT is not forcing for one round. Opener will still bid 2♥ of course, but now you can distinguish between a sound raise and a weak raise (not invitational). Many play it this way:

1MA - 1NT
2OM - 2NT = sound raise in OM (other major).

Whereas 3OM would show less than invitational values; a courtesy raise if you like (in case opener has a super max for his 2OM).

Roland

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Nov 8 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

There is a significant difference if 1NT is not forcing for one round. Opener will still bid 2♥ of course, but now you can distinguish between a sound raise and a weak raise (not invitational). Many play it this way:

1MA - 1NT
2OM - 2NT = sound raise in OM (other major).

Whereas 3OM would show less than invitational values; a courtesy raise if you like (in case opener has a super max for his 2OM).

Roland

Roland, I am confused:

do you suggest this sequence if 1NT is forcing or if 1NT is NON forcing ?

If 1NT was forcing, doesn't this also sacrifice the natural 2NT invite ?

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Nov 8 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

Walddk, on Nov 8 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

There is a significant difference if 1NT is not forcing for one round. Opener will still bid 2♥ of course, but now you can distinguish between a sound raise and a weak raise (not invitational). Many play it this way:

1MA - 1NT
2OM - 2NT = sound raise in OM (other major).

Whereas 3OM would show less than invitational values; a courtesy raise if you like (in case opener has a super max for his 2OM).

Roland

Roland, I am confused:

do you suggest this sequence if 1NT is forcing or if 1NT is NON forcing ?

If 1NT was forcing, doesn't this also sacrifice the natural 2NT invite ?

Indeed. If playing 2/1 where 1NT is F1, 2NT next would be natural (11-12). If you play sayc or Acol, however, where 1NT is limited to a bad 10 count, you should use 2NT as a sound raise for opener's second suit.

Roland

[cherdano]

Mauro, I like semi-forcing 1NT a lot. However, I think you still have to allow opener to bid again with light distributional hands; otherwise 1NT can just be too bad of a contract.

About the invitational hands with a long minor: Easy, play invitational jump shifts.

Arend

[awm]

The problem seems to be: "If I have to raise to 3♥ on hands like the one in the example, how does partner know when I have something like this versus a 'real' invite?"

This is easy in a non-forcing notrump system. There is no 'real' invite, because that hand starts with a 2/1 call. The raise is always something like 8-9 high with decent cards.

The answer I hear from most 2/1 players is: "I would just bid game with the 'real' invite, so a simple raise is basically courtesy." This may be making the best of a bad situation; automatically bidding game with all limit raises might work out okay, but I doubt it's better than showing a limit raise and letting opener make the decision.

Yes, this is also easy in a limit-opening system, or using something like riton or gazilli. There the answer is "the raise is always a real invite, because I don't make courtesy raises (if partner was strong enough to accept a courtesy raise he'd open strong ♣ / rebid 2♣)."

[Chamaco]

awm, on Nov 8 2005, 05:17 PM, said:

Yes, this is also easy in a limit-opening system, or using something like riton or gazilli. There the answer is "the raise is always a real invite, because I don't make courtesy raises (if partner was strong enough to accept a courtesy raise he'd open strong ♣ / rebid 2♣)."

I believe that with this hand it is reasonable to invite even opposite a 10-15 opener

[awm]

Chamaco, on Nov 8 2005, 12:21 PM, said:

awm, on Nov 8 2005, 05:17 PM, said:

Yes, this is also easy in a limit-opening system, or using something like riton or gazilli. There the answer is "the raise is always a real invite, because I don't make courtesy raises (if partner was strong enough to accept a courtesy raise he'd open strong ♣ / rebid 2♣)."

I believe that with this hand it is reasonable to invite even opposite a 10-15 opener

I would pass, especially if partner can jump to 3♥ with a 5-5 maximum.

We have at most 23 high, and only an 8-card fit (if we have a nine-card fit then we have only 21 or so high at best). The diamond JT are unlikely to do anything for partner. The singleton is opposite partner's suit, which is often not best. If partner has the best possible hand, 4♥ will probably be around 50%. But there are lots of hands where 3♥ will go down, or where 4♥ will be bid and go down.

[Trpltrbl]

Very simple rule, I have a fit and decent ( more the minimum ) hand. So I raise to 3♥.

GBB