[mikeh]

Jlall, on Oct 22 2006, 10:09 PM, said:

No game forcing hands are recommended to go through a forcing NT in 2/1 anyways as far as I know, so having opener passing when they wouldn't accept any invite seems to make sense to me.

That is probably true in that the (few) 2/1 texts I have read (ok, so I only ever read Hardy's first book), do not use the 1N on any gf hand. But in the real world, quite a few players do use a forcing 1N on gf hands. I personally do if I hold, for example, some 3343 13 count opposite a 1Major opening. I bid 1N and then either 3N or 4Major, depending on how my hand fits his rebid.

Having said this, giving that up would not exactly be high cost

And the point about being able to play in 1N opposite some light semi-balanced openers is valid. I suspect that the main reason people aren't aware of the cost of the forcing 1N (at least in NA) is that so many people use it! In my part of the continent, non-forcing 1N is rare, and usually (always) played by weak players who can be counted on to misplay 1N anyway. So a good player playing a poor 2 level contract still gets a good board, in mps or imps, because he/she will be playing the same silly contract as everyone else.

Having said that, I think that a forcing NT is still a good idea on many hands, especially if we incorporate some form of Bart. Is it on balance better than semi-forcing? I don't know, but I do agree that 2/1 remains very playable with only semi-forcing.

[awm]

At some point I put up a thread asking whether it's right to play 1NT as forcing if the range is 6-9 or so and the bid denies a fit. This is basically an SAYC 1NT response. The overwhelming response was that I'd be crazy to play 1NT as forcing in this case, because the ability to play 1NT (and knowing partner has four for a minor suit rebid) far outweighs the advantage gained by the 1NT forcing call on the rare distributional hand. That was on these same BBO boards, with many of the same posters replying.

In a 2/1 structure that includes invitational jump shifts, the only real hand type that responds 1NT not in the 6-9 range is the "balanced invite" holding around 10-12 high. Surely this hand is one where you are happy to be in 1NT instead of 2NT if partner passes. So playing 1NT as non-forcing in such a 2/1 system is even more clear than in SAYC.

As for the patterns like 1552 where you may think forcing notrump is better, I should note that playing 1NT as forcing is no guarantee to get to the right spot on these hands either. Most of the time partner rebids 2♣ (which might not even be a suit). How do you like your chances now? It's even worse if you're 1525 and partner rebids 2♦. Playing 2/1, you can't even use 2NT as a scramble (which Elianna and I do routinely on these types of hands) because 1NT...2NT has a natural meaning (balanced invite).

And while the forcing notrump definitely gets you to the six-card suit in responder's hand when you have it, there's no reason we can't run this same suit in 1NT. Sometimes 1NT makes and three of responder's 6-card minor doesn't.

[mikeh]

awm, on Oct 23 2006, 05:24 PM, said:

In a 2/1 structure that includes invitational jump shifts, the only real hand type that responds 1NT not in the 6-9 range is the "balanced invite" holding around 10-12 high. Surely this hand is one where you are happy to be in 1NT instead of 2NT if partner passes. So playing 1NT as non-forcing in such a 2/1 system is even more clear than in SAYC.

As for the patterns like 1552 where you may think forcing notrump is better, I should note that playing 1NT as forcing is no guarantee to get to the right spot on these hands either. Most of the time partner rebids 2♣ (which might not even be a suit). How do you like your chances now? It's even worse if you're 1525 and partner rebids 2♦. Playing 2/1, you can't even use 2NT as a scramble (which Elianna and I do routinely on these types of hands) because 1NT...2NT has a natural meaning (balanced invite).

And while the forcing notrump definitely gets you to the six-card suit in responder's hand when you have it, there's no reason we can't run this same suit in 1NT. Sometimes 1NT makes and three of responder's 6-card minor doesn't.

The first part of this post is plainly wrong, as indeed the second paragraph recognizes. No-one I know makes invitational jump responses in 5 card suits: so with 5-5 hands or 5440 hands or 5431 hands, one goes through the forcing 1N if one cannot show a suit at the one-level.


And for many of us, we use 3 level jumps for special purposes, whether Bergen or 3♣ gf raise (with 2N natural and forcing), or other more customized treatments, so invitational jumps are unavailable. As is often the case, merely saying '2/1' really says little about the methods. Using Bergen or the like, you really cannot play purely non-forcing 1N.

[cherdano]

It will take some time, but I am sure in a few years the standard 2/1 will include natural invitational jumps, a non-forcing 1N that denies a fit (opener has to bid with any hand that would accept invites of balanced hands) and a multi-meaning 2♣ (including 3-card invites and balanced GF). People will again learn to play 1N, they won't have to guess about the level of support in the primary suit in fast auctions, their 2/1 suits will be SUITS, and the sky won't fall on our heads.

More and more people are coming to see the light, and once it's BWS, be sure to remember who predicted it first.

[the hog]

Jlall, on Oct 24 2006, 07:54 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2006, 08:44 AM, said:

The problem with playing 2/1 GF without a forcing NT isn't about game forcing hands, or even the limit raises.  Its about light distributional hands that want to explore for the best part score.  If you don't play a forcing NT, you're going to be going down in a lot of 1NT contracts when 2♦ or 2M would have scored overtricks.

I don't really understand this.... don't you have the same problem in SAYC? Do you recommend forcing NT in SAYC? Light distributional hands in SAYC have to bid 1N as well as far as I'm aware. The only difference in 2/1 is the 10-11 hand types and the 3 card limit raise. I will say again, with 10-11 opposite an opening bid that won't accept any invites, I am perfectly happy playing 1N and avoiding the 3 level. I think with that many points, I will simply make 1N very often. So essentially, your argument would seem to indicate that you would prefer forcing NT even in SAYC.

You never mention the flip side of this argument. Very often playing forcing NTs you will arrive in some suit contract at the 2 level with 1N cold on misfit deals. With a light 1435 I would be thrilled to have my partner be able to pass 1N. I'm surprised you use the same hand type to argue for forcing NTs. With 1435 you will often end up having to raise 2C, even with something like 8 points, because he may have up to 18 and may actually have a suit. Would you rather play 2C in a 5-3 at the 3 level or 1N? I'm sure I'd rather play 1N. And what about when partner is 5332 and bids 2D and gets the pleasure of playing it there. Wouldn't you rather be in 1N? What about when responder is balanced, and opener is balanced, and you just want to play 1N? What about when responder has 10 or so points, bids 2N and ends up in 2N with 10 opp 12 instead of 1N? It seems to me like there are many many more cases when opener is 5332 min and passes 1N where you will make 1N and go down in something else than vice versa.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that there are big gains in being confident partner either has a real suit or enough to accept a game invite when he bids 2m over 1N.

Looking at your last comment, Justin, there is another side to the coin. It is nice to know that responder has a genuine minor when he bids 2m over a 1M opening.

For example, what do you bid over 1S holding Ax AQx Qxxx Jxxx. 2C? Maybe 2D? It is not a very good suit is it? In many of the Polish systems invoking a FNT this qualifies for a bid of 1NT followed by 3NT. This means that 2C/D over 1M shows a real suit, not the crap I concocted above. Opener is thus far better able to judge any fitting honours; after all, Kx is far more useful opposite say AJxxx rather than Jxxx.

[mike777]

1nt semiforce..how bad can it be if partner passes 1nt? He gots nothin. .
I am only rebidding 2nt with this hand even if partner responds.

[gwnn]

The_Hog, on Oct 24 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

For example, what do you bid over 1S holding Ax AQx Qxxx Jxxx.

3NT, 13-15 bal (2 card support)

[the hog]

gwnn, on Oct 24 2006, 10:26 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 24 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

For example, what do you bid over 1S holding Ax AQx Qxxx Jxxx.

3NT, 13-15 bal (2 card support)

And as most play the 3NT response to show some kind of 4 card raise, your above response is flawed. You cannot manufacture bids at will to mean what you want them to mean.

[gwnn]

The_Hog, on Oct 25 2006, 06:22 AM, said:

And as most play the 3NT response to show some kind of 4 card raise, your above response is flawed. You cannot manufacture bids at will to mean what you want them to mean.

Sorry mate, didn't mean to offend you. I just suggested a way of handling a hand like that.

[plaur]

Helene, this is a bit Off topic but I just love this article by Bob Holmes:
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=12429
Scroll down to the post "Feb 23 2006, 02:57 PM MY FAULT"

To me it shows the importance of teaching beginners some very simple concepts, rather than going into bidding system details. Keep it simple, keep it natural. If they are bright they will soon discover that many hands dont fit into the system and that they will have to add to the bidding system to cater for these 20% hands. But that is for later, much later I belive.