[awm]

Suppose you're playing a "standard" style system where the 1NT response to 1M is limited to around 6-9 (okay a good 5 to a bad 10) and denies 3-card or longer support. There are clearly some advantages to playing this 1NT bid as forcing (sometimes responder has a six card suit, or 2M plays better than 1NT). There are also some advantages to playing it as NF (mostly that you can play 1NT, and that it's safe to raise opener's 2m on four cards). And there's a middle road where opener is supposed to decide if his balanced hands are "suity" and bid only when they are (i.e. try to figure out if 2M on 5-2 will be better than 1NT). Which do you suggest is best?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

non-forcing, but as opener I would always show
may 4 card side suit and my 6 card suit.
Which means I play 1NT as semiforcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[paulg]

NF.

And I've never understood the term semi-forcing. Surely deciding to bid over a non-forcing 1NT is just playing bridge?

Paul

[P_Marlowe]

cardsharp, on Oct 24 2006, 02:29 AM, said:

<snip>
And I've never understood the term semi-forcing.
<snip>

Me too, maybe thats why I used the term wrongly
in the given context.
But I am happy to find someone else, who also does
not understand the term sem-forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gizzzzydrop]

Has to be NF, but as marlowe said with a 6-4 or 5-4 within your hand would be more effective to show the other suit on the 2 level....all boils down to openers disgression

[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Oct 24 2006, 08:29 AM, said:

NF.

And I've never understood the term semi-forcing. Surely deciding to bid over a non-forcing 1NT is just playing bridge?

Paul

"semi-forcing" is a stupid name (along with grand slam force).
Forget the literal meaning of the term and just accept that there are 3 distinctions of a 1NT response to 1M:

i) Non-forcing. 2/1 promises 9+ HCP, 1NT is weaker than that, opener passes on all balanced hands not strong enough to invite game.

ii) Semi-forcing. 2/1 is (nearly) game forcing, 1NT can be up to 12 HCP and can include a 3-card limit raise. Opener only passes with a 5332 minimum. Often combined with conventional continuations by one or both of opener/responder (although doesn't have to be).

iii) Forcing. May include some game forcing hands not suitable for a 2/1. Opener is not allowed to pass.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 24 2006, 03:49 PM, said:

"semi-forcing" is a stupid name (along with grand slam force).

And so is "optional". A double is either for take-out or for penalty. As the term implies, a take-out double is for take-out. There is nothing optional about it, although partners sometimes (often poor judgement) decide to convert by passing.

3♣ (double)

That double is for take-out, unless you play Fishbein or some other nonsense convention in this context. Yet you see "optional" on many CCs when people fill in "defence to pre-empts".

Roland

[Echognome]

Walddk, on Oct 24 2006, 02:10 PM, said:

And so is "optional". A double is either for take-out or for penalty. As the term implies, a take-out double is for take-out. There is nothing optional about it, although partners sometimes (often poor judgement) decide to convert by passing.

While I agree that "optional" is often a bad description of double, I respectfully disagree that double is either for take-out or penalty. (And perhaps you weren't making such a sweeping generalization, so don't want to put words in your mouth.)

Examples of doubles that I do not believe fall well into the category of takeout or penalty:

Snap-Dragon Doubles: Showing specific holdings in two suits. (arguably takeout?)

Strong NT Doubles: Some play that after opening 1 of a suit playing a weak NT, openers double over interference on his right simply shows a strong NT hand with 2-4 cards in RHO's suit. (arguably penalty?)

Support doubles and Rozencrantz doubles. (arguably takeout?)

Lead directing doubles, in particular when they say to lead a suit different from the one bid. E.g. (1♠) - P - (4♣) - X = Lead hearts.

Double as a step in a relay. Again showing specific suit holdings. This one is clearly not takeout or penalty, but simply information. If opener converts it, it may be due to length in relay responder's hand or his own.

2/3 doubles: These seem to me to be purely cooperative, finding a penalty double of an opponents runout to 1NTX.

[goodwintr]

Back to the original topic, should the 1NT response to a five-card-major opening be forcing?

Flint had quite a lot to say about this in Tiger Bridge (1970). He started by saying five-card-majors "are best played in conjunction with a response of one no-trump forcing for one round; indeed, there is otherwise not much point in the whole arrangement." He went on to say (in less conclusory fashion): "When I first encountered the idea of 1S-1NT being forcing, I thought, like most people, 'How pathetic not to be able to play in that most admirable of contracts, one no-trump!' On closer examination one finds that this objection has little substance to it. Suppose the bidding has begun 1S-1NT, and the opener is known to have five spades. Responder may hold: (a) Three spades, in which case two spades will be well playable. ( Two spades, in which case to play in two spades with a five-two fit will not necessarily be inferior to playing in one no-trump; and the partnership may find a better fit elsewhere. © A singleton or void spade, in which case there will surely be a better spot in another suit. It is on these moderate hands where responder is short in the opener's suit that the forcing one no-trump response is particularly valuable."

I know, I know: that was written 36 years ago. Still, the question isn't whether the argument is old, but whether it has since been refuted.

T.L.Goodwin

[Walddk]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 24 2006, 02:10 PM, said:

And so is "optional". A double is either for take-out or for penalty. As the term implies, a take-out double is for take-out. There is nothing optional about it, although partners sometimes (often poor judgement) decide to convert by passing.

While I agree that "optional" is often a bad description of double, I respectfully disagree that double is either for take-out or penalty. (And perhaps you weren't making such a sweeping generalization, so don't want to put words in your mouth.)

Examples of doubles that I do not believe fall well into the category of takeout or penalty:

Snap-Dragon Doubles: Showing specific holdings in two suits. (arguably takeout?)

Strong NT Doubles: Some play that after opening 1 of a suit playing a weak NT, openers double over interference on his right simply shows a strong NT hand with 2-4 cards in RHO's suit. (arguably penalty?)

Support doubles and Rozencrantz doubles. (arguably takeout?)

Lead directing doubles, in particular when they say to lead a suit different from the one bid. E.g. (1♠) - P - (4♣) - X = Lead hearts.

Double as a step in a relay. Again showing specific suit holdings. This one is clearly not takeout or penalty, but simply information. If opener converts it, it may be due to length in relay responder's hand or his own.

2/3 doubles: These seem to me to be purely cooperative, finding a penalty double of an opponents runout to 1NTX.

Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty. You have the option of passing any bid partner makes, so "optional" as a term makes no sense.

A take-out double is for take-out and a spade is a spade. Using "optional" is the same as trying to hide behind a cobweb: it's all too transparent.

Roland

[inquiry]

Well, I like to describe 1NT as "semi-forcing - denies three cards in partners major, maybe unbalanced." Why do I use the term semi-forcing? Because opener is free to pass but will often bid again and bid a potentially short suit as if it was a normal run of the mean forcing NT. I also can have quite an unbalanced hand with a very long side suit. The hands I will not hold:

1) any hand with three+ card support
2) any hand with 9 to 12 hcp, no fit for opener and good suit of my own
3) any balanced hand (or 1444) with good 10+ hcp

But I feel very uncomfortable calling this a "forcing 1NT" because my partner will pass with a MUCH higher frequency than after a traditional 2/1 forcing 1NT response. I also don't feel comfortable not alerting a 1NT bid, which by conventional agreement, might be...S-void, h-xxx D-xxx C-Jxxxxxx

Thus, I alert it, describe it as semi-forcing without support, can be unbalanced. I guess I need to add that there are no strong variants held too.

[Free]

I don't see a reason to play this as forcing. It's useful in a 2/1 GF system, since responder may have invitational hands a lot more often. When it's only 6-9, it's imo quite useless to give up a nice playable 1NT contract for some signoff possibilities just in case partner has a 6 card suit.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 24 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty.

Bullshit

There are plenty of examples of doubles that are neither fish nor foul. From my perspective, the most definitive example is the following double that cropped up on a rec.games.bridge thread on defenses to multi-2♦ opening.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...52a153ea366e3ec

Assume that the auction starts

(2♦) - P - (2M) - X

The authors (Martin French and Danny Sprung) recommend that this double is two way, showing EITHER a penalty double OR a takeout double. Partner is expected to be able to figure out whats going on. I don't want to start a discussion about the merits of this bid, however, it does seem like a very clear counter example to your claim.

If we want to retreat from the esoteric, as I recall SJ Simon had some interesting things to say about doubles... I think that it worth being able to differentiate between the cooperative oriented doubles that Simon advocated in auction like 1M - (2♣) - X and "pure" penalty or takeout oriented doubles. In a similar fashion, if I chose to double RHO's 5♦ of partner's 1♣ opening, I suspect that "cards" is a more accurate description than either takeout or penalty.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Oct 24 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 24 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty.

Bullshit

There are plenty of examples of doubles that are neither fish nor foul. From my perspective, the most definitive example is the following double that cropped up on a rec.games.bridge thread on defenses to multi-2♦ opening.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...52a153ea366e3ec

Assume that the auction starts

(2♦) - P - (2M) - X

The authors (Martin French and Danny Sprung) recommend that this double is two way, showing EITHER a penalty double OR a takeout double.

Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty.

Thanks for emphasizing my point, Richard. That is exactly what I said. They are all for take-out or penalty. It's matter of partnership agreement. It's just a shame that you are back to your old self where you can't join a constructive discussion without swearing.

By the way, I fully agree with the interpretation of the double French and Sprung bring forward. I have been playing it like that for years.

Roland

[awm]

While I agree that there are too many names for different doubles (mostly for historical reasons) there are certainly doubles that are neither takeout nor penalty. I guess part of the issue is how you define these terms.

The definition of penalty is pretty clear. This is a double that says "I do not think you can make your contract." Partner is expected to pass and defend the vast majority of the time. If partner pulls it always shows something "very strange" in the context of previous bidding.

The definition of takeout is less clear. You could define it as a double where partner is expected to bid, and will only pass on a "very strange" hand. But perhaps this is not the best definition. More typical is to define takeout as showing some interest in the unbid suit(s) and asking partner to bid. Under such a definition it makes sense to distinguish between doubles which (for example) show a raise of partner's suit (i.e. support, rosencranz) and doubles which show unbid suits (the classic takeout double, negative double, responsive).

However you define things, there is a reasonable class of optional doubles. These are doubles that show a mild amount of defense and/or general values, where partner is expected to pass or pull with roughly equal frequency. This includes most notably Garrozzo's "2-3" doubles as well as the maximal double and doubles of preempts at high levels (like 4♠-X).

[Stephen Tu]

FWIW, someone on rec.games.bridge ran a lot of double dummy simulations on this question a number of years ago. He was simulating 5332 12-14 (5 spades) vs. 6-9 no spade fit, and expected to see an advantage for being able to play in 1nt; he was trying to quantify the losses from playing a forcing NT. He instead found that the 2 level partials actually made quite a bit more often than 1nt, that it was better to play it as forcing given his assumptions. Between getting to responder's long suit, or responder short in opener's major, or playable 2S contracts, the 2 level partials faired better overall. However he suspected that in real life other factors not tested in the sim (declarer's advantage in NT, effects of competition, responder's courtesy raises/preferences to 2M) probably made the whole thing a wash either way.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 24 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 24 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 24 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty.

Bullshit

There are plenty of examples of doubles that are neither fish nor foul. From my perspective, the most definitive example is the following double that cropped up on a rec.games.bridge thread on defenses to multi-2♦ opening.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...52a153ea366e3ec

Assume that the auction starts

(2♦) - P - (2M) - X

The authors (Martin French and Danny Sprung) recommend that this double is two way, showing EITHER a penalty double OR a takeout double.

Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty.

Thanks for emphasizing my point, Richard. That is exactly what I said. They are all for take-out or penalty. It's matter of partnership agreement. It's just a shame that you are back to your old self where you can't join a constructive discussion without swearing.

By the way, I fully agree with the interpretation of the double French and Sprung bring forward. I have been playing it like that for years.

Roland

Roland, I recognize that English isn't you're first language, so its reasonable to cut you some slack, however, this is taking things a bit far.

I respectfully submit the following:

If some one asks you "Does the auction 1♣ - (2♥) - X or show a penalty double or a takeout double?", they are asking you to clarify whether the double is

1. A penalty double
2. A takeout double

They are not suggesting that double is a two-way bid show hands suitable for both penalty and takeout.

[david_c]

Playing with the different meanings of doubles is one of the quickest ways to go insane (as I discovered recently). However it ought to be fairly safe to quote the EBU regs on the subject. There is a whole section defining the meanings of various terms for doubles, including:

EBU OB 2006 section 4 H 4 said:

Optional doubles

An optional double suggests that the doubler believes, on the basis of his hand and the auction to date, that his side will obtain a plus score by defending the doubled contract, whilst leaving open the possibility of obtaining a better plus score by declaring some contract of its own. Partner is expected to decide to defend or progress.

In some situations optional doubles may be called ‘card-showing’ (or just ‘cards’), ‘value-showing’ (or just ‘values’).

Take-out doubles (especially as a defence to pre-empts) MUST NOT be called Optional. In the context of a defence to pre-empts, ‘Optional’ indicates a strong balanced hand.

[awm]

Seems like bridgebrowser might be a better tool than double-dummy solvers to evaluate the forcing 1NT response. A major issue is that while the "best two-suit partial" is often superior to 1NT, it's not clear how likely we are to find that partial after the forcing 1NT response. If opener bids 1♠ and responder is 1552 or 1435 with opener rebidding the shorter minor, it's anyone's guess where our best two-level spot might happen to be. In addition, 2/1 bidders are more often forced to take false preferences (i.e. bidding 2♠ after 1♠-1NT-2♣ when holding four clubs and two spades) which could easily be wrong (say opener has 5♠+5♣). In any case I'd recommend:

Look at hands where opener is 5(332) with 12-14 hcp and responder has 6-9 hcp with 0-2♠. Compare results from people who played the hand in 1NT versus those who played in 2♣ or above. Most likely it will be important to control for lehmans or the like, because 2/1 has become a defacto "expert standard" whereas many beginners play NF notrumps. Of course, this misses out on the hands where NF notrumpers win because they know openers 2m rebid promised four (as we're only comparing the results on the hands where NF notrumpers pass 1NT and forcing notrumps bid) but it still should give a reasonable picture.