[655321]

Afraid I would open, though I agree it is not a good hand.

The_Hog, on Aug 4 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

Responder with a very good 12+ will put you into game. If you consistently bid game on these hands and go down, you will lose buckets of Imps.

Well perhaps I am splitting hairs rather than disagreeing here, because of course if you bid games that are below the IMP odds you can expect to lose IMPs. But to say that you will lose 'buckets' of IMPS by bidding too many games seems ridiculous to me. If you are looking for ways to lose IMPS in a hurry, bidding bad games would be very low on the list.

And by the way, playing a normal 2/1 system it is not true that 1NT can include 15 HCP hands.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

Yeah, didn't think about that. Pass of the "forcing" 1NT is a good option.

So next time pd will have her balanced 15 count. Great pass, Ken! You just lost that partner. for good.

[ONEferBRID]

Open
( I'm with Ken on this one )

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on Aug 5 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

Yeah, didn't think about that.  Pass of the "forcing" 1NT is a good option.

So next time pd will have her balanced 15 count. Great pass, Ken! You just lost that partner. for good.

I don't bid 1NT forcing with a balanced 15-count. I might bid 2♣, but not 1NT. I don't buy this idea of stacking on top of forcing 1NT bids. Why? You cannot then pass garbage like this (or worse).

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 5 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

Yeah, didn't think about that.  Pass of the "forcing" 1NT is a good option.

So next time pd will have her balanced 15 count. Great pass, Ken! You just lost that partner. for good.

I don't bid 1NT forcing with a balanced 15-count. I might bid 2♣, but not 1NT. I don't buy this idea of stacking on top of forcing 1NT bids. Why? You cannot then pass garbage like this (or worse).

It would be much easier if you just stated that you play a semi forcing NT

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Aug 5 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 5 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

Yeah, didn't think about that.  Pass of the "forcing" 1NT is a good option.

So next time pd will have her balanced 15 count. Great pass, Ken! You just lost that partner. for good.

I don't bid 1NT forcing with a balanced 15-count. I might bid 2♣, but not 1NT. I don't buy this idea of stacking on top of forcing 1NT bids. Why? You cannot then pass garbage like this (or worse).

It would be much easier if you just stated that you play a semi forcing NT

True. Except, that term is retarded.

[pooltuna]

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 5 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 5 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

Yeah, didn't think about that.  Pass of the "forcing" 1NT is a good option.

So next time pd will have her balanced 15 count. Great pass, Ken! You just lost that partner. for good.

I don't bid 1NT forcing with a balanced 15-count. I might bid 2♣, but not 1NT. I don't buy this idea of stacking on top of forcing 1NT bids. Why? You cannot then pass garbage like this (or worse).

It would be much easier if you just stated that you play a semi forcing NT

True. Except, that term is retarded.

What is retarded about it? It is a common agreement among lite openers.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Aug 5 2009, 07:41 PM, said:

True. Except, that term is retarded.

Ken

I don't give a damn about your personal æsthetics.

The expression "semi forcing NT" is establish in the lexicon.
It has a well known/standard meaning.

Please try to remember that your goal is effective communication and not "making Ken happy in all possible ways".

[kenrexford]

I mean, here's the problem (going off topic for a sec) -- does "semi-forcing" mean you occasionally pass? On rare occasion pass? Might pass once in a blue moon?

But, I get your point. I'm just so old-school that I forget about that stupid term sometimes.

[nigel_k]

I'm with Ken on this one. Semi-forcing is like semi-pregnant.

It's not too late to give it a real name. It's less than a game force so why not just 1NT LGF?

Obviously you can't pass if partner might have 15 HCP but normally it is at most one of several invitational types, i.e. balanced, three card raise or single suited minor. I don't see anything wrong in playing that a hand with no game interest opposite any of those can just pass 1NT.

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on Aug 5 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

I'm with Ken on this one. Semi-forcing is like semi-pregnant.

It's not too late to give it a real name. It's less than a game force so why not just 1NT LGF?

Obviously you can't pass if partner might have 15 HCP but normally it is at most one of several invitational types, i.e. balanced, three card raise or single suited minor. I don't see anything wrong in playing that a hand with no game interest opposite any of those can just pass 1NT.

For those who use J2N and shun artificial 2/1 suits (some people are even so 0ld-fashioned they believe 2m/1M should have five), the forcing notrump can even be more than 15. I am not advocating what we play --we don't use J2n but still have some 13-16's which start with a forcing NT (choice of strains with 3 card support, for instance). Merely stating that 1NT forcing cannot be passed by us. Five card Major support, slightly too strong to jump to 4 would be another hand which starts with 1NT.

[vuroth]

If "semi-forcing" is a bit of a nonsensical term, and yet it's the most natural and obvious one people can find to describe the concept, maybe the concept is a bit nonsensical?

[the hog]

Playing a 1NT response so that it can include GF hands is not that uncommon. Ken, this is about what is standard, and passing a FORCING 1NT is NOT standard.

[Lobowolf]

"Semi-Forcing" has a specific meaning*. It applies to a passed-hand responder, and means that (generally 3rd seat) opener can pass with a balanced SUB-minimum. With a full opening bid, even a minimum opening bid, opener treats 1NT as forcing, and makes his normal 1NTF response.

Some people mistakenly believe that 1NT "semi-forcing" means that opener can bid again if he wants to, but is permitted to pass 1NT. That agreement already has a name -- 1 NT non-forcing.


*Hardy yellow book.

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on Aug 5 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Playing a 1NT response so that it can include GF hands is not that uncommon. Ken, this is about what is standard, and passing a FORCING 1NT is NOT standard.

Well, I doubt that you can find that many texts of standard 2/1 GF or K-S or other mainstream "forcing notrump" systems where 1NT can include 15-17. So, I assume that you alert rather than announcing the 1NT call? Plus, is it assumed that 1NT including 15-17 is so standard that you need not mention it in an OP?

I mean, if 1NT is "forcing" as normally defined, passing with an arguable sub-minimum opener because of a change of heart seems less damaging to the opponents than burying an unexpected 15-17 meaning into the otherwise "less than GF" expectation of the usual "forcing notrump." If you are going to get all critical and technical, then let's take that all the way, eh?

[aguahombre]

I just reread the ACBL alert chart. It defines forcing as "simply forcing". It defines semi-forcing as "may be passed by opener with a balanced minimum".

Nowhere does it state that, if the forcing NT can have stronger than invitational strengh or unusual distributions, it should be alerted rather than announced. Maybe, in the future, that will change.

On an auction:
1C 1H
1S---- if Opener might have a monster 19 HCP balanced hand as yet undisclosed, I suppose you would like that alerted also to protect frivolous competitors from themselves.

[ArtK78]

I play a light opening system with a semi-forcing 1NT response to a major suit opening. As stated above, opener can pass the semi-forcing 1NT response with a balanced minimum.

As for passed hands, I alert the 1NT as "intended as forcing." Of course, opposite a passed hand, opener can always pass the 1NT response.

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Aug 5 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

"Semi-Forcing" has a specific meaning*. It applies to a passed-hand responder, and means that (generally 3rd seat) opener can pass with a balanced SUB-minimum. With a full opening bid, even a minimum opening bid, opener treats 1NT as forcing, and makes his normal 1NTF response.

Some people mistakenly believe that 1NT "semi-forcing" means that opener can bid again if he wants to, but is permitted to pass 1NT. That agreement already has a name -- 1 NT non-forcing.


*Hardy yellow book.

Does it really have that meaning? I was assuming it meant "responder can have up to an invitational hand for biddint 1NT".
This is not a purely theoretical question:
With Han we pass 1NT with all minimum balanced hands (partly because we are playing 14-16 1NT), but since responder could be up to invitational (both with a balanced hand or with 3-card support), we announce 1NT as "semi-forcing". This isn't perfect, but it seems better to me than not to announce.

[kfay]

To me semi-forcing NT says 'pass only if you're 5332 with like 11 or a bad 12' because guess what happens when you're playing a forcing NT? 1M-1N-something-2N... OH *****!!!

[Jlall]

Playing 14-16 NT and strong club. I do not say semi forcing NT, as I pass with all balanced hands (which seems to be a NF NT).