[cherdanno]

Txxx xxxx AKxx x. I don't remember the colors, but I believe we were vulnerable. IMPs.
LHO opens 1♠, partner overcalls 2♦, and RHO bids 1NT (which would have been semi-forcing without the overcall).

Do you accept or reject the insufficient bid?
If you accept, what do you bid?

If you reject (hidden):

Spoiler

RHO bids 2♠. What do you do now? (LHO is barred from the auction now.)

[Fluffy]

I almost always accept the natural insufficent bids from lols, the damage is already made when, and they always just bid one more. So I better take advantage of the extra space, even if I have to jump for it.


But here it is a NT overcall, I will let RHO try to solve this mess himself.

After the bid I am happy with only 3 diamonds.

[Jlall]

I accept 1N so I can cuebid 2S.

Just saw that RHO does not correct to 2N if we dont accept so we can bar LHO... That's sad. If I knew that was gonna happen I would reject and bid 3S because barring LHO is pretty clutch. I needed a wire

[Jlall]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

After the bid I am happy with only 3 diamonds.

How can you be happy just bidding 3D with such a powerhouse, especially when it now looks like partner has a stiff spade and RHO has a weak hand with 3 spades?

[pooltuna]

cherdanno, on Aug 11 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Txxx xxxx AKxx x. I don't remember the colors, but I believe we were vulnerable. IMPs.
LHO opens 1♠, partner overcalls 2♦, and RHO bids 1NT (which would have been semi-forcing without the overcall).

Do you accept or reject the insufficient bid?
If you accept, what do you bid?

If you reject (hidden):

Spoiler

RHO bids 2♠. What do you do now? (LHO is barred from the auction now.)

accept and bid 3♦

[Free]

pooltuna, on Aug 11 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

accept and bid 3♦

What's the point in that? You might as well not accept, see what RHO has, bar LHO and still bid 3♦...

[effervesce]

Free, on Aug 12 2009, 04:02 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Aug 11 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

accept and bid 3♦

What's the point in that? You might as well not accept, see what RHO has, bar LHO and still bid 3♦...

There's a wider strength range after (1♠)-2♦-(2♠)-3♦ than after (1♠)-2♦-(1NT)-3♦ because you could have only raised to 2♦.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Aug 11 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

After the bid I am happy with only 3 diamonds.

How can you be happy just bidding 3D with such a powerhouse, especially when it now looks like partner has a stiff spade and RHO has a weak hand with 3 spades?

I don't have that much confidence on opps.

having QJ10xxx opposite AKxx is a little wastage.

But now you mention I see most cards are gonna be onside, maybe I bid too fast. 5m is a long shot I don't normally focus on with thin hands.

[gnasher]

Surely accepting and bidding 3♦ is invitational? If you had a preemptive hand, you would reject the 1NT bid, which is guaranteed to bar LHO - nobody has a way to show a forcing 1NT hand over 2♦

[Fluffy]

Didn't the new rules modify this matter?

[gordontd]

The 1NT bid was described as "semi-forcing". Do we consider this to be artificial? Other than having a wider range, does it differ from a non-forcing NT?

[pooltuna]

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

The 1NT bid was described as "semi-forcing". Do we consider this to be artificial? Other than having a wider range, does it differ from a non-forcing NT?

Not artificial! Prevents using 1NT with a GF hand because partner can pass with a balanced near submin and usually with 5 bad M

[xcurt]

Jlall, on Aug 11 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

After the bid I am happy with only 3 diamonds.

How can you be happy just bidding 3D with such a powerhouse, especially when it now looks like partner has a stiff spade and RHO has a weak hand with 3 spades?

RHO might have a 2-card preference to 2♠ and not enough to bid 2NT invitational. I'd take the chance to bid 2♠.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

The 1NT bid was described as "semi-forcing". Do we consider this to be artificial? Other than having a wider range, does it differ from a non-forcing NT?

Sorry, I missed the word "semi". Perhaps the director will tell us whether he's going to treat 1NT as natural before we decide what to do?

[Flameous]

I accept and splinter with 3C.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Aug 12 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

The 1NT bid was described as "semi-forcing". Do we consider this to be artificial? Other than having a wider range, does it differ from a non-forcing NT?

Sorry, I missed the word "semi". Perhaps the director will tell us whether he's going to treat 1NT as natural before we decide what to do?

The director told me LHO would be barred if I reject the insufficient bid.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on Aug 12 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

The 1NT bid was described as "semi-forcing". Do we consider this to be artificial? Other than having a wider range, does it differ from a non-forcing NT?

Sorry, I missed the word "semi". Perhaps the director will tell us whether he's going to treat 1NT as natural before we decide what to do?

A "semi-forcing" 1NT response is not natural. It shows pretty much the same hand types as a Forcing NT, but opener is permitted to pass. Assuming, of course, that the OP meant the comment that way — I suppose he could have meant something else, though I've never heard any other meaning assigned to the phrase.

[aguahombre]

I think the director was premature in saying that LHO would be barred if you did not accept the insufficient bid. He should just state that if you do not accept, and the offender made the bid sufficient in NT, the auction would continue. A semi-forcing NT followed by 2NT would be substantially the same as bidding 2NT over 2D. It would invite 3NT.

However, that does not change my opinion that you should accept the call and bid whatever you want supporting diamonds according to your style. Your hand tells you it is unlikely the offender has 11-12 HCP with a diamond stopper and you need to use the space available to you.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

A "semi-forcing" 1NT response is not natural.

The question is whether it is artificial, which is defined in the Laws:

Quote

Artificial call – is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

What information does a "semi-forcing" NT convey that is not conveyed by a non-forcing NT? It has a wider range, but that seems to me to provide less information, not more.