[aguahombre]

When pard opens 1M, and there is a natural 1NT in between, there are usually from 9-14 HCP left over for the other two hands.

We pretty much know what double, new suit, and raises show. But I am toying with the PASS. The dangers of this are obvious if responder to 1M has a horrible balanced hand with no fit for the major, but:

How bad is treating a pass by responder as like a semi-forcing NT response? Opener gets to rebid with a second suit, or 3 suiter, even if minimum.

It seems that responder frequently has a balanced hand short of a double, and our side would do better playing a partscore than defending if Opener is unbalanced.

Scoring: MP

---

This hand is the most recent one I can think of. Should North have just rebid something anyway? Do we need a special agreement to allow North to rebid? Or should we just pay off and defend?

What about less extreme openings, like 5-(4-3-1) ?

[awm]

I don't think the issue here is what the pass "shows." The pass shows a hand which is not good enough to double 1NT for penalty, and which is not suitable for the various other calls. It could be a zero-count, but you are right that often it will include modest values.

The issue really is how aggressively opener should balance in the auction 1X-(1NT)-Pass-(Pass). Basically the answer is to use judgement, and that sometimes it's right to balance on 5-4 shape. Certainly if you only balance with 5-5 hands here you are selling out too often; keep in mind that people often bid over a 1NT opening in balancing chair for example, and this auction is not so different.

Some factors to consider:

Vulnerability and form of scoring
Location of values; generally it is good if opener's original suit is weak on this sequence
Majors vs. minors (balancing 2m sometimes helps opponents find their 4-4 fit in the other major)
Convenience of rebid (if you have to reverse, normally better not to risk it)

I don't think balancing on 3-card suits (as your "semi-forcing notrump" statement would seem to imply) is a particularly good idea. The bidding of three-card suits is generally not a win for forcing or semi-forcing notrump methods, and exists to solve problems in constructive auctions, not competitive situations.

[CSGibson]

Didn't read carefully, edited.

[fromageGB]

I would have thought a forcing or semi forcing pass puts a big strain on a partner who is balanced. Do you want to defend 1NT doubled when the NT bidder often has a long minor?

Maybe the onus is on opener to protect if he does not have a balanced hand. Like AWM I think bidding a lower ranking 4 carder is worthwhile.

If responder has no support but does have a 5+ card suit then he should bid it non-forcing, or if you give up a penalty double, transfers are better.

[jjbrr]

Why can't we just defend 1NT and try to go plus?

[aguahombre]

I used the term semi-forcing Nt wrongly, I guess. Since I don't play semi forcing NT in normal 1M auctions, I thought it meant opener doesnt rebid with 5 3 3 2 minimums. Let's pretend I was really asking about a semi-forcing pass, that is only forcing if Opener has a second suit. So the real question is --as pointed out by Adam, whether minimum openers with a second four card suit should reopen by agreement. This makes a difference when partner is trying to decide whether Opener is weak or strong. Obviously vulnerability is a factor.