[aguahombre]

Barmar: I tried "intended as forcing" for a very short while; but on reflection I did not feel good about it. We almost always rebid, and didn't want to be egging righty to enter the auction on marginal values because he thought the auction would die --- and get burned for it, when the auction wasn't going to die. Also, it sounded like we were giving UI to partner that we really wanted to rebid.

We solved it by adding some possible hand patterns to the forcing NT with which we don't want opener judging to pass...and made it just plain forcing.

[blackshoe]

S2000magic, on 2012-January-19, 13:44, said:

I don't play Drury because I don't open under-strength 1♥ or 1♠ in 3rd seat

Drury didn't invent Drury because he opened understrength 1M bids, but because his partner did.

[S2000magic]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-19, 17:20, said:

S2000magic, on 2012-January-19, 13:44, said:

I don't play Drury because I don't open under-strength 1♥ or 1♠ in 3rd seat.

Drury didn't invent Drury because he opened understrength 1M bids, but because his partner did.

Touché.

[Statto]

I seem to have given contradictory votes...

I kind of misread "is a forcing NT response appropriate" as "have you ever played a forcing NT response" but maybe that's what you wanted to ask?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-January-19, 13:52, said:

I agree with most that Forcing NT is a good idea even without 2/1.

Interesting. One of the reasons that I do not like playing 2/1 GF is that I feel that Forcing NT is much too high a price to pay.

[awm]

Obviously you can play whatever you want, including a forcing notrump in pretty much any system. If your opponents were suggesting that you're not allowed to play forcing notrump without 2/1, they are delusional.

With that said, I think playing 1NT forcing in these situations is a pretty bad idea. The forcing notrump will cost you substantially in a lot of situations:

(1) When responder is balanced, or you otherwise have no 8-card fit, quite often 1NT is a superior contract.
(2) When responder has an invitational hand, 1NT semi-forcing lets you stop in 1NT instead of playing 2NT.
(3) When responder has 4(+) in opener's second suit, if 1NT was not forcing you know you have a real fit (or opener has extras, if 1NT SF). If 1NT was forcing you don't.

It's true that 1NT forcing gains when responder has his own long suit and wants to get out there. However, this is much less frequent than the above situations. It's even more extreme by a passed hand, because a lot of the "long suit" hand varieties would've opened a preempt, or could bid a 2/1 call (obviously non-GF by PH).

My view (and that of many others) is that 1NT forcing is a "price you pay" for the other advantages of 2/1 game force. It's not a method that's inherently "better" than playing 1NT non-force; in fact quite the contrary!

[bluecalm]

Quote

It's true that 1NT forcing gains when responder has his own long suit and wants to get out there. However, this is much less frequent than the above situations.

Interesting would be to talk separately about 1NT after 1S opening and 1H opening. Forcing nt has more going for it after 1S. Also this:

Quote

When responder has 4(+) in opener's second suit, if 1NT was not forcing you know you have a real fit (or opener has extras, if 1NT SF). If 1NT was forcing you don't.

Is only context of opening every 5M-3-3-2 in range with 1NT and probably only if you play it as 14-16(17) because passing those 14's doesn't look too good to me.
Overall I think you have nice parlay with forcing. Chances to get to better minor partscore, vastly superior 5-3 or 6-2/6-1 hearts partial or approximately equal value 5-2 spade partial.
Those pluses partially disappear if opener has 5 hearts (which is better shape to open 1NT anyway).

Quote

I disagree that you must play a forcing 1NT with 2/1

Some top partnerships play semi-forcing in 2/1 context so it can't be that bad
I think for many of them this is price you pay compared to forcing though because they use 2C as multimeanign bid and 12-14 5-3-3-2 hand is difficult to pack there.

Apparently Meckwell thinks that even in precision context where bidding after 1NT is much easier than in 2/1 semi-forcing is still best so this option at least deserve some respect (although I once pulled all vugraph hands where they and Lauria-Verisace passed 1NT and I am pretty sure they would be better off bidding; in LV system it's not an option though as 2C is gazilli.

[whereagles]

note: most of the time "forcing NT" actually means "semiforcing NT"

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2012-January-23, 05:41, said:

note: most of the time "forcing NT" actually means "semiforcing NT"

Do you mean when discussing between partners, or in disclosure? I haven't found it to be the case either way.

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on 2012-January-23, 05:41, said:

note: most of the time "forcing NT" actually means "semiforcing NT"

Forcing means forcing - in other words, partner is not permitted to pass under the partnership agreement.

Semi-forcing means that partner is not permitted to pass unless he has a subminimum opening bid and a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

[Free]

whereagles, on 2012-January-23, 05:41, said:

note: most of the time "forcing NT" actually means "semiforcing NT"

ArtK78, on 2012-January-23, 10:16, said:

Forcing means forcing - in other words, partner is not permitted to pass under the partnership agreement.

Semi-forcing means that partner is not permitted to pass unless he has a subminimum opening bid and a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

Most of the time you don't have a subminimum balanced or semi-balanced hand, so I guess whereagles was right

[hrothgar]

S2000magic, on 2012-January-19, 10:41, said:

As did Roth-Stone.

As does Kaplan-Sheinwold.

S2000 just raised an important point:

To my knowledge, Al Roth gets credit for the forcing NT.
The forcing NT predates modern 2/1 GF methods by decades...

[bluecalm]

Quote

Semi-forcing means that partner is not permitted to pass unless he has a subminimum opening bid and a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

I always thought that if you play semiforcing the idea is to have natural 2C and 2D bids thus you have to pass with every 5M-3-3-2 below NT range. Am I wrong here ?

[ArtK78]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-23, 15:41, said:

I always thought that if you play semiforcing the idea is to have natural 2C and 2D bids thus you have to pass with every 5M-3-3-2 below NT range. Am I wrong here ?

As far as I am concerned, you are wrong here.

I play a semi-forcing NT as part of a light opening structure, where an opening bid in 1st & 2nd seats nonvul can be made on as few as 10 HCP (including a 10-12 1NT opening).

Opener is expected to pass a 1NT response to one of a major if he holds 10-11 HCP and a balanced or semi-balanced hand. Otherwise, he treats the 1NT response as a forcing 1NT and bids accordingly.

[ArtK78]

Free, on 2012-January-23, 14:48, said:

Most of the time you don't have a subminimum balanced or semi-balanced hand, so I guess whereagles was right

Actually, that would mean that he has the relationship backwards. Most of the time a semi-forcing NT is a forcing NT.

[S2000magic]

hrothgar, on 2012-January-23, 15:28, said:

To my knowledge, Al Roth gets credit for the forcing NT.

I believe that you're correct.

hrothgar, on 2012-January-23, 15:28, said:

The forcing NT predates modern 2/1 GF methods by decades...

My copy of Alfred Sheinwold's Five Weeks to Winning Bridge describes five-card majors in the chapter on Modern Bidding Conventions, and mentions the one no-trump forcing treatment. It was published in 1960, and five-card majors (with the forcing NT) were recommended to all players. At the time of publication, five-card majors and the forcing NT had already been around for quite a while, and were key in Roth-Stone.

[mgoetze]

I wanted to vote in the poll but the "none of the above" options seem to be missing.

[whereagles]

What I meant is that when people agree to play "forcing NT", they never bid 1NT with 13+ hcp hands, so what they're really playing is "semiforcing NT". The words "forcing NT" are easier/quicker to pronounce, hence they become a metonym for "semiforcing NT". Well, at least around here where I play

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on 2012-January-26, 05:12, said:

What I meant is that when people agree to play "forcing NT", they never bid 1NT with 13+ hcp hands, so what they're really playing is "semiforcing NT". The words "forcing NT" are easier/quicker to pronounce, hence they become a metonym for "semiforcing NT". Well, at least around here where I play

In other words, the 1NT response is not forcing to game.

Well, that was never the question. The question was whether opener could pass the 1NT response under any circumstances by partnership agreement. If so, it is "semiforcing." If not, it is "forcing."

This is assuming that the 1NT response is part of a 5-card major system and responder expects opener to make another call. It is not an old-fashioned non-forcing 1NT response such as was played in Goren Standard American (which was a 4-card major system).

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-26, 07:51, said:

It is not an old-fashioned non-forcing 1NT response such as was played in Goren Standard American (which was a 4-card major system).

It will be news to the vast majority of players outside the USA that their methods are old-fashioned.