[RunemPard]

Debating teaching my girlfriend 2/1. We play at our local club where no one plays 2/1. I am sure my concerns are not that big of a deal, but...

From your own experiences, will the field impact using a F1NT in a positive way, negative way, or about even. For example..

1♥-1N
2♣-AP

We end up in a 7 or 8 card fit. How often does this tend to be better at MP than playing 1N? (Assuming partner would normally pass 1NT of course.)

The same may happen for...

1M-1N
2x-2M
AP

But I can see this going for some decent scores.






So based on your experiences...does playing a F1NT where no one else does impact the results? And will the advantages we may gain from the system make it worth while if the F1NT is a negative?

Thanks for answering my silly concerns,

Don

This post has been edited by RunemPard: 2012-October-08, 16:34

[nigel_k]

Forcing or semi-forcing?

I have never played forcing, and with semi-forcing there is only a very narrow range of hands where opener will rebid 2♣ but would have passed playing standard. IMO the gains from 2/1 easily outweigh the losses, though the overall gain is certainly bigger at IMPs.

[MickyB]

When opener has a weak NT and rebids 2m, you'll sometimes improve the contract and sometimes make it worse. Your chances of improving it are greater playing some kit over 1M:1N, 2C, which I doubt would be appropriate, so, all things being equal I would pass 1N with minimum weak NTs.

However, you'll probably find there are some hands in your 1NT response that definitely would rather partner didn't pass - single-suited invites, weak 3-card raises and invitational 3-card raises. The more of these you have in your 1NT response, the more case there is for playing it as totally forcing.

[barmar]

RunemPard, on 2012-October-08, 14:46, said:

Derp..in title I mean to say "to those".

You should be able to edit your titles -- I enabled that a few weeks ago. But I fixed it for you.

[barmar]

In my experience, it's pretty rare that you end up in opener's minor. If responder has 2 card support for opener's major and 4 of the minor, she should take preference to the major because opener might have rebid a 3-card suit (and if opener was 4=5=2=2, it's a 2-card suit).

The real advantage of the forcing NT is when responder has a weak 2 in her own suit. After opener responds, she can bid her suit at the cheapest level to show this. Playing in the weak hand's long suit is usually best.

[Quantumcat]

Here are some problems:

- Sometimes everyone else is playing in 1N and you are playing in 2m or 2 of your major. This might win sometimes and might lose sometimes (depending if you can make more tricks than them).

- Sometimes if you guess to pass 1NT, partner might have had a three-card raise with whatever strength you assign it, and everyone else will be playing 2M, which might win and might lose (depending if you can make the same number of tricks as them).

So, you have to make more tricks than them when you end up in 2M on the seven-card fit, and you have to make the same number of tricks as them in 1NT as they make in 2M with their eight-card fit. That sounds tricky.

Of course sometimes you can win when partner has a six card diamond or heart suit, and you bid 2♣, and they can sign off in 2♦ or 2♥, making more tricks than 1NT. But sometimes you can lose too (maybe you have a good fit and 1NT makes almost as many tricks).

There is a way to solve this. Play a weak 1NT opening - now when you open 1M on a balanced hand, you will be strong enough to be happy hearing an invitational 2NT rebid by responder and will have no need to pass 1NT, or you might be extra strong and be able to make your own invitational 2NT rebid. If you are not strong, you will be unbalanced, and will be happy bidding a new suit and will end up in the same place as everyone else.

Now you never need fear passing will miss out on your major suit fit (or responder's weak takeout), and you never need fear bidding will get you to 2NT going one off.

[kenrexford]

If you require 4 diamonds for a 2D rebid by Opener, which I like anyway, those auctions end up par. If you add Flannery, that also reduces problem hands. You end up with 2C 2+, which seems troubling, but it might make her happier more often and will train her to correct more often, which is good.

[CSGibson]

There are huge advantages to using a forcing NT - the biggest being that you don't play 1N nearly as often when you have a weak, shapely hand. You can also be much more aggressive responding 1N with some shape, as you won't be passed in it.

For what its worth, I strongly disagree with Barry about correcting anytime you have a 2 card or less disparity between the major and the minor. My own rule is simple, and has proven effective for me: I correct almost always with a 1 card disparity, and if I have a 2 card disparity, then I only correct if I would be interested in game if partner continues on.

For example, in the auction 1♠-1N, 2♣,

I would pass with

---

But I would make a preference to 2♠ with

---

The purpose of that rule goes down to why you make a "false preference" in general. I don't make a preference out of fear that partner has a 2 or 3 card suit, or to get to a potentially higher scoring major - I make my preference based on the general desirability of keeping the auction open when partner has a fairly wide range for his rebid and I have a hand that will prove useful in game opposite some of the hands where partner will make an additional try.

[Siegmund]

Playing in weak fields, I liked playing 1NT with guaranteed misdefense so much that it was one of the biggest reasons I didn't play 2/1.

The stronger the field the less incentive there is to do that. From a double-dummy analysis standpoint, running to the 7+ card suit fit is almost always the winner unless your side actually has 21 HCP. It's almost like you would wish you could play 1NT as 8-11 or 9-12 balanced, and make some other forcing runout bid on the shapely garbage hands. But that isn't an option given how few 1-level responses there are and how many of them are required to be natural

[fromageGB]

I play 100% forcing 1NT mainly in matchpoint pairs at local clubs, and find it is no handicap at all compared with a field that plays 12-14 acol. Indeed, there are a number of advantages. We sometimes find contracts not normally reached, such as 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦/♥ pass when responder has a weak weak 2, as Barmar and Quantuncat said, and the better definition of spade support afforded by the forcing NT gets us more often to the right level. As MickyB said, you do things with the 1NT that you cannot do otherwise. For example, 1♠ 2♠ for us is a definite 7-10 exactly 3 cards, with weaker preemptive 3 card raises going through 1NT, 4 card raises with different bids. But of course, most times you just reach the same contract as the others.

Yes, you can miss out on a 1NT contract that proves better, but this is rarer.

There is another advantage in playing 1NT absolutely forcing in your case, because when teaching your girlfriend it is easier to have rules and guidelines. Playing non-forcing (some call it semi-forcing) in my view needs judgement given by experience. Even so, I do prefer forcing.

MickyB also said that the 2♣ opener rebid often has non-natural uses, but this can wait to a later stage of playing. When I first introduced 2/1 to my partner she couldn't take everything at once, but now we have moved on.

To comment on Chris's recent suggestion on converting to 2M, I would say this may be a treatment the partnership can move into, if you play a natural 2♣/2♦ rebid, but start her with the simple concept of always converting to the major unless there is an overwhelming preference for the minor.

In summary - forcing NT is no loss in a non-2/1 field, but a gain. And I think better with a strong NT (I play 15/16) as it enables you to find 2M contracts not reached by others playing a 12-14 NT, when you are in the lower range.

[kenrexford]

If right-siding is worth half a trick, is it really that great playing a wrong-sided 1NT over a right-sided 2M?

[mycroft]

Having played NF1NT for many years with otherwise a K/S base (in 2/1, strong NT land), the auctions I always hated were the ones with a 6-card suit (especially 1S-1NT with a 6-card heart suit) with few entries, where playing the suit (even the minor at the 3 level) will probably score better than 1NT. Totally random results, and always top/bottom. Worse at IMPs, frankly, because when it won, it usually won +10 or +40, and when it lost it lost -210+.

Not a big deal either way (especially given the benefits of F1NT in differentiating raises and the like); and it was fun watching people try to figure out how to defend a NF NT again, both as fourth-hand bidding and on defence.

[lalldonn]

barmar, on 2012-October-08, 16:25, said:

The real advantage of the forcing NT is when responder has a weak 2 in her own suit. After opener responds, she can bid her suit at the cheapest level to show this. Playing in the weak hand's long suit is usually best.

The real advantage of the forcing NT is your 2/1 auctions become very good, unlike in SAYC or other systems in which a 2/1 isn't forcing to game where those auctions are consistently terrible.

[MickyB]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-09, 12:13, said:

The real advantage of the forcing NT is your 2/1 auctions become very good, unlike in SAYC or other systems in which a 2/1 isn't forcing to game where those auctions are consistently terrible.

This would be true if playing GF 2/1s was impossible in conjunction with a non-/semi-forcing 1NT response.

[fromageGB]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-09, 05:10, said:

If right-siding is worth half a trick, is it really that great playing a wrong-sided 1NT over a right-sided 2M?

Agreed, but when 1NT does score better, responder has a singleton or void in your major, but no long suit to take out to. Most times I see 2M as the right contract, and my perception is that 1NT being better is comparatively rare. I am more than happy to play 1NT forcing.

[paulg]

I strongly believe that your score at the club will not depend on whether one notrump is forcing or not. I also taught my girlfriend (now wife) 2/1 with a forcing notrump and now it's impossible to change, even though I play non-forcing in my 'serious' partnership.

The real answer is to play what she finds easiest to understand and is comfortable with.

[FrancesHinden]

I really wouldn't worry about it. Play the system you like best.

We're usually the only pair in the club playing 2/1 with a semi-forcing NT and it basically never has any direct impact on our overall percentage. (The swings come from playing a strong NT rather than the field weak NT but they balance out (or better) on average.)

[bluecalm]

I did some research in this area and here are my thoughts:
-sentiment of most world class players is that semi-forcing is better (Meckwell, Greco-Hampson, Lauria-Versace, all other Italians etc.), some very good players (Fred, JLall) expressed this sentiment on this forum.
-I am confident that passing 1NT is net loser comparing to bidding 2C with every 5-3-3-2, especially at MP's, the difference is quite big too, however:
-there are some other advantages of not having 5-3-3-2's after 2C rebid. One is that you may pass without 6+clubs, the other one is that if you play 2C as multimeaning (gazilli or something) then those 5-3-3-2's don't get in the way, yet another one is that you can now raise clubs with 4-5 of them;
-I am not sure if those advantages outweigh disadvantage of ending up in inferior 1NT partscore, world class pairs play mainly IMPs and at IMPs it's more likely to be good than at MP's;
-This is relatively minor system thing which won't affect your overall results. I would stick to semi-forcing in not very serious partnership as it's easier and certainly at least playable. You will have good company if you play it too.

[rhm]

bluecalm, on 2012-October-09, 20:39, said:

I did some research in this area and here are my thoughts:
-sentiment of most world class players is that semi-forcing is better (Meckwell, Greco-Hampson, Lauria-Versace, all other Italians etc.), some very good players (Fred, JLall) expressed this sentiment on this forum.

Quote

-I am confident that passing 1NT is net loser comparing to bidding 2C with every 5-3-3-2, especially at MP's, the difference is quite big too

I do not get this.
These 2 observations look to me contradictory. I also do not understand the comment about MP.
1NT tends to be a very attractive contract at MP and I believe that to be true irrespective of the level of your opponents.
It is often difficult to defend one notrump. Nowhere is declarer's advantage higher, when comparing single to double dummy play.
The issue in 2/1 is whether playing 1NT forcing or semi-forcing.
If forcing it is obvious that 1NT can never be a final contract when your partnership opens in a major with the small possible exception of (1♥-1♠-1NT).
Now it is true that in 2/1 responder will have to bid 1NT whether his hand is notrump oriented or not. However, given that there is no great fit with opener's major, these hands are not as frequent as the ones which are.

When playing IMPs there is not much difference between different part-scores you will make.
But at MP any difference counts.
There are those hands, where you will make more tricks in a major 5-2 fit or you might make 2 tricks more in a minor trump fit.
But this must be the exception rather than the rule.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

rhm, on 2012-October-10, 09:30, said:

There are those hands, where you will make more tricks in a major 5-2 fit or you might make 2 tricks more in a minor trump fit.
But this must be the exception rather than the rule.

This is not my perception. Remember, we are not talking about all 1NT contracts, but only those where the bidding goes 1M 1NT pass, as compared with 1M 1NT(forcing)...2apples.