Forcing 1NT response

[NickRW]

This is a very 'beginnery' sort of question that anyone who plays 2/1 or any 5 card spade and strong NT system should be able to answer. I normally play 4cM and weak NT - but I've been invited to put together a team for a relatively serious competition and, though I'm in love with the weak NT for MP play, it seems to me to have its drawbacks for IMPs, certainly when vulnerable.

 

My question is about the forcing 1NT response to 1♠. As I understand it opener rebids 2♦ with exactly 5=3=3=2 shape and a miniumish opener. But what do you guys do as responder holding exactly 1=3=3=6 shape - suffer in 2♦ and a 3=3 fit? Or bid a presumably non forcing 3♣?

 

Or do you ditch Jacoby 2NT and play natural, non forcing NT responses? If 2/1 is GF then 3♣ and 3♦ are available for forcing spade raises presumably.

 

Thanks

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

3♣ is not forcing. It shows the hand you mentioned.

[gwnn]

play IJS

 

then:

 

1M-3x (and 1♥-2♠, although this is not 100% needed) is invitational 6+ good suit, no fit. 9-11 or so

 

1M-1NT-2x-3y (not a jump)=natural, no fit for either suit of opener's, normally asking for pass unless opener has a special hand. 3-8 or so.

[helene_t]

With 6-7 points and 133d I would pass 2♦. Opener almost always has 4-5 diamonds.

 

BTW, I am not sure if it's such a good idea to play forcing 1NT in this system. It mean that the continuations after 1♠ become quite different from those after 1♥.

[NickRW]

With 6-7 points and 133d I would pass 2♦. Opener almost always has 4-5 diamonds.

 

Yeah - it did seem to me that passing the 2♦ was probably the better percentage call - it risks a 3=3 fit - but usually won't be and you're contracting for a trick less.

 

BTW, I am not sure if it's such a good idea to play forcing 1NT in this system. It mean that the continuations after 1♠ become quite different from those after 1♥.

 

Well, yes, that seemed to be another option - play 2/1 = GF and 3♣ and/or 3♦ instead of Jacoby and use natural NT responses. But I'm not so concerned whether 1H responses are the same or not - K-S inversion seems playable there - which would make 1H responses different anyway.

 

Anyway - food for thought...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

The 2D bid could be a 3 carder, but it seldom is,

espesially, if you bid 2C with 3-3 in the minors,

i.e. the 3-3 fit is possible, but not very likely.

 

Several peoble play, that 2D always promises

4 cards, which means opener may be forced to

bid 2C with only 2 cards.

 

...................................................................

 

With your given problem hand, I would most likely

pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[NickRW]

Hi,

 

The 2D bid could be a 3 carder, but it seldom is,

espesially, if you bid 2C with 3-3 in the minors,

i.e. the 3-3 fit is possible, but not very likely.

 

Several peoble play, that 2D always promises

4 cards, which means opener may be forced to

bid 2C with only 2 cards.

 

...................................................................

 

With your given problem hand, I would most likely

pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Yes, I am aware of the 2 clubs alternative, making 2♦ always show 4 - but that doesn't quite solve the problem either. Responder, with 1=4=4=4 shape will be tempted to pass 2♣ and, if responder removes 2♣ to something else, then opener could turn out to have been 5=2=2=4.

 

I'm really tempted to put Jacoby on the garbage tip and go with natural NT responses.

 

Nick

[han]

There are several possibilities, but you have to understand that no solution is perfect and sometimes (but not frequenltly) you are going to end up in a silly spot. For example, if you have a 1453 6-count then after 1S-1NT-2C you are going to pass (unless your diamonds are very good) and that may be a silly contract.

 

Some options:

 

- Play that 1NT is semi-forcing, opener is allowed to pass with a minimal balanced hand. Of course 1NT could be a 3-card limit raise so only pass 1NT if you would pass such a raise, you don't want to miss good games. If you play this then that makes it more likely that 2m is an honest suit.

 

- Rebid 2C with 5332 and 4522 shapes (the latter after 1H-1NT). This makes your 2C less well defined but has the advantage of making your 2D rebid guarantee a 4-card suit. Of course it is easier to find a good fit after a 2C rebid than after a 2D rebid.

 

- Play BART after 1S-1NT-2C, especially when playing a forcing NT. This will solve some problems. (of course it also creates problems when you have diamonds but I think it is an overall winner)

 

- Offload the 1NT response by playing invitational jump shifts. There are other useful meanings for the jumpshifts and you have to make a choice. Playing these will make your 1M-1NT auctions simpler.

[han]

I'm really tempted to put Jacoby on the garbage tip and go with natural NT responses.

 

I hope you understand that 1NT is never natural (what else would you bid with a 1552 6- or 7-count) and you will always have problems (for example with x Jxxxx xx AJxxx when partner rebids 2D).

 

I would say that when playing 2/1 as GF YOU HAVE TO bid 1NT with some 11-counts, there is no solution. If you want to play ACOL, play ACOL. If you want to play more modern methods, get over your fears for the problems that might occur after a (semi-) forcing 1NT. They do occur but not frequently and when they do you often land on your feet anyway, especially at IMPs.

[NickRW]

play IJS

 

then:

 

1M-3x (and 1♥-2♠, although this is not 100% needed) is invitational 6+ good suit, no fit. 9-11 or so

 

1M-1NT-2x-3y (not a jump)=natural, no fit for either suit of opener's, normally asking for pass unless opener has a special hand. 3-8 or so.

Well, IJS has its attractions, but, forgive me, I don't see how it really solves my original problem. As you've bid 1M-1N-2x-3y you could be contracting at the 3 level with about half the deck, no guaranteed fit and - since you may have no fit, opps may not have one either, so one down against nothing much on the other way seems to be a plan to lose by a trickle of IMPs to the opps on part score deals. Opps are likely to play 4cM and weak NT - so they're going to bid 1M-1N-pass on a lot of these 5332 hands - and may make a good chunk of them - several hands in a session of +90 and +50/+100 results for the opps puts us at quite a disadvantage.

 

Nick

[han]

One more comment, if you have been playing Acol for centuries and after trying 2/1 for a while you notice that are not comfortable playing those methods then I think you should just go back to the system you are used to. It may not be perfect but you'll probably do much better with it. And when you try 2/1, please do so with an open mind.

 

I think I've written enough in this thread!

[NickRW]

I'm really tempted to put Jacoby on the garbage tip and go with natural NT responses.

 

I hope you understand that 1NT is never natural (what else would you bid with a 1552 6- or 7-count) and you will always have problems (for example with x Jxxxx xx AJxxx when partner rebids 2D).

 

I would say that when playing 2/1 as GF YOU HAVE TO bid 1NT with some 11-counts, there is no solution. If you want to play ACOL, play ACOL. If you want to play more modern methods, get over your fears for the problems that might occur after a (semi-) forcing 1NT. They do occur but not frequently and when they do you often land on your feet anyway, especially at IMPs.

Yeah - you're right - I'm just having mental contortions getting used to the idea of a strong NT and all that it entails.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

I think I've written enough in this thread!

Yes, unusually verbose for you Han B) I'm honoured - seriously.

[paulg]

One simple answer, depending on the rest of your methods, is just to play 1M-3M as a limit raise and only guarantee 3-card support.

 

Then the 1NT response need not be forcing and you are a lot closer to familiar territory.

 

Paul

[han]

If you want to use Paul's suggestion and bid 1M-3M with 3-card limit raises then I would recommend bidding 2NT with 4-card limit raises. So 1M-2NT is 4-card support and at least invitational, 1M-3M is invitational with exactly 3-card support. I think the 3- and 4-card limit raises are different enough that I wouldn't want to make the same (non-forcing) bid with them.

 

An additional advantage is that you would have to spend some energy to change your Jacoby 2NT structure, you would come out ahead in the end. I know this is the B/I forum and my comments are maybe not appropriate, but then, I wouldn't recommend Bart to a beginner either.

[rogerclee]

For example, if you have a 1453 6-count then after 1S-1NT-2C you are going to pass (unless your diamonds are very good) and that may be a silly contract.

Agree with everything Han said in this thread except for this. You are supposed to bid 2D with this shape (and the inability to do so is a loss of BART).

[han]

That's interesting. Would you do so only when rebidding 2C on 5332 shapes or also when you rebid 2D with those shapes? And what if you are playing 1NT as semi-forcing, where 2C is more often (but not always) a 4+ suit?

[rogerclee]

That's interesting. Would you do so only when rebidding 2C on 5332 shapes or also when you rebid 2D with those shapes? And what if you are playing 1NT as semi-forcing, where 2C is more often (but not always) a 4+ suit?

I would pass playing semi forcing NT, and bid 2D playing forcing NT.

[david_c]

I'm really tempted to put Jacoby on the garbage tip and go with natural NT responses.

You mean playing 2NT as natural and invitational, right?

 

I don't think that really helps. I can understand that you would like to take the invitational hands out of the forcing NT, but I don't think it's playable to bid 2NT with all of them. The range of possible shapes is just too wide - some balanced and some unbalanced, some having weakness in one of the unbid suits, and some having a good suit which you need to investigate (for example with five hearts). And if you only bid 2NT with some of the invitational hands, you're back to the original problem.

 

Personally I would never agree to play a forcing NT in a regular partnership. "Semi-forcing" is much better, no matter what the rest of your structure is. I have also played Acol-like responses in a 5-card major system (albeit with a few artificial tweaks) and have been perfectly happy with that.

[NickRW]

I'm really tempted to put Jacoby on the garbage tip and go with natural NT responses.

You mean playing 2NT as natural and invitational, right?

 

I don't think that really helps. I can understand that you would like to take the invitational hands out of the forcing NT, but I don't think it's playable to bid 2NT with all of them. The range of possible shapes is just too wide - some balanced and some unbalanced, some having weakness in one of the unbid suits, and some having a good suit which you need to investigate (for example with five hearts). And if you only bid 2NT with some of the invitational hands, you're back to the original problem.

 

Yes, you're right.

 

Personally I would never agree to play a forcing NT in a regular partnership. "Semi-forcing" is much better, no matter what the rest of your structure is.

 

Yeah - completely forcing makes me really uncomfortable - semi forcing seems to be better.

 

I have also played Acol-like responses in a 5-card major system (albeit with a few artificial tweaks) and have been perfectly happy with that.

 

Acol like responses to 5 card majors are, it seems to me, quite playable with weak NT in the picture - and indeed, that is an option for non vul. But with strong NT - which I want in the system vul - all of the 1x openings have weak fairly balanced options hidden in them - so if you play your 2/1 as 9+ as in Acol or even 10+ as in SA what are you going to bid after say 1♠ - 2♦ with a balancedish min - the natural, Acol like thing to do might well be to bid 2NT - but then you can find yourself in 2NT with barely enough to make 7 tricks sometimes - so that seems like a losing option. Thus I think you simply have to play the 2/1 as inv+ as a minimum. But if you play it inv+ (which solves a lot of the problems alluded to in this thread), you then have to worry about how either side forces to game - and which sequences aren't forcing, so it isn't a cost free solution. I have been attracted to the idea of playing the 2/1 responses as FG - that makes those auctions a whole lot simpler and neither party needs to jump about unless this would say something useful - but it comes at the cost of what to do with a lot of the invitational hands. No solution seems 100% ideal.

 

Nick

[david_c]

Acol like responses to 5 card majors are, it seems to me, quite playable with weak NT in the picture - and indeed, that is an option for non vul. But with strong NT - which I want in the system vul - all of the 1x openings have weak fairly balanced options hidden in them - so if you play your 2/1 as 9+ as in Acol or even 10+ as in SA what are you going to bid after say 1♠ - 2♦ with a balancedish min - the natural, Acol like thing to do might well be to bid 2NT - but then you can find yourself in 2NT with barely enough to make 7 tricks sometimes - so that seems like a losing option. Thus I think you simply have to play the 2/1 as inv+ as a minimum.

I would nearly agree with this. If playing 5-card majors and a strong NT I would rebid the 5-card suit with a minimum 5332, rather than bidding 2NT. So you can play in 2M, and this is a perfectly reasonable resting place provided that responder has a doubleton there. So my requirements for an Acol-style 2/1 depend on the holding in partner's suit: if you have shortage there then you need invitational values, but with a doubleton (or more) you can get away with slightly less - maybe a decent 9 HCP.

 

On the other hand, if you play four-card majors with a strong NT, then you do have to rebid 2NT on some balanced hands (unless you play the ancient Acol style of bidding two suits with a 4-4-3-2), so 2/1 responses have to be at least invitational. And in fact I find it's too difficult to judge invitational hands after the 2NT rebid, so in a strong+4 system I would always play 2/1s as GF or GF-except-rebid.

[NickRW]

I would nearly agree with this....

Thanks for your (and everyone else's) input.

 

For the time being we've decided to go with this (I suppose) rather peculiarly British mish mash:

 

1NT = 14-16

1♣ = 4, unless 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3 and weak NT range

1♠ = 5, unless 17+

1♥ = 5, unless 17+ or 4-4 majors

1♦ = 4

 

2/1 (over 1♦ and 1♠) = inv+

2/1 (over 1♥) = GF, with IJS and KS inversion. We're doing to this to allow us to play around with both inv+ and GF responses and see which we like. I don't suppose we will stay with this, but it seems playable for now and provides a stepping stone for getting out of weak NT think for imp games

 

Nick

[fred]

I would nearly agree with this....

Thanks for your (and everyone else's) input.

 

For the time being we've decided to go with this (I suppose) rather peculiarly British mish mash:

 

1NT = 14-16

1♣ = 4, unless 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3 and weak NT range

1♠ = 5, unless 17+

1♥ = 5, unless 17+ or 4-4 majors

1♦ = 4

 

2/1 (over 1♦ and 1♠) = inv+

2/1 (over 1♥) = GF, with IJS and KS inversion. We're doing to this to allow us to play around with both inv+ and GF responses and see which we like. I don't suppose we will stay with this, but it seems playable for now and provides a stepping stone for getting out of weak NT think for imp games

 

Nick

Nick,

 

I think you have it backwards.

 

If you play 4-card majors you should only open 4-card majors with bad hands.

 

4-card majors and 2/1 do not mix well. Suggest you don't try.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

Nick,

 

I think you have it backwards.

 

If you play 4-card majors you should only open 4-card majors with bad hands.

 

4-card majors and 2/1 do not mix well. Suggest you don't try.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Thanks Fred. I understand that - well - certain things are not the most comfortable with this compromise solution. I think you also have to understand that strong NT is as foreign to me as weak NT seems foreign to some of you North Americans. It isn't as easy to ditch one's mental baggage as one might hope.

 

When we moved from counting hands 4321 to a system based around 6421 - well my kids took to it quite easily as they didn't have the mental baggage associated with Milton Work points - but, though I was the driver for the change, it was a real mental wrench to get used to it. I don't necessarily see what we've agreed as a permanent home - merely something to soften a transition.

 

Nick

[fred]

Thanks Fred.  I understand that - well - certain things are not the most comfortable with this compromise solution.  I think you also have to understand that strong NT is as foreign to me as weak NT seems foreign to some of you North Americans.  It isn't as easy to ditch one's mental baggage as one might hope.

I understand, Nick. I went through the same sort of thing during my experiments with Precision during the past few years after 20+ years on only playing natural systems.

 

But I think that if you are going to make this big a move that you might as well do it right.

 

Hope your exposure to this new way of bidding/thinking works well and is enjoyable for you :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com