How to explain the forcing NT

[dicklont]

Today my partner opened 1♥ and I answered 1NT, forcing with:

♠9842

♥954

♦1032

♣KQ6

 

Partner rebid 2♦ and I finished the weak raise with 2♥.

 

The opponents asked about our bidding and we explained 1NT is forcing and that this is the weakest raise (4)5-7 with 3 hearts or 6-9 with 2 hearts.

They took over with a double to end in 3♠ in a mosyian (4-3) fit, going 2 off.

 

At the end of the play declarer noticed my four spades and called the director.

 

They say we should have mentioned the fact that the weak hand with 3 hearts will not bid spades. Should we?

[Stephen Tu]

Opponents are being ridiculous IMO.

[mtvesuvius]

If I could get an adjustment for every bad result I would... The opponents are full of &%$#.

[jdonn]

Opponents are being ridiculous IMO.

I agree but I bet they don't think they are being ridiculous. So education is probably the answer, this time.

[neilkaz]

Opponents are being ridiculous IMO.

I agree but I bet they don't think they are being ridiculous. So education is probably the answer, this time.

Yes and lets hope they aren't so pedantic next time.

[peachy]

If you had KQJx-xxx-xxx-xxx would 1NTF still be the correct systemic answer?

A - If yes, then your system is that weak heart raise will not bid spades.

B - If not, then your system is that weak heart raise does not bid 4-card spades if the spades are bad.

 

Since the opponents actually asked about the 1N(F) bid [i don't know why they asked, but they did...maybe they were novices?], the detail of your agreement should be included in the explanation, if you had an agreement A or B. It seems to me you did have an agreement, at least that is how I read the original post, last line of it. So I think you should have included it in the explanation.

[Stephen Tu]

They never asked about spades. If they ask about spades you tell them that either opener or responder could have spades.

 

But unasked, you aren't required to volunteer every single possible negative inference under the sun, they are supposed to be able to work out some of them on their own, the fact that responder can choose to conceal spades having heart support is supposed to be general bridge knowledge.

 

If you had to volunteer every single negative inference to the smallest detail, and cater to opponents not having any general bridge knowledge, explanations would take forever. You try to give the opponents information about any aspect of your bid that is unusual, but concealing spades to raise hearts is not unusual. If they want to know about all the normal usual negative inferences they should ask. Unprompted, you should volunteer all positive inferences, and unusual negative inferences. But if you have to teach them everything about bridge unprompted, that's just impractical.

[mike777]

As a nonexpert...if you by- pass 4s often I want to know.......if rare np.

[peachy]

They never asked about spades. If they ask about spades you tell them that either opener or responder could have spades.

 

But unasked, you aren't required to volunteer every single possible negative inference under the sun, they are supposed to be able to work out some of them on their own, the fact that responder can choose to conceal spades having heart support is supposed to be general bridge knowledge.

 

If you had to volunteer every single negative inference to the smallest detail, and cater to opponents not having any general bridge knowledge, explanations would take forever. You try to give the opponents information about any aspect of your bid that is unusual, but concealing spades to raise hearts is not unusual. If they want to know about all the normal usual negative inferences they should ask. Unprompted, you should volunteer all positive inferences, and unusual negative inferences. But if you have to teach them everything about bridge unprompted, that's just impractical.

They asked (lord knows why they asked...) about the 1NT. They didn't ask about spades - which would be an improper form of a question anyway. They phrased the question properly, I assume, asking about the 1NT bid. We are obligated to explain our agreements in full and "if" our agreement is either A or B (not repeating here what I wrote before), that needs to be included in the explanation.

 

If there is no agreement and bypassing spades was a judgment call with this hand, then it is a different matter, but from what OP wrote, I gather that they DID have an agreement not to bid spades with the weaker variety of heart raises (which go through a forcing 1NT). What reason is there not to include this in the explanation, particularly if (as I suspect) the opponents are intermediates or lower in level.

 

I am in no way in favor of explaining every negative inference, let alone volunteering unprompted. But they asked! We are obligated by law to explain the bid IN FULL.

[jdonn]

Including that this could have spades is about equally as ridiculous as alerting a direct raise as possibly having four spades. This isn't even close. I mean, you are not in favor of explaining every negative inference, but by god the bid must be explained IN FULL!! Well, which is it, you can't have it both ways. Do they also have to explain they have denied eight diamonds? And what do they opponents claim anyway, that they wouldn't have ended in spades if responder might possibly have 4, even if he usually won't and even if they knew opener still could? Sorry, bottom line you are under no obligation to teach your opponents how to play bridge.

[rogerclee]

In fact, I think that basically any sub-minimum hand with 3 card heart support and 4 spades should respond a forcing 1N instead of 1♠.

[Gerben42]

  In fact, I think that basically any sub-minimum hand with 3 card heart support and 4 spades should respond a forcing 1N instead of 1♠.

 

I agree but this is judgement not agreement. With

 

♠KQJx

♥xxx

♦Qxx

♣xxx

 

you might bid 1♠ anyway and plan to bid 2♥ over 2m but pass 1NT.

[Cascade]

If this is a common occurrence then i think it needs to be explained.

 

Not everyone plays a forcing NT and to those who don't the inference that a weak raise may bypass a four-card spade suit may not be obvious. To me this is the sort of information that a response to a question should provide.

[Finch]

When I am asked about our (semi-)forcing 1NT response, the long form of reply is:

 

- "We play 2 of a minor as game forcing, so this may be up to a 12-count, may have 3-card heart support and might have four spades"

 

There is some more information available if they ask further questions (e.g. when we respond 1NT with 3-card support, when we might have four spades).

 

I play in a country where 5-card majors 2/1 methods are still relatively unknown amongst non-experts. The 'standard' method in this country is never to respond 1NT with four spades. Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here.

 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

 

However, having said all this, while as TD I would say you should have said that 1NT may have four says, I would not necessarily adjust the score, because the lack of this information may not have caused damage.

 

(The short form of reply ("sem-forcing") is given to opponents whom I know, who either play the same method or certainly know it.)

[gnasher]

The meanings of some terms, and what constitutes "general bridge knowledge", vary according to where you are and who you are. I think you should tailor your reply to your location and your opponents, erring on he side of completeness. Frances's longer explanation would be reasonable against moderate English players, but overkill against most Americans.

 

Similarly, in the UK I might describe my leads as "second and fourth", knowing that this would be understood correctly; elsewhere I'd say "Fourth from an honour; second from three or more small cards." I'd also give the longer explanation if my opponents appeared to be overseas visitors or beginners.

 

The fact that the original poster's opponents wanted a more detailed explanation than simply "forcing" was an indication that they weren't familiar with the forcing notrump, or with using it to show a weak raise, so a more complete explanation might have been wiser. Rather than being aggrieved that they asked for a ruling, it would make more sense to note that your explanation didn't tell this pair everything that they wanted to know, and to go into a bit more detail next time.

[dicklont]

When I am asked about our (semi-)forcing 1NT response, the long form of reply is:

 

- "We play 2 of a minor as game forcing, so this may be up to a 12-count, may have 3-card heart support and might have four spades"

Thx Frances.

That is a correct and compact way to explain the forcing NT.

I will adapt it.

[helene_t]

Why not start with 1♠ with this hand? If p rebids 1NT, you can bid 2♥ which is not invitational so he will pass. If p rebids 2m, you preference bid of 2♥ is frequently based on doubleton support so it won't make p any more enthusiast than a the same preference bid after your 1NT response would.

[xx1943]

In fact, I think that basically any sub-minimum hand with 3 card heart support and 4 spades should respond a forcing 1N instead of 1♠.

That is standard in 2/1 imo.

1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ shows a hand, which is stronger than 1♥-2♥

[xx1943]

Why not start with 1♠ with this hand? If p rebids 1NT, you can bid 2♥ which is not invitational so he will pass. If p rebids 2m, you preference bid of 2♥ is frequently based on doubleton support so it won't make p any more enthusiast than a the same preference bid after your 1NT response would.

The doubleton support is shown generally via the forcing NT. Why fool around in ♠ with a weak hand and a known 8-card fit in ♥?

[Finch]

In fact, I think that basically any sub-minimum hand with 3 card heart support and 4 spades should respond a forcing 1N instead of 1♠.

That is standard in 2/1 imo.

1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ shows a hand, which is stronger than 1♥-2♥

Does is?

 

I've always played that auction as constructive with exactly 5=2 in the majors.

Not that it ever comes up....

 

One can also play that 1H - 1NT may have five spades if it has a limit raise with three hearts, and thus 1H- 1S - 2S - 3H is forcing. I don't do this (not least becauseI play 1NT as semi-forcing rather than forcing), but it's a quite playable method in the forcing NT.

[y66]

Good thread. 9 out of 10 of my opponents know more about semi-forcing 1NT than I do so I'm not often asked. However, when asked next I will try to explain as clearly and in the spirit suggested by FH and gnasher.

[david_c]

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here.

 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

[Finch]

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here. 

 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

The problem is that they may not know they need to ask.

For many people (at least in this country) it simply wouldn't occur to them that you might not bid a four-card major here. Obviously there's a slightly fuzzy line between what you need to say and what is overkill:

 

i) 2C - 2D - 2NT

When asked about the 2NT rebid, I wouldn't bother saying that it might have four cards in either or both majors

ii) 1C - 1NT

If someone asked me about the 1NT bid I'd probably tell them it denies a 4-card major (and usually denies 4 diamonds for me) because if they need to ask what 1C - 1NT means, they probably need to have that detail in response.

iii) 1C - 1H - 1NT

When asked for range in England, I just say "12-14" and don't bother saying that it might have four spades. But in some countries I think I would need to specify that explicitly.

[david_c]

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here. 

 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

Actually, let me amend that. I should have said:

 

(i) If the bidding has gone 1♥ - 1NT, and the opponents ask about 1NT, then I would not expect the initial explanation to mention the possibility of a weak hand with 4 spades and 3 hearts.

 

(ii) Once the bidding has gone 1♥ - 1NT , 2m - 2♥, and the opponents ask what responder has shown, I do think it ought to be mentioned at this point.

[hanp]

I agree that it isn't always clear which negative inferences you should mention, obviously it is not possible to mention all. It is clear though that when asked to explain your bid you should go out of your way to explain all aspects of your agreement that might be useful of your opponents. It might not have occured to me to mention that I can have 4 spades here but it seems right to do so.

 

I must say that I do not recall ever being asked about my 1NT response, but I usually play on BBO against experienced bridge players.