How to explain the forcing NT

[Stephen Tu]

It may be country dependent. In the UK bypassing spades may be a sufficiently uncommon treatment that it should be mentioned in the explanation.

 

But in the ACBL, bypassing four card majors to bid NT was judged to have become a sufficiently common occurrence on many sequences so that the ACBL specifically changed all of them to be unalertable some years ago. Which to me suggests that opps are expected to not make assumptions and protect themselves by asking specifically about whether they can be bypassed if they want to know about it, if your explanation didn't address the issue.

[ArtK78]

I found this discussion to border on silly in several instances. Some of the later posts have focused more on the main point - whether the fact that you choose not to bid a weak four card spade suit on this auction has to be announced as a main part of the explanation of 1NT forcing.

 

Earlier, there was one post that focused on the main issue here - the strength of the spade suit.

 

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.

 

I would rephrase comment B. It isn't that your "system" requires that you not bid a 4 card spade suit if the spades are bad and you have a weak raise to 2♥, but rather you won't bid a bad 4 card spade suit PERIOD.

 

There was a time - back in the Goren days of 4 card major suit openings - that no one would dream of responding 1♠ on 98xx of spades. The suit was not "biddable." Of course, many players would pass this hand anyway, since it is less than 6 HCP.

 

Today, almost anything goes. And, I admit, if my hand were 98xx xx xxxx KQx, I would respond 1♠ to a 1♥ opening, since I cannot afford to miss a 4-4 spade fit (I do not play Flannery unless forced to). But I would not quibble if a partner chose to bid 1NT on those cards, as the spade suit is very poor. It is a matter of judgment.

 

And that is the key here. For most players, whether to bid 1♠ or 1NT would be a matter of judgment. So, the correct explanation of the 1NT call is "Forcing." There really is not any more of an explanation needed. If specifically asked about the spade suit, one should say that it tends to deny a 4 card or longer holding in spades.

 

Just a side note. Many years ago, playing in a regional pair game at a North American Championship with a player I knew well but never partnered until that day, we had an auction where I opened 1♥ and he bid 1NT forcing. I don't remember where we wound up on the hand - the one thing about the hand that I do remember is that my partner had 6 spades to the Ace! Later, in going over the hands with a few other people, I found that someone else had done the same thing!

[peachy]

It may be country dependent. In the UK bypassing spades may be a sufficiently uncommon treatment that it should be mentioned in the explanation.

 

But in the ACBL, bypassing four card majors to bid NT was judged to have become a sufficiently common occurrence on many sequences so that the ACBL specifically changed all of them to be unalertable some years ago. Which to me suggests that opps are expected to not make assumptions and protect themselves by asking specifically about whether they can be bypassed if they want to know about it, if your explanation didn't address the issue.

I must have somehow missed the change you are talking about (ACBL Alert regs). I thought it has never been alertable in ACBL.

[jdonn]

[...] 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.

The comparable problem is it wouldn't have even occured to me to mention it.

 

I disagree with your main point anyway. I strongly believe it qualifies as general bridge knowledge that anything which shows a fit in a major does not deny any particular length in any other suit.

[blackshoe]

I can't speak to prior alert regulations in the ACBL — I have enough trouble keeping up with the current ones. The current alert regulation does not address the question at hand, although it does say that if a natural 1NT response to 1♥ might bypass 4♠ that is not alertable.

 

On the question of explanations, the regulation says

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.

The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.

Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

 

So when opponents ask after your announcement, you should give them all relevant information. Is the fact that responder might have bypaassed ♠ with four of them relevant? Well, it seems to me that the forcing (or not) nature of the 1NT response has nothing to do with whether spades are bypassed. The fact then that bypassing spades to bid a natural 1NT does not require an alert may indicate that the possibility is not relevant. OTOH, the fact that something is not alertable does not mean it need not be disclosed in response to a question.

 

The timing of the question is important, as well. It seems from the OP that opponents asked for an explanation of the auction after responder bid 2♥. At that point, assuming the partnership's methods are to disregard 4 card spades, or to disregard them if they're bad, when one has a raise of some kind, then I think that should be disclosed. It may or may not turn out to be relevant, but clearly the opponents in this case thought it was. Still, I have to agree with those who say upthread that this NS pair are being a bit bloody minded. Suppose declarer had the four spades. They would have ended in the same Moysian fit, I'm sure, and probably with the same result.

 

If I were to be convinced that the concept that a forcing 1NT response to 1♥ might conceal 4♠ is knowledge "generally known to bridge players" I would rule no infraction. As I am not entirely convinced of that, I would rule MI, but no consequent damage. Result stands. I would caution EW to ensure their explanations — generally, not just in this case — are as complete as they can make them.

[Cascade]

[...] 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.

Yes

 

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply

to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special

information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership

experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and

experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

 

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

[helene_t]

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

 

Suppose it goes

1♥-1NT

2♣*

and I alert 2♣ as potentially a 3-card, or even a doubleton if specifically 4522 and 15-16 points.

 

If I were to give opps all information that I have through partnership understanding, it would include:

- how weak he would have to be to pass my 1NT

- how strong he would have to be in order to rebid 3♣

- whether an invitational 2NT was available

- whether he might pass rather than bid 2♣ with some semi-balanced hands.

- on what kind of hands he would have opened 1NT rather than 1♥

- what kind of 5♥6♣ hands he would open 1♥ rather than 1♣

- what kind of 6♥4♣ hands he would have rebid 2♥ or 3♥ rather than 2♣

 

In particular, I would have to explain how my partner evaluates his hand, and what kind of tactical deviations from our agreements he sometimes makes.

 

Of course this goes further than the forcing 1NT response which might bypass a four-card spades, and it is possible that that needs to be explained without opps explicitly asking about it. I think that would depend on the local culture (and alert procedure).

[skjaeran]

I found this discussion to border on silly in several instances. Some of the later posts have focused more on the main point - whether the fact that you choose not to bid a weak four card spade suit on this auction has to be announced as a main part of the explanation of 1NT forcing.

 

Earlier, there was one post that focused on the main issue here - the strength of the spade suit.

 

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.

 

I would rephrase comment B. It isn't that your "system" requires that you not bid a 4 card spade suit if the spades are bad and you have a weak raise to 2♥, but rather you won't bid a bad 4 card spade suit PERIOD.

 

There was a time - back in the Goren days of 4 card major suit openings - that no one would dream of responding 1♠ on 98xx of spades. The suit was not "biddable." Of course, many players would pass this hand anyway, since it is less than 6 HCP.

 

Today, almost anything goes. And, I admit, if my hand were 98xx xx xxxx KQx, I would respond 1♠ to a 1♥ opening, since I cannot afford to miss a 4-4 spade fit (I do not play Flannery unless forced to). But I would not quibble if a partner chose to bid 1NT on those cards, as the spade suit is very poor. It is a matter of judgment.

 

And that is the key here. For most players, whether to bid 1♠ or 1NT would be a matter of judgment. So, the correct explanation of the 1NT call is "Forcing." There really is not any more of an explanation needed. If specifically asked about the spade suit, one should say that it tends to deny a 4 card or longer holding in spades.

 

Just a side note. Many years ago, playing in a regional pair game at a North American Championship with a player I knew well but never partnered until that day, we had an auction where I opened 1♥ and he bid 1NT forcing. I don't remember where we wound up on the hand - the one thing about the hand that I do remember is that my partner had 6 spades to the Ace! Later, in going over the hands with a few other people, I found that someone else had done the same thing!

I don't know if I should view this post as ignorance, arrogance or both.

 

The fact is, though, that in many parts of the world, neither 5cM nor forcing NT is very popular or well-known. In those parts of the world, bypassing a 4-card spade suit would come as a huge surprise to a huge majority of the players. Thus, explaining explaining freely that the 1NT response can include a 4-card spade suit is absolutely neccesary.

[ArtK78]

I don't know if I should view this post as ignorance, arrogance or both.

My post was neither ignorant nor arrogant. But your comment was certainly inappropriate (I was going to use a stronger word more like the ones that you chose, but I refrained).

 

The rest of your post was a reasoned argument, with which I disagree. If by-passing the 4 card spade suit is not part of the partnership agreement, it does not have to be mentioned in any explanation of the partnership agreement. A player is allowed to exercise his judgment in choosing not to bid 98xx of spades over his partner's 1♥ opening. The fact that responder holds 4 spades will be just as much of a surprise to opener as it will be to the opponents. So, no such explanation is necessary.

[david_c]

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

Surely you are aware that that isn't how things work. People don't recite the entirety of their system notes every time a bid is made. Frances gave some nice examples of roughly where the "fuzzy" line is drawn. I don't have particularly strong feelings about whether the original agreement needs to be explained. But for you to deny that there is a line to be drawn at all, that just doesn't help anybody.

Edited March 25, 2009 by david_c

[Cascade]

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

Surely you are aware that that isn't how things work. People don't recite the entirety of their system notes every time a bid is made. Frances gave some nice examples of roughly where the "fuzzy" line is drawn. I don't have particularly strong feelings about whether the original agreement needs to be explained. But for you to deny that there is a line to be drawn at all, that just doesn't help anybody.

I am not completely sure of what you mean by how things work.

 

What I quoted was what the law says and it says in response to a question you need to give all information.

 

I would want to be pretty sure that the information I was not giving about my non-standard bid was an inference that was drawn from the knowledge generally known to bridge players rather than my specific partnership understanding or experience before I deliberately concealed that information from the opponents.

[Cascade]

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

It is what the law requires.

[Lobowolf]

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

It is what the law requires.

If we're talking about ACBL laws, I think there's clear support for the bidder here.

 

"During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)" (20F)

 

"A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." (21)

 

 

If whether or not the the responder might have 4 spades is relevant to your bidding decision, then you should ask whether or not the responder might have 4 spades.

[neilkaz]

This doesn't seem to be the majority opinion here, but honestly.. :) LOL at this crying declarer who's main concern really should be why they ended up in a 43 fit at the 3 level rather than blaming the opps on a very basic forcing NT sequence that likely occurs hundreds of times a day in bridge clubs across America.

 

Geez....if opener had 4♠ rather than responder the opps still get to suffer in their 43 fit vs a 42 break.

 

Now if responder had 2 hcp and 5♠ the opps might have something to gripe about to director. But here..well..just a big LOL

[peachy]

[ If by-passing the 4 card spade suit is not part of the partnership agreement, it does not have to be mentioned in any explanation of the partnership agreement. A player is allowed to exercise his judgment in choosing not to bid 98xx of spades over his partner's 1♥ opening. The fact that responder holds 4 spades will be just as much of a surprise to opener as it will be to the opponents. So, no such explanation is necessary.

This is something that nobody has disagreed with, ie. when there is no agreement, there is nothing to explain. In the case this thread began with, there was an agreement.

 

Heh, two sentences which end with a preposition... not going to rearrange them...

[Stephen Tu]

So it seems the denizens of 4cM countries think it should be mentioned, while most of the Americans do not. I'll keep that in mind if I get a chance to play abroad.

 

But here in the U.S., 98% 5cM and maybe 66+% f1nt (varying considerably depending on whether you are in LM pairs or a 199er game, or somewhere in between), in my opinion this is just not a special partnership agreement. I've never explicitly discussed with any partner that responder to 1h can choose to bypass spades with certain hand types (weak raise, 6+ minor, maybe some 3cd limit raises), it's simply an implicit agreement that I think most good players here would assume. Just like one would not mention 5 or sometimes even 6 cd spades when holding a hand appropriate for 1h-2h. It just wouldn't occur for me to mention it to the opps unless they specifically asked, as in my mind it is not at all unusual here and not something that I would think of that would affect their choice of action. It's not a matter of "deliberately concealing an agreement", it's you don't think to mention it because it is so common & std among the people you play against, and it's not something that you think could change your opps mind. (Is he really supposed to do something different vs. a 0-3 spade action than a 0-4?)

 

Maybe a beginner doesn't know, but beginners don't know a lot of things. They shouldn't be assuming stuff, if they want to know something, they can ask specifically about it.

 

If this were truly a special understanding that opps need to be made aware of, then the ACBL shouldn't have made these things unalertable.

[whereagles]

Would anyone haggle against a short thing like

 

"5-12 hcp, wide range of hands, usually without a fit"

[Cascade]

So it seems the denizens of 4cM countries think it should be mentioned, while most of the Americans do not. I'll keep that in mind if I get a chance to play abroad.

 

But here in the U.S., 98% 5cM and maybe 66+% f1nt (varying considerably depending on whether you are in LM pairs or a 199er game, or somewhere in between), in my opinion this is just not a special partnership agreement. I've never explicitly discussed with any partner that responder to 1h can choose to bypass spades with certain hand types (weak raise, 6+ minor, maybe some 3cd limit raises), it's simply an implicit agreement that I think most good players here would assume. Just like one would not mention 5 or sometimes even 6 cd spades when holding a hand appropriate for 1h-2h. It just wouldn't occur for me to mention it to the opps unless they specifically asked, as in my mind it is not at all unusual here and not something that I would think of that would affect their choice of action. It's not a matter of "deliberately concealing an agreement", it's you don't think to mention it because it is so common & std among the people you play against, and it's not something that you think could change your opps mind. (Is he really supposed to do something different vs. a 0-3 spade action than a 0-4?)

 

Maybe a beginner doesn't know, but beginners don't know a lot of things. They shouldn't be assuming stuff, if they want to know something, they can ask specifically about it.

 

If this were truly a special understanding that opps need to be made aware of, then the ACBL shouldn't have made these things unalertable.

Alerts and explanations are different things.

 

Just because you do not alert does not mean that you do not have to explain fully if asked.

 

The ACBL alert procedures say this about answering questions:

 

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.

The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.

Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

 

To me it is clear that these are intended not just to cover alerted bids. The fact that the alert chart includes several bids that are ambiguous and not alerted suggests that one should anticipate questions on those bids.

 

Relevant to this case a non-forcing 1NT that might bypass a major does not need an alert. If I ask then I would expect to be told about the possibility of a major. I would expect the same about the forcing 1NT.

 

The alert procedures above require:

 

1. a full answer

 

2. more than "Forcing NT" that is just a name

 

3. All information should be given even if exactly the right question is not asked. That is it is no defense to say "Well he didn't ask about spades?" We are supposed to have enough nous to anticipate the potentially unexpected things in our system that the opponents might need to know.

 

4. The proper way to ask about a forcing 1NT (or any other bid or auction) is to ask "Please explain?"* A less proper way to ask about a forcing 1NT is to ask "Could that have a spade suit?". We would rightly have a case against the opponents if they phrased their questions in that manner and partner miraculously found the killing spade lead.

 

* I confess when I ask "Please explain the auction?" that I am amazed at the number of blank looks and severely deficient explanations that I get e.g. "I don't understand the question?" or occasionally one person explains half of the auction and they stop there.

 

Implicit agreements need to be explained in the same manner as explicit agreements. The fact that something is an implicit agreement does not allow you to hide it away from the opponents.

 

Bridge is not a game of secret messages

 

Its quite simple if they ask explain and try and be helpful. Keeping secrets that you know but that the opponents might not know is against the laws and the spirit of the laws and regulations on disclosure.

[david_c]

I am not completely sure of what you mean by how things work.

 

What I quoted was what the law says and it says in response to a question you need to give all information.

The point is that if you were to give literally "all the information" then that would be an awful lot of information. For describing an opening bid when playing with a regular partner, it would take many minutes. So that isn't what happens. It can't be.

 

Instead, you give an initial explanation, in one or two sentences, and the opponents can ask for more detail if they want it.

 

So it's not about "concealing" information. It's about which information is an essential part of the initial explanation, and which can be safely left until later.

 

Concealing a 4-card major is normally unusual enough that you would have to inform the oppoenents immediately, but it must depend on the context. If the bidding goes 1♣! : 1NT! in Precision, then I would accept "Shows a game-forcing balanced hand" as an initial explanation; I don't think people would assume it denies a 4-card major. The forcing NT may or may not be similar to this.

[mtvesuvius]

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

It is what the law requires.

So instead of announcing 15-17 for partner's 1NT opening if I was playing in a place where Weak NTs were common, I instead say: "He has 15-17 HCP, No 7+ card suit, He shouldn't have a 6 card major, but may have a 5 card major, No void, No singleton and is Balanced?"

[helene_t]

No, the opps understand that he usually doesn't have a singleton or a 6cM or 7cm. But you might have to explain the exact criteria for opening 1NT with a 5cM or with two doubletons, and you will have to explain exactly what you mean by "15-17" as you presumably use something more subtle than MW points. For example, you may upgrade 30% of 14-pointers and 20% of 17-pointers, and downgrade 5% of 15-pointers and 10% of 18-pointers.

[blackshoe]

* I confess when I ask "Please explain the auction?" that I am amazed at the number of blank looks and severely deficient explanations that I get e.g. "I don't understand the question?" or occasionally one person explains half of the auction and they stop there.

The other thing I get frequently is "well, he bid 1♣, and then..." I usually wait 'til they're done, then say "thank you for the review. Now please explain the auction." Probably "Now please explain what the auction means" would be better.

 

The thing that really gets to me is that often I (or the director) end up taking several minutes to explain what the question "please explain the auction" means — and then two weeks later I ask the same question of the same player, and I get the same blank look.

[helene_t]

A good way of phrasing the question is "what do you know about declarer's hand?". Only occasionally it will be relevant what information was available at an earlier stage.

[whereagles]

A good way of phrasing the question is "what do you know about declarer's hand?". Only occasionally it will be relevant what information was available at an earlier stage.

helene, that's what I usually do. Ask such a general question at the end.

[Cascade]

The other thing I get frequently is "well, he bid 1♣, and then..." I usually wait 'til they're done, then say "thank you for the review. Now please explain the auction." Probably "Now please explain what the auction means" would be better.

This reminds me of one I got the other day when I was directing and the auction involved a redouble by the explainer (online so self explanations). The explanation was:

 

"you doubled i redoubled"