mikeh Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I think it is very common to play 2/1 gameforcing and 1NT not forcing. I have never seen this done, and I believe it to be theoretically unsound. Even playing 1N as semi-forcing is problematic in a true 2/1 gf method...now, if you are playing that 2/1 is NOT always gf, I would back away from these comments.... BWS (at least the last time I checked, which was several years ago) is an example of a method in which 2/1 is not pure gf. I would still argue that the non-forcing 1N is technically inferior, but I doubt that I'd say it was unplayable in principle. My comments are based largely on exposure to NA methods, but theory is non-geograhical. I would be (truly) interested in having someone explain to me how a true 2/1 5 card major method can function adequately without a forcing notrump...it seems to me that it would gain on the family of hands where 1N was the best spot, and the opps let us play there, and lose on a far wider range of hands where responder has important values and can't show them because he can't gf, and opener passes 1N. Not to mention the loss of the ability to distinguish between various major suit raises, or to temporize with this hand type (or the really soft gf raise). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I think you are overbidding your hand. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Mike, 1NT non-forcing in a 2/1 GF context seems to be becoming quite common when playing 14-16 NT. When opener has a balanced hand that would accept an invitation, he has an easy solution, upgrade to a 1NT opening :unsure: Seriously, once you play 14-16 1NT the difference between semi-forcing (some weak bal hands pass) and non-forcing (all weak balanced hands pass) becomes very marginal. Of course, this is combined with 1M-3x = natural invite, and 1M-2♣ = natural or balanced, so the 1NT bid isn't all that different to BWS style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I liked the choices; yes, no, and something else. Heck no is something else, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 sure, wtp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I think it is very common to play 2/1 gameforcing and 1NT not forcing.I have never seen this done, and I believe it to be theoretically unsound. Agree. One can get away with intermediate jump shifts on 6 cards, but one's kind of out of bid with 10-11 5332-ish hands, unless one's ok with bidding 2NT whenever that happens. It's ok to play it the other way around, i.e. 1NT forcing and 2/1 NF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 With 10-11 5332 hands you bid 1NT? If partner passes with a minimal balanced hand you are happy right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 With 10-11 5332 hands you bid 1NT? If partner passes with a minimal balanced hand you are happy right? No, certainly not if he has a balanced 14. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I wouldn't pass with a balanced 14 and I don't think that's a minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 But then 1NT isn't "non forcing". Sorry maybe it's just the terminology since I know "semi forcing" is a meaningless term if taken literally. But still I consider semi forcing to mean opener passes only if he would reject an invitation such as a limit raise, whereas non forcing to mean opener passes on any balanced hand less than (or even up into the range of) a 1NT opener. At least the way I'm using the terms, of course 2/1 can be played with a semi-forcing notrump, but it would be a lot worse with a non-forcing notrump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I never distinguished between non-forcing or semi forcing or whatever. Mikeh said that 1NT is ALWAYS (his caps) played as forcing, and that anything else was theoretically unsound. I don't bid 1NT with limit raises btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 You can play 1NT as "semi-forcing" with a 2/1 GF system very easily. All that "semi-forcing" means is that Opener passes when he has that typical BS garbage. If I have a hand where playing KS and an 11+ to 14 range, and called it 11+ because of the 5332 shape, meaning 19 count by "Rule of Twenty," then I pass. One thing that this "costs" is the inability for Responder to bid 1NT with a GF hand as a tactical move. However, for those of us who often bid 2♣ as a GF with balanced hands, that loss in minimal. Another possible cost is playing 1NT when Responder has a limit hand with a long suit, but invitational jumps in the other major eliminates that, and on the minor hands the opps probably have the other major fit anyway. Another cost is the weak long suiters, but weak opposite garbage 1NT means that the opponents surely have a fit anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Did somebody spam the "no" votes in the poll? They sure went up in a hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I would never game force with this hand. Maybe if I never opened with unbalanced 11s or something, even then surely I open with unbalanced 12s and I don't have a GF opposite that... and does anyone really not open unbalanced 11s with 5 spades? Seems absolutely maniacal to GF with THIS 12, and I'd say I GF with more 12s than most good players. Re- Semi forcing NT and 2/1 GF, this has become very common/popular recently. Personally I love the treatment. If you never bid 1N with GF hands (most people), and you wouldn't accept a 3 card LR or a 2N invite (aka most 11-12 5332s, and some 13s), why not have the ability to pass 1N? It's probably your best spot. This is even more true if you play invitational jumps over a 1M opener (which many are playing now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I think it is very common to play 2/1 gameforcing and 1NT not forcing. I have never seen this done, and I believe it to be theoretically unsound. Even playing 1N as semi-forcing is problematic in a true 2/1 gf method...now, if you are playing that 2/1 is NOT always gf, I would back away from these comments. My experience is the opposite. I play this in at least three partnerships and it is quite effective especially at MPs. With a weak NT type hand facing many typical hands that bid 1N it is often the best place to play. We lose when responder has a weak hand with a single suiter that was going to bid it over opener's forced rebid. 1N is the best matchpoint contract. Why structure a system around avoiding it? In all of these partnerships we have a way to show a GF that is balanced - either through 2♣ or 2N. In my partnership with Gnome, 1N opener is 14-16, so we don't run afoul of the 14 opposite 11/12 hand. In other partnerships, we have a way to show a 3 card limit raise that is unsuitable for 1N and can't stand to pass 1N. With Sathya, 1N is "almost forcing"/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I am also a big fan of the semi-forcing 1NT. In my experience, the ability to play in 1NT is one of the two very big advantages that semi-forcing 1NT has over forcing 1NT. The other comes if you can effectively play partner for a 4-card suit when he rebids 2 of a minor. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) In my experience, the ability to play in 1NT is one of the two very big advantages that semi-forcing 1NT has over forcing 1NT. The other comes if you can effectively play partner for a 4-card suit when he rebids 2 of a minor. I know this is just a matter of terminology, but doesn't that mean that you're playing a "non-forcing" 1NT response? My understanding is that the different terms mean: "forcing": opener bids with any 5332 11-14"semi-forcing": opener bids with the lower end of a 5332 11-14"non-forcing": opener bids only with 5-4 or strong (This post isn't meant as an endorsement of the above terminology, which I can't say I like very much.) Edited November 19, 2009 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 In my experience, the ability to play in 1NT is one of the two very big advantages that semi-forcing 1NT has over forcing 1NT. The other comes if you can effectively play partner for a 4-card suit when he rebids 2 of a minor. I know this is just a matter of terminology, but doesn't that mean that you're playing a "non-forcing" 1NT response? My understanding is that the different terms mean: "forcing": opener bids with any 5332 11-14"semi-forcing": opener bids with the lower end of a 5332 11-14"non-forcing": opener bids only with 5-4 or strong (This post isn't meant as an endorsement of the above terminology, which I can't say I like very much.)You could easily be right. I always thought (for no good reason) that "non-forcing" meant the traditional Standard American style where 1NT is limited to a bad 10 HCP. I also agree that the terminology is less than ideal (and evidently, from our different interpretations, it is not very effective at conveying clear meanings!). Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Weird. A debated topic, but Fred, Justin, and I all agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 This thread is an example of why I started posting again: I learn things I won't learn elsewhere. I don't travel to play bridge anymore, and rarely play on BBO...when I do I am practicing with friends who are about as backward as I am. So.... while I still claim, truthfully, that I've never seen true 2/1 played with a non-forcing 1N response by a passed hand, and while I still think that a 'true non-forcing' 1N is unplayable, I certainly see and like the idea of a semi-forcing 1N (which I have long played by a passed hand) no matter what the 1N opening range is. Thanks to those who commented on it. Now, if only I can get some of my fellow reactionaries to try it B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.