An annoying, petty thing

[Zelandakh]

FWIW, I used to play a system with non-forcing 2/1s, it wasn't unplayable by any means. GF hands went via 1NT (forcing!).

I play this too but in the context of limited openings. I am not convinced the structure works so well for standard openings.

[aguahombre]

There are two 1NT (forcing) bids which have game values, in our style, but that isn't one of them. Not relevant to this discussion, though. And passing could have worked (not for us), though not likely.

[Lobowolf]

We actually both laughed a little afterward.

It reminds me of some of those 3-3 fits I've played in when each partner thinks that a 4-3 wouldn't be so bad.

[Free]

I have strong feelings about passing forcing bids. It's just not done, end of story. It undermines the partnership trust. How can your partner expect to have a decent auction if you pass his forcing bids from time to time? This time it's a simple 1M-1NT auction, but that doesn't exclude other possibilities.

[awm]

I think it's best to be in a partnership where there is leeway to take the action one thinks will lead to the best result on a hand, without having to worry overly much about "damaging partnership trust for future boards." Sometimes a psych or a pass of a forcing bid is the percentage action.

 

However, it's important to make sure partner is understanding about this kind of stuff (I've had partners who are, and partners who aren't). One key to getting such a partnership to work out is being willing to accept blame any time you take such an off-center action and it doesn't work out (regardless of what else partner may have done "wrong" on the hand).

[paulg]

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦AKx ♣xxx

 

NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:

 

"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"

 

You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.

 

No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.

The reason that I feel that it is wrong to pass is that

 

"3NT=13-15 2(443)"

 

covers a lot of hands and on some of these it will be wrong to play in 3NT and 4♠ will be better. Certainly a hand with all the points in the short suits may wish to investigate alternative contracts first and these can presumably start with 1NT in your methods.

 

So although 3NT shows 13-15 2(443) hands, not all 13-15 2(443) hands will bid it.

[billw55]

Just pas with a hand that is only worth a 1♠ overcall instead of an opening bid and you avoid this problem.

With concentrated honors and T9 in the long suit, I open this 1♠ in my sleep.

 

I don't think responder is 100% blameless here. Yes, opener passed when he "can't", but responder also held a hand he "can't".

 

Still, as pointed out by bid em up, responder is often simply heading for a partscore in any suit other than spades. This is the real problem with the pass of 1NT IMO - not that it may miss game, but that it will frequently reach the wrong partscore.

[hanp]

Knowing myself, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to laugh about it if my regular partner bid 1NT on a 15-count. On a good day I would be able to hold back my tears.

 

Passing the forcing notrump was probably not a good idea.

[Phil]

So although 3NT shows 13-15 2(443) hands, not all 13-15 2(443) hands will bid it.

I play this 1M - 3N under duress. I don't think its playable with 2M (344) - and its barely playable with 2M - 3oM - 4♦ / 4♣.

 

This isn't a regular partnership, so there isn't much at stake either way.

[barmar]

I played with one partner who liked to have a 2/1 response show a 5-card suit. So if you have a GF hand, but no biddable suit, you have to start with a forcing NT.

[Zelandakh]

I played with one partner who liked to have a 2/1 response show a 5-card suit. So if you have a GF hand, but no biddable suit, you have to start with a forcing NT.

Fred published a series of articles describing a similar philosophy for 2/1 but using a different solution (2NT from memory but it has been a while). I think it is still available on BBO using the Windows client version. You might find it is just what you are looking for!

[aguahombre]

I played with one partner who liked to have a 2/1 response show a 5-card suit.  So if you have a GF hand, but no biddable suit, you have to start with a forcing NT.

Not true. You can either play J2N and bid 3NT, or you can not play j2N and bid 2NT. You still can have your 5 card minors. But there are hands which, by agreement can start with a forcing NT and end in game+ opposite a minimum 1M opener. That isn't one of them.

[ggwhiz]

Passing a forcing bid IS something to do on occasion but we all seem to agree that it's not this one.

 

I found one when I picked up Qxxxxx, --, --, Qtxxxxx and pard opend 1♥

 

I bid 1♠ and pard bid 3♦, 100% game force.

 

Pard was on the laptop in the dining room and I opened the door to the upstairs office a crack and passed. 1.6 seconds later.... ARRRGH!

 

Pards moose was so good, she only went down 2 white and both black suit splits were horrific. Lucky for me but don't try this at home.

[Lobowolf]

Lucky for me but don't try this at home.

But that's where you tried it! Perhaps, "...don't try this at the club!"

[JLOGIC]

Am I missing something obvious or does bidding 3 with 4 hearts just cause you to miss 4-4 heart fits? Sounds awesome...we have the auction all to ourself and cant find our 4-4 major suit fit that we almost certainly belong in since we have a side 5-2 fit to set up! It seems like if you want to play this then 3N should either show or deny 4 hearts, but not be able to contain both.

[Phil]

Am I missing something obvious or does bidding 3 with 4 hearts just cause you to miss 4-4 heart fits? Sounds awesome...we have the auction all to ourself and cant find our 4-4 major suit fit that we almost certainly belong in since we have a side 5-2 fit to set up! It seems like if you want to play this then 3N should either show or deny 4 hearts, but not be able to contain both.

Yes 3N that is non specific about 4♥ sucks.

[gordontd]

I played with one partner who liked to have a 2/1 response show a 5-card suit.  So if you have a GF hand, but no biddable suit, you have to start with a forcing NT.

Fred published a series of articles describing a similar philosophy for 2/1 but using a different solution (2NT from memory but it has been a while). I think it is still available on BBO using the Windows client version. You might find it is just what you are looking for!

Yes, it was 2NT that showed a balanced 13-15. I played it for some years with Bergen & Jacoby, and just shifted all the other single-jump responses around to make them fit in.

[fromageGB]

I played with one partner who liked to have a 2/1 response show a 5-card suit.  So if you have a GF hand, but no biddable suit, you have to start with a forcing NT.

I agree with the principle of this. (16+ or hands with 3 or more spades have other bids.) A 2 over 1 shows 5.  Since I started playing 2/1 I have always responded 1NT (or forcing next step) with balanced hands up to a 15 count. It seems crazy to bid 3NT when there could be a better result in any suit. Why not hear what partner has to rebid?

 

And yes, forcing means what it says. I don't understand the terminology of semi-forcing, because a bid is either forcing or it is not forcing. Maybe that bid should be called an "undefined NT".