Liberal force

[shyams]

In the context of 2/1 GF where opener's hand is fairly wide range, I was wondering:

 

1. What is the typical minumum for a F 1NT response to 1M opening?

I have three specific hands where I'd appreciate hearing your views:

Partner opens 1♠, next person passes and you hold 9xxx Txx Qxx xxx.

Partner opens 1♠, next person passes and you hold Qxx xxx xxxx Jxx

Partner opens 1♥, next person passes and you hold xxxx xx QJxx Qxx

 

2. If your opps have agreed to play forcing 1NT for hands above (esp. when NV), would you expect to be specially alerted or pre-alerted on ranges?

(Although this is not the laws portion of the forum), does your regulating body (ACBL, EBU etc) prohibit or restrict such responses?

 

3. Assuming it is allowed, how can opener determine if responder has a very poor hand? e.g. it becomes risky to jump rebids showing extras.

Is there a standard control or relay sequence to protect?

 

Thanks in advance

[Finch]

1. My agreements are such that I'm likely to respond 1NT on all these hands, particularly NV. I wouldn't do it without prior agreement, however so I don't think it is 'typical'. (Actually I'd respond 1S on the last.) We don't play 1S - 3S as pre-emptive (it's slightly stronger than that) so we either pass or bid 1NT on the first. I might well pass all of them vul vs nv.

 

2. The EBU allows any responses in its serious events. The semi-forcing 1NT response is alertable anyway so there is no 'special' alert; when asked part of the explanation is '...may be very weak with support'

 

3. You have to play some methods to cope with this. I don't think there is a standard. We play various things including an artificial 2C rebid by opener, after which 2D is a relay and includes all very weak hands.

[Phil]

Personally I think that the auction 1M - F1N - 2x - 2M should be alerted if it can frequently contain a very weak hand with support. I don't see this happening any time soon.

[fromageGB]

1) My agreements are that while 1♠ 2♠ is 7-10 and 3 cards, 1♠ 1NT 2♣♦♥ 2♠ could be 6+ preference, but can be 0-6 with 3 cards. OK, red against green I might wave the right at the lower end. This fits both the first 2 hands because a 4333 is treated as 3 card support.

On the third hand this absolutely rock bottom for 1♠.

 

3) When we first started 2 over 1 we used to play that opener with a strong hand jumped in rebid, but as soon as we realised the consequences of what would happen on the first hand ( :o ) we rapidly changed to 2♣ being either balanced, or 4 clubs, or any 17+. 2♦ would ask, but as that needs a better than minimum 1NT, with the first 2 hands we simply rebid 2♠.

 

I disagree with Phil above. I would prefer a simple regulation that you alert any bid that is not natural, and 2♠ is natural. Suggesting otherwise leads you to the EBU regulations, where you have to have to alert any bid that is not Acol (well, almost).

[aguahombre]

I would prefer a simple regulation that you alert any bid that is not natural, and 2♠ is natural. Suggesting otherwise leads you to the EBU regulations, where you have to have to alert any bid that is not Acol (well, almost).

 

You are brave. Vampyre and others will be right over :rolleyes:

[Siegmund]

Different people have different agreements and there is a wide variety of styles.

 

Personally I'd be very offended if a pickup partner responded 1NTF on any of these (pretending you have a 9-loser hand when you have 11 is a good way to go down two in whatever final contract opener propels you into, on the first two; the last is closer to mainstream on strength but I dislike suppressing the 4-card spade suit, so it's actually the one of the three that offends me worst, causing us to never mention the suit I'd be happiest to see us play in.)

 

I am sure there are people who have methods to cope with them - presumably Gazilli to avoid getting too high, and F*****ry to avoid the danger of missing a spade fit - but I have a feeling many people who respond very light don't have any special methods.

 

Re question 2, I would want to be, but I know I'd be disappointed, in just about any jurisdiction.

 

I would prefer a simple regulation that you alert any bid that is not natural

 

...under such a regulation there would be an interesting argument as to whether the 1NT bid that concealed support for opener's major was natural, though the rebid would clearly be.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 I would pass all 3, mainly because of the 4333 shape, but selling

the first two hands as 4-7 with support, wont be the worst idea,

it may well be best.

Due to the Queens and Jacks, and also due to the absence of a fit,

the hand is weaker than 6HCP.

#2 We include 4-7 hands with fit into the forcing NT, ..., the first

two hands are weaker, most likely one would need to include in the

alert, that the hands could be weaker than the advertised 4-7 range

with fit, we already mention to be in the 1NT, the frequence is not

very high.

#3 No idea, that why I would prefer some shape.

The first hand has 4 trumps, make it a 4432 shape, than you have the

playing strength of a 4-7 hand.

Similar for the 2nd hand, make is a 4432 shape, ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Inclduing those hands in the forcing NT is not uncommon, at least, if you

play constructive singel raises.

[babalu1997]

i would pass all hands, for me that is the point of the forcing no trump, or the lack of it.

 

i have tolerance in the major

 

i leave the forcing no trump for misfits(like zero hcp an void in partners) or 3 card limit raises

[Free]

1. I don't feel the need to bid on any of these hands. They are weak, balanced, and lack any playing strength. But that doesn't really answers the main question of "how weak can you be when responding 1NT". If I have 32-2-2-T98765432 I definitely want to respond 1NT. Although I have 0HCP, the hand plays better in ♣, probably even when opener has 6♠.

 

2. No & No

 

3. I love to play Gazzilli (2♣ rebid by opener shows min with ♣ or 16+ any), this way opener won't get too excited when the auction goes 1M-1NT-2♣-2M (<8HCP with 2-3M support) He can still re-invite if he wants. This solves the problem in a large amount of times, before it even occurs. With 16-17 you know you lack the playing strength for game, with 18-19HCP it's a matter of discipline to stay at 3-level (distributions were ignored in this point count to keep things simple and explainable).

[helene_t]

i would pass all hands, for me that is the point of the forcing no trump, or the lack of it.

 

i have tolerance in the major

 

i leave the forcing no trump for misfits(like zero hcp an void in partners) or 3 card limit raises

I don't understand why you wouldn't put weak hands with a fit into the forcing notrump.

I can understand that you pass with these hands, arguably they are too weak for 1NT.

 

But with 3-card support and a hand just a tad too weak for a raise, surely 1NT is ideal?

 

Btw, with hand 3 I don't see why anyone would bid 1NT. The choice is between 1♠ and pass.