Refining Forcing NT

[laughter]

Just want to start a series of post on Forcing NT.

 

The first question is whether it should be forcing.

 

The semi-forcing treatment seems to be gaining popularity as it becomes the default of BWS 2001.

 

The merit of semi-F NT:

 

1. The partnership can stop in 1NT when opener is min, balanced and responder is also balanced (with or without extras).

 

2. Opener's rebid in minor is more likely to be 4 as he has the option of dropping 1NT. Responder, under pressure, may try to raise with only 4 trumps.

 

However, there are quite a few drawbacks:

 

1. Responder can't safely use 1NT to escape to his long suit holding a weak one suiter.

 

2. Responder can't safely use 1NT to show different kind of major raises. Holding a distributional weak support hand like Kxx-x-xxxx-Jxxxx opposite 1S opening, he has to raise directly or risk playing 1NT when opener is min, bal. Also, the 1NT-then-jump- to-3M plan may not work with distributional 3 card limit raise.

 

Playing semi-F 1NT, responder may have to improvise by upgrading a 11 distributional raises to FG, or making a heavy single raise. If he chooses to make a heavy single raise with some 11 while he may also raise with some 4 points (don't want to risk a 1NT bid), opener will have a headache.

 

Danny Kleinman argues for playing 1NT as absolute F opposite 1S opener:

1. As responder has no opportunity to show weak distributional hands, 1NT response to 1S may be based just as easily on a weak distributional as a weak balanced hand, 1NT will seldom be the best contract.

2. Even when opener is balanced, the best contract is likely to be in responder's long suit, assuming 2/1 response has requirement of additional strengthes (not necessarily FG)

3. As opener usually has 5 spades, this provides some safety for responder can frequently make a preference bid on 2 when stuck.

 

The case for 1NT-F opposite 1H opener is not as strong:

1. Responder can have length in 2 suits instead of 3, therefore more likely to have weak balanced hand. 1NT is moderately more likely to be the best contract (Note that opener can have 4S-5H and get stuck, while responder holds the minor)

2. However, the use of 1NT-F is still reasonable for those pairs that use beefed-up 2/1 responses.

 

Just for the record, I like 1NT-F most as I can't stand those drawbacks of semi-F NT.

Also, I dislike the ideas of including in 1NT-F a balanced FG hand like:

AQx-Kx-Kxxx-Qxxx.

As 1M-1NT; 2 any-3NT takes up all bidding room, I like it to be precisely defined as some kind of fit bids.

However, I think the 1NT-then-jump-to-3NT approach works better than a 2/1 FG on such a weak suit as I strongly believe 2/1 should deliver reasonable suit.

The real solution of balanced FG may be to play 2NT natural and trash the Jacoby 2NT.

 

Any comments welcome!

[whereagles]

I actually like it more semi-forcing. But then again, I don't really like 2/1 game force.

[EricK]

Again, if you don't open 1M on balanced hands you don't have this problem. You can simply play 1NT as 100% forcing over 1S, and use Kaplan inversion over 1H.

 

Eric

[helene_t]

If 1NT is forcing, there is no particular reason why it should be limited. There may be better ways of diferentiating 1NT from a 2-o-1 response than one being GF and another denying GF values:

- Points Schmoints

- You don't want to declare in 3NT with a weak distributional hand

- You don't have to preempt with strong hands

 

As long as 1NT is limited you can choose to pass it. But if you do so frequently, should partner still respond 1NT with

- An invitational hand with a 6-card minor (some people play those via 1NT)?

- An 11 HCP ballanced hand with 3-card support?

- A 4-7 hand with 3-card support?

- A hand with 6+ hearts (some people prefer to play transfer responses to 1♠)?

[laughter]

Helene makes very good points for the drawbacks of making a 1NT responses on weak one suiter.

If you dislike responding 1NT, possibly wrong siding future game in 3NT, perhaps WJS is for you.

 

Pre-modern experts like to show their suit at two levels, even without any extras.

A Culbertson 2H response to 1S is:

62-KQJ52-K75-632 (The Gold Book)

The arguments for light two over one is you may lose your suit if you don't show it now, however, the partnership can easily get overboard when responder is unlimited.

 

Imo, light two over one works best in conjunction with weak NT. Here, you can rebid 2NT after 2/1 to show 15+, establishing a FG.

 

If opener has the tendency of passing 1NT response, maybe a standard approach where 2/1 promises some extras but does't force to game should be played.

As responder hates to bid 1NT with 6+H, while a 2H (or transfer) consumes bidding space, making game and slam bidding more difficult later, a jump to 3H shows long hearts and fair hand may be the best way out.

[luke warm]

i agree again with eric... any balanced hand that falls within your nt range, open 1nt, even with a 5M or 6m hand... the only time i'd even consider a semi-forcing nt is if i opened (using the mini for example) the 10, 11 hands 1nt and the 12, 13 hands 1M...