Forcing NT

[relknes]

Does the decision to use the forcing NT in 2/1 affect the decision of weather to open a balanced hand with a 5 card major 1M or 1N?

I use a weak NT in a 2/1 structure (basically K-S). Historically, I have opened 1M whenever possible, but that basically gives up on a 1N final contract when that is often the best spot, because of the forcing 1N response. Then again, opening 1N basically gives up on playing 2M as a final contract, which is the best spot about as often.

I know that, in general, it is ok to open either way, but I assume that the other conventions used weigh in on the decision. Given that I use these two conventions (weak NT opener and forcing NT response), is opening 1M or 1N better with 5M332 and 12-14 points?

[mtvesuvius]

I think that playing a forcing NT is substantially better when the minimum balanced hands are removed from the 1M opening, so IMO if you want to play a forcing NT, you should open the 5M 12-14 hands with 1NT. If you want to open the 5M 12-14 hands with 1M, then I think playing a semiforcing NT is better.

[babalu1997]

Does the decision to use the forcing NT in 2/1 affect the decision of weather to open a balanced hand with a 5 card major 1M or 1N?

I use a weak NT in a 2/1 structure (basically K-S). Historically, I have opened 1M whenever possible, but that basically gives up on a 1N final contract when that is often the best spot, because of the forcing 1N response. Then again, opening 1N basically gives up on playing 2M as a final contract, which is the best spot about as often.

I know that, in general, it is ok to open either way, but I assume that the other conventions used weigh in on the decision. Given that I use these two conventions (weak NT opener and forcing NT response), is opening 1M or 1N better with 5M332 and 12-14 points?

 

i play ks, the original one and a modified form.

 

i rarely open a 5 card major with 1nt, unless the major is a real stinking suit, just like edgar said.

 

in my opinion, the forcing nt is really good when responder is void or null in the major, i think that is why this was invented, either by kaplan sheinwold or by roth-stone.

 

when you do hold 2 of openers trump you give the lowest response in the major.

 

what ticks me off is that some responder answer a forcing nt, and upin hearing a 2 level response, and holding 2 of openers trumps they bid 2nt (arhh-- but then again i dont have to play the abomination ha!!!)

 

tho sometimes i wonder, whether the weak nt/force nt thing is really a better thing got matchpoints rather than imps.

[fromageGB]

I think that playing a forcing NT is substantially better when the minimum balanced hands are removed from the 1M opening, so IMO if you want to play a forcing NT, you should open the 5M 12-14 hands with 1NT.

Does this imply you think playing forcing NT is bad when your 1NT open is strong? Then 5M 12-14 hands have to open 1M.

 

I am happy with opening 1M on 12-14 hands, but I think you do need a multipurpose 2♣ rebid with clarification after a 2♦ inquiry.

[mtvesuvius]

Does this imply you think playing forcing NT is bad when your 1NT open is strong? Then 5M 12-14 hands have to open 1M.

 

I am happy with opening 1M on 12-14 hands, but I think you do need a multipurpose 2♣ rebid with clarification after a 2♦ inquiry.

I think forcing NT is quite bad when playing a strong NT, as I think most of the 12-13 (and some 14s) Balanced hands most of the time play best in 1N. I strongly believe that a semi-forcing NT when playing a strong NT is much better, and will allow you to reach the right contract much more often... As well as add a little definition to your 2m rebids, although they could still be short when on 14 BAL or when 4522/4531

[wickedbid1]

Does the decision to use the forcing NT in 2/1 affect the decision of weather to open a balanced hand with a 5 card major 1M or 1N?

I use a weak NT in a 2/1 structure (basically K-S). Historically, I have opened 1M whenever possible, but that basically gives up on a 1N final contract when that is often the best spot, because of the forcing 1N response. Then again, opening 1N basically gives up on playing 2M as a final contract, which is the best spot about as often.

I know that, in general, it is ok to open either way, but I assume that the other conventions used weigh in on the decision. Given that I use these two conventions (weak NT opener and forcing NT response), is opening 1M or 1N better with 5M332 and 12-14 points?

 

You hav probably thot about all I say below, but maybe some readers have not.

 

There r many good possible reasons to bid 1nt forcing: constructive major raises, a place to put 3 crd limit raises, slow slam investigations in 2/1 auctions... but I think the last is the most important, esp. with pards who don't want to have advance discussions of every little sequence, which is the sort I mostly play with. Yet 2/1 gf doesn't go well with wk NT.

 

Putting the balanced 15 counts in a major opening creates a problem if u r making two-over-ones game forcing. The 10-11 point responder hands that bid a semi-forcing 1nt may languish there, tho 3nt is the spot. And if the 1nt bid is absolutely forcing, it's got to be a decent 7 count or yr side will be playing a lot more 2♦ or 2♥ contracts on a bad fit than one would like, cuz rebidding 2nt over a forcing 1nt on a 15 count feels kind of sickening, but doing it on a 17 count is not too bad. The sick fifteen counts with no minor fit don't get "saved" by opps overcalling in second seat very often, like 12-14 major openings do. One might think the opps not overcalling would be a system advantage, but it is not if our auction is destined to roll to an unhappy spot.

 

So getting those pesky middling hands out of 1M openings is important, but if one wants the fun & advantages of wk no trump, i think it good to stick with the trad K/S two-over-one, so those juicy 10-11 long minor hands don't languish in 1NT when they could be making 3nt.

 

It seems to me that putting 5 crd major flat hands into 1nt (or not) is an extension of this basic problem regarding how strong 2/1 auctions ought to be, not so much about worrying where the optimal fit is with 5-2 or 5-3 spade or heart fits, which can be either NT or the major, depending on the actual layout of the hand and which side has the balance of high card strength.

 

I can see that if one is playing wk NT without including major 5 carders and 2/1 openings without a game force promise, the major hand now has a problem, cuz 2nt rebids by him/her can't be RANGEY. So yr 12-14 hand might bid 2nt, & yr 15-17 3nt, & yr 18-19 icky 4 nt? Or else, in order to make 2nt by major opener rangey & forcing, one makes a return to 2 of the major "nothing special", and has to clarify major shape over a possible sign off bid of 2nt by the 2/1er. I prefer the latter.

[Phil]

I think forcing NT is quite bad when playing a strong NT, as I think most of the 12-13 (and some 14s) Balanced hands most of the time play best in 1N. I strongly believe that a semi-forcing NT when playing a strong NT is much better, and will allow you to reach the right contract much more often... As well as add a little definition to your 2m rebids, although they could still be short when on 14 BAL or when 4522/4531

 

The usual retort to this is, "how do I show a 3 card limit raise"?

 

BTW, I agree that a semi-forcing NT is best when playing strong NT, but "quite bad" is quite an overbid.

[awm]

To answer the original question:

 

Supposing that you have a 5332 hand in the 12-14 range, opening 1M has several effects: (1) It will often get you to a partial of 2M instead of 1NT as partner bids 1NT forcing and corrects on doubleton (2) It will cause a final contract of 3NT to more often be played from partner's side (3) It will cause you to more often play 4M in a 5-3 fit with both hands fairly balanced rather than playing 3NT.

 

When deciding whether to open 1M or 1NT (12-14) you need to consider whether these effects are things you want. Hands that you should prefer to open 1M include a good quality major suit and holdings in side suits like Axx or xxx. Hands that you should prefer to open 1NT often have a weak suit, or have holdings in side suits that point towards notrump or need to be protected from the lead, such as QJx or KJx.

 

A lot of the subsequent discussion seems to be about whether to play a forcing notrump. This is a different issue altogether. Certainly you shouldn't pass 1NT responses when you have 15-17 balanced, especially when partner could have 9-10, so this is an argument for playing at least "semi-forcing" in a weak notrump system. I disagree with previous posters about "constructive raises" (which I think are a horrible method), and about "three-card limit raises" (the losses from letting opponents stick in a lead directional bid, helping opponents count out the hand using opener's rebid, and telling opponents whether to lead trump often outweigh the advantages of knowing responder's trump length and you can always use some jump shift to show a three-card limit raise anyway to get the gains without the losses). The main advantage of forcing notrump (over semi-forcing) comes when responder has a weak shapely hand (say a six-card minor or 5/5 in two suits) and you'd rather play in a fit rather than 1NT. The main advantage of semi-forcing comes when responder has a balanced hand and you get to play 1NT instead of 2NT, or play 1NT instead of a seven-card fit on two balanced hands. Since balanced hands are more frequent than unbalanced ones, I think semi-forcing is a long-term superior treatment (although obviously there are hands that go either way).

[Vampyr]

 

A lot of the subsequent discussion seems to be about whether to play a forcing notrump.

 

I don't think anyone would play a forcing or semi-forcing notrump by choice! Rather, it is one of the main disadvantages one accepts when playing strong 2/1s.

[mtvesuvius]

The usual retort to this is, "how do I show a 3 card limit raise"?

 

BTW, I agree that a semi-forcing NT is best when playing strong NT, but "quite bad" is quite an overbid.

Quite often the 3 card limit raise will play just as well in 1N. 1N is a very tough contract to defend, especially when you have no realistic way of knowing the NT bidder's hand type. The main disadvantage of a semi-forcing NT is when you have a decent distributional hand that you cannot bid immediately. I think playing 3/1 as INV and natural improves the semi-forcing NT a lot.

 

It is very true that I will sometimes be in 1N when 4M is cold, but that doesn't happen too often, and I think the gains are significantly worthwhile.

[jh51]

Hopefully this is not too much off topic. I recently started reading a book on 2/1 GF by Dr. Neil Timm. He suggests playing a semi-forcing 1NT (can be passed with a balanced minimum) and a convention called Combined Bergen Raises.

 

Combined Bergen Raises: After 1M,

3C = 7-12 HCP and 4 card support for major. (3D then asks for range, with 3H = 7-9 HCP, 3S = 10-12 HCP)

3D = 10-12 HCP and 3 card support for major.

 

I have not tried this out, but I wondered what others thought of this treatment.

[Vampyr]

3D = 10-12 HCP and 3 card support for major.

 

I have not tried this out, but I wondered what others thought of this treatment.

 

I don't like it, as it is not Law-ful.

[Phil]

Quite often a balanced 3 card limit raise will play just as well in 1N.

 

fyp

[Phil]

I don't like it, as it is not Law-ful.

 

I play something similar and don't mind it, especially when I want to show an unbalanced 3 card raise.

 

Unless you have a method (like an artificial 2♣(which may or may not be legal, and arguably gives up other things)) to show a limit raise, you are getting to the three level anyway.

[Vampyr]

(like an artificial 2♣(which may or may not be legal,

 

Even the ACBL allow Drury!

[Phil]

Even the ACBL allow Drury!

 

Only by a 3rd and 4th seat opener!

[aguahombre]

Only in response to a 3rd and 4th seat opener!

FYP

[Vampyr]

Only (in response to) a 3rd and 4th seat opener!

 

This is not serious, is it?

[aguahombre]

This is not serious, is it?

He was quite serious (for ACBL). I was unaware that in other places Drury is used by an unpassed hand, whether legal or not. I guess it is a reflection on the quality of 1st and 2nd seat openings these days.

[Vampyr]

He was quite serious (for ACBL). I was unaware that in other places Drury is used by an unpassed hand, whether legal or not.

 

It isn't, that I know of; I was just stating that an artificial 2♣ bid was legal even in the ACBL, since I know that they allow Drury. I really didn't imagine that any jurisdiction would allow a treatment by a passed hand but not by an unpassed hand.

[nigel_k]

An unbalanced three card limit raise can just be treated as four card support. The law doesn't matter much because you aren't raising the bidding beyond what is justified by the constructive value of your hand. Obviously you would make the necessary downgrade for having one less trump. If you can show a mini-splinter then surely that is more useful to partner than knowing your trump length.

 

A balanced limit raise can respond 1NT - if partner passes 1NT they weren't accepting the invite anyway. So I wouldn't allocate a bid to show specifically a three card limit raise.

[Vampyr]

A balanced limit raise can respond 1NT - if partner passes 1NT they weren't accepting the invite anyway. So I wouldn't allocate a bid to show specifically a three card limit raise.

 

No, but an artificial 2♣ response usually has several meanings.

[jh51]

I don't like it, as it is not Law-ful.

My first reaction to this response was "Why would this not be allowed?" but then I realized that "Law-ful" may be a reference to LTT? Am I correct?

 

Of course, the usual way of showing this hand in 2/1 is to bid 1NT (forcing) and then bid the major at the 3-level. If by Law-ful you meant LTT, this is not very lawful either.

 

Much of what I have read about LTT says that the idea that you should only compete to the level determined by your combined trump couny should be ignored when your side has the balance of strength. After all, there are plenty of hands that belong in game with only an 8 card major fit.

[Vampyr]

 

Much of what I have read about LTT says that the idea that you should only compete to the level determined by your combined trump couny should be ignored when your side has the balance of strength. After all, there are plenty of hands that belong in game with only an 8 card major fit.

 

Yes, this is true. And as another poster has mentioned, most methods will get you to the three-level anyway.

[aguahombre]

The key (operative) term when applying the LTT is "compete". "Competing" to the level indicated by the combination of our, and the opponents' total number of trumps in the fit suits.

 

Yet even though LTT is not directly applicable to auctions where there is no competition, there are cases where knowledge of whether responder has 3-card or 4-card support might be important. The weak Bergen Raise (1M-3M) anticipates or inhibits competition, and thus is an effective extention of LTT.

 

And obviously upgrading in constructive auctions with extra trumps is appropriate; so having bids to distinguish between invites with 3 vs. 4 trumps has been shown to be useful. This is not really an application of the LTT.

 

None of this is new to most forum regulars. You already know it. But, it might clarify for someone getting confused by the use of "LAW-ful" outside of it's bounds.

 

Nigel-k "would not allocate a bid to show specifically a 4-card limit raise." Our style finds it inconvenient to allocate a bid for that, also; but I certainly see its advantages. It is a matter of what holes we choose to fill.

 

edit: We have not really hijacked; this is all related back to forcing or semi-forcing NT and its use with support for the major.

Edited June 28, 2011 by aguahombre