2/1 1M (X) 1N forcing?

[jillybean]

Playing 2/1

 

1M (X) 1N Do you play this as forcing?

[mike777]

sure because I play

BROMAD is on here:

 

1s=x=2h=3 piece constructive raise.

1h=x=2d=3 piece constructive raise.

1M=x=3c or 3d still bergen on here.

 

 

Now if you dont play Bergen or const. raises that may matter.

[jmcw]

I play this as natural NF, but a bit stronger. 8+/10

[wyman]

NF for me too

[P_Marlowe]

No - but you could, on the ground, that there bid did not take away any of your options,

so there is no need to adapt.

 

Of course their intervention gave you an add. option, you gained XX, so you may say, that

you want to exploit this.

 

Some general remarks:

 

The reasons to play 1NT as forcing are dimished.

Even if you happen to play a change of suit after a 1 level overcall as forcing, my guess

is, that the majority will play a new suit on the 2 level as NF after a T/O, hence if you

have a weak hand with a long suit you can show the suit direct.

In the uncontested auction - this hand is one reason to play 1NT as forcing.

 

Also with bal. hands and inv. strength you will XX, so this hand type will also be removed

from the 1 NT bid.

 

What is left? Weak and constructive raises.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Siegmund]

No (even when playing BROMAD - though that's because I never thought of 1NT-then-3M as "a Bergen Raise". Those hands are now either bidding 2N, or XX-then-major, for me.)

 

You won't find many folks still playing 2/1s as game forces after a double either. "All systems on" may not be an insane treatment but at the 2-level it is unusual.

[CSGibson]

No. If you want to show a 3 card limit raise, you have the options of pushing it into a Truscott 2N (limit raise + in the major after a X, some guarentee 4 card support), or of redoubling then rebidding the major at the cheapest level. I prefer including it in the 2N hands both to immediately clarify that we have a fit in case the auction jumps, and to take up their bidding room when we have a fit auction.

 

Likewise, after a X interference, I believe the standard treatment is to use 2 level bids as non-forcing but constructive, not as game forcing or even as forcing one round. 1N is beefed up - I expect a good 7-bad 11 for that bid.

[Gerben42]

Not forcing, since you can bid Redouble with any forcing hand. In fact I prefer to play transfers here (1NT shows ♣, 2♣ shows ♦, 2M-1 shows a good raise (8+), direct raise shows a bad raise (4 - 7).

 

Not sure if the ACBL allows you to do that though... Otherwise just play it as 6 - 9 or so.

[mike777]

As I said if you dont still want to have const raises and weak raises or show 4 card raises limit or mixed ala bergen but I do.

 

I need somehow to show diamonds or hearts and not be forced to always xx with those hands.

 

Good to know must dont.

 

1s=x=2h or 1h=x=2d.

 

since I play sf pard can always pass 1nt with dead minimum though.

 

though I do lose the ability to play in exactly 1nt the rest of the time assuming the opp would not balance or compete.

[helene_t]

not forcing because it is a descriptive bid. Not only rdbl and pass, but also the nonforcing (8-11 or such) 2/1 responses, cover a lot of the hand types that would otherwise make a 1NT response. That leaves less hand types in the 1NT response. So opener is in a good position to decide if it is a good idea to pass.

[helene_t]

zip

[jillybean]

Not forcing, since you can bid Redouble with any forcing hand. In fact I prefer to play transfers here (1NT shows ♣, 2♣ shows ♦, 2M-1 shows a good raise (8+), direct raise shows a bad raise (4 - 7).

 

Not sure if the ACBL allows you to do that though... Otherwise just play it as 6 - 9 or so.

 

I have just started playing these transfers with a couple of partners and didn't consider that it may not be ACBL legal.

Does anyone know ?

[jillybean]

No. If you want to show a 3 card limit raise, you have the options of pushing it into a Truscott 2N (limit raise + in the major after a X, some guarentee 4 card support), or of redoubling then rebidding the major at the cheapest level. I prefer including it in the 2N hands both to immediately clarify that we have a fit in case the auction jumps, and to take up their bidding room when we have a fit auction.

 

Likewise, after a X interference, I believe the standard treatment is to use 2 level bids as non-forcing but constructive, not as game forcing or even as forcing one round. 1N is beefed up - I expect a good 7-bad 11 for that bid.

This is where we are having trouble, one opinion is that the 2N bid must promise 4 card support and we were considering making 1N forcing to cater for the 3 card limit raise. We hadn't thought about xx with 3 card support but I think I prefer showing an immediate raise, 3 or 4 card.

[daveharty]

I have just started playing these transfers with a couple of partners and didn't consider that it may not be ACBL legal.

Does anyone know ?

I just perused the GCC and I believe the answer is "no, not legal."

[Vampyr]

Likewise, after a X interference, I believe the standard treatment is to use 2 level bids as non-forcing but constructive, not as game forcing or even as forcing one round.

 

Is this really standard? I am sure that it was many years ago, but I do not think this is true now. One reason is that it over-burdens the XX, and the auction may be uncomfortably high before it gets back to you, and you may never get to show your inv+ one-suiter.

[jillybean]

I have just started playing these transfers with a couple of partners and didn't consider that it may not be ACBL legal.

Does anyone know ?

 

 

I just perused the GCC and I believe the answer is "no, not legal."

 

Really, how absurd! Now I have a dilemma, keep quite or stop playing it, noone has complained so far.

I guess we will have to remove it, where can we play it?

[Siegmund]

GCC legality:

 

Transfer responses are allowed if, and only if, they fall under "6. Defense to conventional calls."

 

Takeout doubles are conventions, so transfers ARE legal after 1suit-X. Also after Michaels/Unus2NT/Roman Jumps/etc. They are NOT legal if your opponent passes or makes a natural overcall. (Which is really too bad, because they are an excellent option for responder after an overcall.)

[Mbodell]

GCC legality:

 

Transfer responses are allowed if, and only if, they fall under "6. Defense to conventional calls."

 

Takeout doubles are conventions, so transfers ARE legal after 1suit-X. Also after Michaels/Unus2NT/Roman Jumps/etc. They are NOT legal if your opponent passes or makes a natural overcall. (Which is really too bad, because they are an excellent option for responder after an overcall.)

 

Yeah, they are legal after the X. It is weird that transfers after an overcall by opening side are illegal, but transfer advances for the overcalling side are GCC legal.

 

An idea who's time is more than passed? All transfers should be GCC-legal. Partnerships should have agreements or meta-agreements to cover defending transfers (If anything you have even more room so treating pretending they bid the transferred suit and not taking advantage of the extra space and tempo while not optimal is just as easy as non-transfer responses; I guess the only thing not quite as safe is a penalty pass if the transfer isn't strictly forcing, but that is such a low probability event IMO).

[Gerben42]

The reason why I like transfers so much is that you have a huge problem with strong hands like:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2ht64d97cakj752&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdr3dpp]133|200[/hv]

 

Compare this to the auction:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2ht64d97cakj752&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd1n(%21C)2d(cannot%20preempt)pp]133|200[/hv]

 

And bidding a natural NT with a small range of hands doesn't seem to gain much either. In fact we redouble with almost all 9-counts and do NOT play a forcing pass thereafter. It just shows "hey pd I have some values but no long suit, just so you know".

[Free]

It's no longer forcing. With INV hands you'll RDbl, so there's no need for 1NT to be forcing anymore (without intervention, responder can have up to an INV, so opener with a max hand has to bid to avoid missing a simple game).

[phil_20686]

GCC legality:

 

Transfer responses are allowed if, and only if, they fall under "6. Defense to conventional calls."

 

Takeout doubles are conventions, so transfers ARE legal after 1suit-X. Also after Michaels/Unus2NT/Roman Jumps/etc. They are NOT legal if your opponent passes or makes a natural overcall. (Which is really too bad, because they are an excellent option for responder after an overcall.)

 

So transfer walsh is illegal in the ACBL? Really? or is this restricted to competitive auctions.

[Vampyr]

The reason why I like transfers so much is that you have a huge problem with strong hands like:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2ht64d97cakj752&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sdr3dpp]133|200[/hv]

 

Compare this to the auction:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2ht64d97cakj752&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd1n(%21C)2d(cannot%20preempt)pp]133|200[/hv]

 

And bidding a natural NT with a small range of hands doesn't seem to gain much either. In fact we redouble with almost all 9-counts and do NOT play a forcing pass thereafter. It just shows "hey pd I have some values but no long suit, just so you know".

 

I play transfers here too, but most people play that 2♣ is forcing, so these hands are not really a problem.

[Mbodell]

So transfer walsh is illegal in the ACBL? Really? or is this restricted to competitive auctions.

 

If by illegal you mean illegal in the GCC (which is in force in many/most ACBL games including BBO ACBL games), then yes. Transfer walsh is a midchart system, legal there (but remember you need to prealert it!), but not legal at GCC. That is probably either #1 or #2 of the things most good players want to see move to GCC (or at least away from a prealert) with the other being playing calls higher than 2♣ over a 1nt as showing an undisclosed single suit (especially 2♦ for a single major). Both of those are quite common prealerts you'll hear playing in NABC+ events (and would be even more common since they only get prealerted properly about 50% of the time IME).