Forcing NT

[S2000magic]

In the club in which I've been playing lately I've encountered a couple of interesting opinions about forcing NT responses: one widespread, the other maybe not.

 

The first is that while a forcing NT is appropriate in a 2/1 GF system, it is not appropriate in a standard (5-card majors) system. This usually comes to the fore in this exchange:

 

Partner: 1NT

 

Yours truly: Forcing

 

RHO: So, you're playing 2/1. (Usually a statement, not a question.)

 

Yours truly: No.

 

RHO: Well, you only play a forcing NT in 2/1.

 

Yours truly: Oh.

The second is that by a passed hand a 1NT response to a major is not forcing, even when you've agreed to play a forcing NT. This happened once:

 

Partner: Pass

 

Yours truly: 1♠

 

Partner: 1NT

Yours truly: Forcing

 

- remainder of auction -

 

Partner (before the opening lead): One notrump is not forcing by a passed hand.

 

Yours truly: I thought that it was.

 

Partner: If you read all the books, it's not forcing by a passed hand.

 

Yours truly: Oh.

 

So there you have it. What is your opinion on standard practice in these situation?

 

Thanks.

[whereagles]

Playing 2/1 you need forcing 1NT, but it doesn't go the other way around: you can play forcing 1NT without forcing 1NT 2/1. Some old versions of precision did that.

 

By a passed hand standard forcing 1NT becomes (obviously) non-forcing. You can define it as forcing, but that's non-standard.

[aguahombre]

The appropriateness of the forcing NT, IMO is not a matter which is subject to a poll. You will find what people like via the poll.

 

We find extra uses and value in a forcing NT by both a passed hand and an unpassed hand. This is an extremely minority view. By an unpassed hand, we even include some game-forcing hand types ---such as 3-card support giving opener a choice between 3NT and 4M. We also use the forcing NT with some hands (passed or not) containing 5-card support for the major, to distinguish between a purely preemptive jump to 4 and a mixed one.

 

The forcing NT seems necessary to us to distinguish between weak responding hands containing a long minor and invitational ones containing a long minor ---direct 3m for one, and go thru forcing NT for the other. There are other uses because we don't use up our first responses to distinguish among several 3-card and 4-card major raises.

 

People who have different methods for handling certain patterns and strengths will not find the need for forcing NT that we do.

[S2000magic]

You will find what people like via the poll.

I'd hoped to find out their opinion on standard practice, but perhaps you're right.

[aguahombre]

I'd hoped to find out their opinion on standard practice, but perhaps you're right.

O.K., I was confused by the word "appropriate". One thing I am sure of: our treatments re: forcing NT are not the standard ones.

[daveharty]

...you can play forcing 1NT without forcing 1NT.

My head hurts

[ArtK78]

For quite a while, I was playing constructive major suit raises by a passed hand. In that context, 1NT is (virtually) forcing by a passed hand, as you could have a major suit raise without sufficient values to be constructive.

[gwnn]

Sorry but I agree with your opponents on this one, maybe not with their tone of voice but that's difficult to ascertain from plain text.

[ArtK78]

In the passed hand sequence, you described the 1NT bid as "forcing." That was not a correct description unless 1NT was, in fact, forcing.

 

If it is not forcing because partner is a passed hand, you could describe it as "intended as forcing" or "semi-forcing." Semi-forcing means it is forcing on all full opening bids (although a bid by opener doesn't promise a full opening bid).

 

As for your poll, I would answer both questions as "other." A forcing 1NT response can be used in almost any system (whether it is a good idea to do so is another issue). I would say that it is a necessary part of 2/1 game forcing, because you have to have a bid to describe a hand that is unsuitable for a 2/1 but has values in response to a major suit opening. But I have seen a few partnerships that play 1NT nonforcing as a part of 2/1 game forcing, so at least some players would disagree with my previous statement.

 

I play a forcing 1NT response as part of a relatively standard system which is not 2/1 game forcing.

 

As for whether 1NT is forcing by a passed hand, most players would say no, but some would say yes. It is a matter of partnership agreement.

[WellSpyder]

We find extra uses and value in a forcing NT by both a passed hand and an unpassed hand. This is an extremely minority view. By an unpassed hand, we even include some game-forcing hand types ---such as 3-card support giving opener a choice between 3NT and 4M. We also use the forcing NT with some hands (passed or not) containing 5-card support for the major, to distinguish between a purely preemptive jump to 4 and a mixed one.

 

The forcing NT seems necessary to us to distinguish between weak responding hands containing a long minor and invitational ones containing a long minor ---direct 3m for one, and go thru forcing NT for the other. There are other uses because we don't use up our first responses to distinguish among several 3-card and 4-card major raises.

Aguahombre, have you posted more details of your approach anywhere? I've been thinking about incorporating more of these ideas (in the context of limited opening bids with a strong 1♣) and it's always helpful to see what someone else has done to cherry pick from.....

[aguahombre]

Aguahombre, have you posted more details of your approach anywhere? I've been thinking about incorporating more of these ideas (in the context of limited opening bids with a strong 1♣) and it's always helpful to see what someone else has done to cherry pick from.....

Will PM

[blackshoe]

I'd hoped to find out their opinion on standard practice, but perhaps you're right.

 

The problem is that many people think that what they like is standard, even though it's not.

[whereagles]

dave: fixed

[S2000magic]

. . . you can play forcing 1NT without 2/1. Some old versions of precision did that.

As did Roth-Stone.

 

As does Kaplan-Sheinwold.

[fuburules3]

I disagree that you must play a forcing 1NT with 2/1. I play 2/1 with 1NT as just semi-forcing even by an unpassed hand.

[mycroft]

I play 3 systems with three regular partners.

 

1NT over 1M is forcing in all of them by an unpassed hand.

 

1NT over 1M is not forcing (but rarely passed) in all of them by a passed hand.

 

Only in one of them is 2/1 a game-force (although the non-GF auctions are explicit and rare).

 

Yes, one is standard "Western 2/1", one is K/S, and one is a fairly modern Precision (but without 2/1 because we open very light, and the strength required for a GF is such that we really don't want to throw all of 6-bad 14 into 1NT. Makes for uglier 1NT auctions than the extra ugliness trying to resolve GF after 1M-2m).

 

I think the reponse given by the opponent of the OP is an artifact of The One True Bidding Style - the ACBL is such a monoculture (well, bi-culture, "standard American" and "2/1") that Forcing NT <==> 2/1 in most people's eyes. I will admit I'd usually replace the OP's "No" with "No, Kaplan/Scheinwold." Which usually gets the same brain lockup as the straight No, I will admit.

 

Edit to add: *IN THE ACBL*, there is no requirement to Announce a non-forcing passed-hand 1NT, even if it is "semi-forcing" (i.e. passable by a minimum 5M332 - or worse). "Passed-hand 1NT responses, unless they cannot be passed, do not require an Announcement."

 

For SF-fannish people, who have brain bleach handy, a story:

 

I was discussing random bridge tournament on Another Site, and said I was playing "old-fashioned K/S".

The response:

"Old-fashioned K/S? Goodness, those Star Trek fans are everywhere!"

My reaction?

"Bridge K/S is just...wrong. Bridge partners (a|we)re more known for swapping wives than, erm, each other.

Edgar, Alfred, you can stop spinning in your graves now. Thanks."

 

 

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you play 2/1 Gf, you are forced to play a 1NT as (semi)forcing.

I dont believe in a bid being (semi)forcing, but that is just me.

 

If you dont play 2/1, you can still play a forcing NT response, but

this is now your free decision, because it allowes you to have more

seq. av. direct / delayed, the price being the non forcing NT response.

 

We also play the forcing NT response in the context of a passed hand.

This works reasonably well.

But it depends a lot, on your 3rd hand opening style.

And if you regular open light you may be forced to play Drury, but if

your 3rd hand openers look similar to your 1st seat openers, you can

still play a forcing NT.

 

One reason - simplicity, you dont change your system, if you are a

passed hand or not. This may not be best in theory, but may well be

best for you.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[S2000magic]

If you dont play 2/1, you can still play a forcing NT response, but this is now your free decision, because it allowes you to have more seq. av. direct / delayed, the price being the non forcing NT response.

 

We also play the forcing NT response in the context of a passed hand. This works reasonably well. But it depends a lot, on your 3rd hand opening style. And if you regular open light you may be forced to play Drury, but if your 3rd hand openers look similar to your 1st seat openers, you can still play a forcing NT.

 

One reason - simplicity, you don't change your system, if you are a passed hand or not. This may not be best in theory, but may well be best for you.

I agree. I don't play Drury because I don't open under-strength 1♥ or 1♠ in 3rd seat; I'd prefer to open a 5-card weak 2 than an under-strength 1. (I do make this clear to new partners.)

 

(On Monday night my 3rd-seat 2♠ WvsW on ♠ Q x x x x and other assorted junk got the opponents to a cold 4♣ . . . instead of their cold 6NT.)

[barmar]

I agree with most that Forcing NT is a good idea even without 2/1. I first started doing this years ago, after a lecture at an NABC explaining the value of forcing NT. The point he made was that there are many hands you can have that are not strong enough to bid 2/1, but aren't really NT-oriented. So allowing opener to pass 1NT means you're more likely to end up in the wrong contract.

 

I voted for only by an unpassed hand, although I personally prefer for it to be mostly forcing (some people announce "intended as forcing") by passed hands; opener should only pass if he opened a balanced subminimum. However, I think the value of this depends on the rest of your system. If you play Drury, you don't need forcing NT to show a 3-card limit raise. On the other hand, if you play an artificial 2♦ opening, you still need it to show weak 2♦.

[Free]

Standard I would consider 1NT forcing only by an unpassed hand. However, you can play forcing NT in any system and in any situation imo.

[aguahombre]

Barmar: I tried "intended as forcing" for a very short while; but on reflection I did not feel good about it. We almost always rebid, and didn't want to be egging righty to enter the auction on marginal values because he thought the auction would die --- and get burned for it, when the auction wasn't going to die. Also, it sounded like we were giving UI to partner that we really wanted to rebid.

 

We solved it by adding some possible hand patterns to the forcing NT with which we don't want opener judging to pass...and made it just plain forcing.

[blackshoe]

I don't play Drury because I don't open under-strength 1♥ or 1♠ in 3rd seat

 

Drury didn't invent Drury because he opened understrength 1M bids, but because his partner did. B-)

[S2000magic]

I don't play Drury because I don't open under-strength 1♥ or 1♠ in 3rd seat.

Drury didn't invent Drury because he opened understrength 1M bids, but because his partner did. B-)

Touché.

[Statto]

I seem to have given contradictory votes... :blink:

 

I kind of misread "is a forcing NT response appropriate" as "have you ever played a forcing NT response" but maybe that's what you wanted to ask? :unsure:

[Vampyr]

I agree with most that Forcing NT is a good idea even without 2/1.

 

Interesting. One of the reasons that I do not like playing 2/1 GF is that I feel that Forcing NT is much too high a price to pay.