Forcing NT

[Vampyr]

no, NOT limit, only WEAK 3card support (5-7H)...

 

A direct raise = constructive.

 

see my friend Justin's remarks.

 

Unless the meaning has changed radically since I played 2/1 GF, the Forcing 1NT bid may include weak single raises, but always includes 3-card limit raises.

[Lurpoa]

Unless the meaning has changed radically since I played 2/1 GF, the Forcing 1NT bid may include weak single raises, but always includes 3-card limit raises.

 

 

 

♥♥♥

 

Believe me please, I am an expert in BWS

...weren't you talking about BWS ? (I guess the latest 2001version)...

 

1NT is semi-forcing, and 1NT can hide a weak 3card support for S. With a constructive 3card support, one should bid 2S.

 

Same things go for 1H-opener....I wrote an article on that, but it was refused for publishing.

 

If you are interested I'll will try to publish again.

 

 

♥♥♥

[aguahombre]

Unless the meaning has changed radically since I played 2/1 GF, the Forcing 1NT bid may include weak single raises, but always includes 3-card limit raises.

pretty much....not "always", though. Some pairs eliminate 3-cd Limit raises from it.

[barmar]

1NT is semi-forcing, and 1NT can hide a weak 3card support for S. With a constructive 3card support, one should bid 2S.

Of course. But we're talking about invitational 3-card support. Or do you consider those to be constructive? In my understanding, there are four ranges of raises: weak (5-7), constructive (8-10), limit (11-12-), game forcing (12+ and higher).

[fromageGB]

Of course. But we're talking about invitational 3-card support. Or do you consider those to be constructive? In my understanding, there are four ranges of raises: weak (5-7), constructive (8-10), limit (11-12-), game forcing (12+ and higher).

A good point. I hate the commonly used term "limit raise", and think "invitational" should be adopted universally. Any normal raise is a limit raise, and an 8-10 limit raise is limited to the range 8-10. Values will of course differ : to some an invitational limit raise is 10-12 for example, but the descriptions "subnormal", "weak", "constructive", "invitational", and "GF" can be understood by all. (I think.)

[aguahombre]

True. We used to be able to save two syllables when "Limit Raise" was understood as a coined phrase describing an invite. It appears that is no longer the case, and we must spell out things.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, I've learnt English as my 2nd language and expression "limit raise" doesn't make sense to me at all. I just assumed that's the way invites are called in bridge lingo.

[Vampyr]

Yeah, I've learnt English as my 2nd language and expression "limit raise" doesn't make sense to me at all. I just assumed that's the way invites are called in bridge lingo.

 

I think that the phrase may have come into being in the US. Once upon a time, double raises were GF and unlimited. So when they began to be played as invitational, they were called "limit raises" to distinguish them from unlimited raises. That's what I think, anyway.

[Statto]

I think that the phrase may have come into being in the US. Once upon a time, double raises were GF and unlimited. So when they began to be played as invitational, they were called "limit raises" to distinguish them from unlimited raises. That's what I think, anyway.

Interesting, I thought limit raises came from Acol, which developed from the 1930s in the UK. In the US in the 1950s the Goren system was popular, where 1M-3M was forcing. Though you may be right about where the term "limit raise" came from... :unsure:

[blackshoe]

It might be interesting to check some of the early Acol literature, to see if the term "limit raise" was used then.

[S2000magic]

Yeah, I've learnt English as my 2nd language and expression "limit raise" doesn't make sense to me at all. I just assumed that's the way invites are called in bridge lingo.

I think that the phrase may have come into being in the US. Once upon a time, double raises were GF and unlimited.

I don't recall double raises (of a major suit) ever being unlimited; in Goren, for example, they were game-forcing and showed 13 - 16 points.

[gwnn]

btw what's up with people sometimes describing 1♠-p-2NT as a 'forcing raise'? Duh, I won't pass 2NT. the same with 'forcing stayman'. Oh this isn't the pet peeve thread?

[gordontd]

btw what's up with people sometimes describing 1♠-p-2NT as a 'forcing raise'? Duh, I won't pass 2NT.

You might if it weren't forcing or weren't a raise.

[gwnn]

I'm just saying that since it is a raise, it is clear that I will not pass it. Now if you say "game-forcing four-card raise", then you give some additional useful information.

[gnasher]

In English bridge terminology, the term "limit bid" meant (and in some circles still means) a non-forcing bid which shows the strength to bid to the level at which you're bidding, and no more. It was used to apply not just to three-level raises, but to any raises, notrump bids, rebids of one's own suit, etc. Such bids were, as others have mentioned, a defining charactistic of the Acol system.

All of these would have been described as "limit bids":

1

♠

-1NT showing less than an invitation

1

♠

-2NT invitational

1

♠

-2

♠

showing less than an invitation

1

♠

-3

♠

invitational

1

♠

-4

♠

showing enough for game but no more

1

♦

-1

♠

;2

♠

showing a minimum

1NT-2NT invitational

The idea was to distinguish from the style where sequences like 1♠-2NT and 1♠-3♠ were forcing. Even if these are limited, they don't involve bidding to the limit of one's strength.

 

In the English usage, a "limit raise" was simply a "limit bid" which is also a raise, so 1♠-2♠, 1♠-3♠ and 1♦-1♠;2♠ were all "limit raises". To describe a raise which was invitational, one would use the phrase "invitational raise".

 

I'm not sure why the North American usage is different, but I think it's fair to say that it lacks logic and is less useful. In England one now encounters both usages, so that the term "limit raise" is now so ambiguous as to be useless.

[barmar]

What you've all been describing is a common feature of language in general, not just bridge jargon: phrases often come to have conventional meanings, which are not the same as their literal meanings. Sometimes it happens due to the way the phrase came about (e.g. when it distinguishes from a previous meaning), sometimes it's due to abbreviation (e.g. "game forcing raise" gets shortened to "forcing raise"), sometimes it's just because someone misuses a term and it catches on.

[bluecalm]

I'm not sure why the North American usage is different, but I think it's fair to say that it lacks logic and is less useful. In England one now encounters both usages, so that the term "limit raise" is now so ambiguous as to be useless.

 

So yet another case of British English making more sense than American English ? :)

(my favourite example are dots/commas ending sentence/phrase going inside quotation marks in American English)

[ArtK78]

I don't recall double raises (of a major suit) ever being unlimited; in Goren, for example, they were game-forcing and showed 13 - 16 points.

More likely 13-18 HCP. Anything stronger would require a strong jump shift (19+ HCP).

[S2000magic]

the same with 'forcing stayman'.

The word "forcing" in "forcing Stayman" doesn't apply to the 2♣ bid; it applies to the final bid in these sequences:

 

1NT - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥

 

and

 

1NT - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

 

If you agree that the final bid in each of these sequences is nonforcing, you're playing "nonforcing Stayman"; if you agree that the final bid in these sequences is forcing, you're playing "forcing Stayman".

[S2000magic]

I don't recall double raises (of a major suit) ever being unlimited; in Goren, for example, they were game-forcing and showed 13 - 16 points.

More likely 13-18 HCP. Anything stronger would require a strong jump shift (19+ HCP).

It's not at all likely that it's 13-18 HCP. I looked at my copy of Goren's Bridge Complete before I wrote my answer; it's 13 - 16 points, not 13 - 18.

[aguahombre]

Two minor points:

 

--Forcing Stayman refers to whether it is forcing to game, as in the style where 2C is not forcing to game, but 2D is Forcing Stayman.

 

--Goren's Bridge Complete is probably not the relevent authority on the ranges of today's opening bids and rebids. Mere 12-point openings were not encouraged back then, and theories about jump bids and jump rebids have progressed as well. The consequences of jump-shifting with 5-4-2-2 17-18 counts after a 1NT response have been given more thought.

[ArtK78]

It's not at all likely that it's 13-18 HCP. I looked at my copy of Goren's Bridge Complete before I wrote my answer; it's 13 - 16 points, not 13 - 18.

What did responder do to raise opener with 17-18 HCP?

 

If I can find my old Goren book (not Goren's Bridge Complete, but his older book) I will look it up. I may have to go down several strata to find it.

[barmar]

--Goren's Bridge Complete is probably not the relevent authority on the ranges of today's opening bids and rebids. Mere 12-point openings were not encouraged back then, and theories about jump bids and jump rebids have progressed as well. The consequences of jump-shifting with 5-4-2-2 17-18 counts after a 1NT response have been given more thought.

But I thought we're talking about how we got current terminology, and it's due to evolution from older terminology. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter what the range was in Goren, just the fact that it was a range, not unlimited.

 

So would a Goren bidder have made a strong jump shift into a 3-card suit if he were 4333 and too strong for a game-forcing raise?

[aguahombre]

But I thought we're talking about how we got current terminology, and it's due to evolution from older terminology. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter what the range was in Goren, just the fact that it was a range, not unlimited.

 

So would a Goren bidder have made a strong jump shift into a 3-card suit if he were 4333 and too strong for a game-forcing raise?

O.K., I was fixating on the range of the 2H rebid...which I believe is as wide as 11-18 these days...not on terminology. I guess I got off topic.

[barmar]

I guess I got off topic.

The way this thread has meandered, who knows what on-topic is any more?