Semi-Forcing NT (2/1)

[wank]

I was a bit surprised recently to find 2 people I played with, both experts [real ones, not BBO experts] had no idea what semi-forcing NT meant despite supposedly playing it in all their partnerships.

 

I had a 14 count with a card major, opened 1M and rebid a 3 card minor over 1NT. Both of my partners thought minor rebids promised 4 in this style and propelled me to the 3 level on a 7 c ard fit. They were under the impression any weak NT just passed 1NT. The method they were unknowingly playing is a non-forcing NT.

 

As they had this problem, I suspect some here will too, so a little update.

 

 

 

Why play semi-forcing NT? The advantage of semi-forcing NT over a more traditional 2/1 forcing NT is opener can pass on the most minimal openers so you play 1NT rather than the 2NT contract you'd reach after 1M-1NT-2m-2NT playing forcing NT when responder has 11/12ish. [some people also consider it an advantage to play 1NT instead of looking for a fit at the 2-level and often ending up in a 5-2 fit 2M. The jury's out here though because you lose responder's opportunity to rebid and show a long suit.]

 

So how does opener rebid? With a weak NT shape (or 45xx) you pass if in the lower half of the range (11-a bad 13 maybe) thereby staying low. With a side suit, a 6 card major or any GF you rebid like normal e.g. 1M-1NT-2m.

The key part comes when you have a maximum weak NT/45xx (a good 13+ in a normal style) because you want to play game opposite an invitational balanced hand and need to give partner an opportunity to clarify his hand type, so now you have to invent a 2/3 card minor as with a forcing NT. If you're lucky the bidding will proceed 1M-1NT-2m-2NT-3NT.

 

OMG what do I do with my 3 card limit raise then? Just bid 1NT anyway. If opener passes because he would reject game in NTs opposite a balanced 12, he would no doubt reject game in a 5-3 major fit opposite 11 too. This way you'll miss your 5-3 fit but you'll be playing 2 levels lower which will often be better (at imps anyway).

[bluecalm]

I would be careful with that. Many very good players call 1NT up to 11 "semi-forcing" even if 2m promises four. I have no idea which name is correct (I had my own thread about the topic some time ago) but here you are just pushing your understanding of it.

I think playing that 2m could be 3cards is the worse possible agreement here. It's way better to bid 2C on all 5-3-3-2's and have 2D as 4+cards.

 

OMG what do I do with my 3 card limit raise then? Just bid 1NT anyway.

 

This is one school. The other (and I think better) is to have your invites in 2N/3C/3D somewhere.

 

Also most elite players play 1NT which you call "non-forcing". All Italian pairs, Meckwell and Balicki-Zmudzinski to start with and out of those only Meckwell bid 1N with 3card limit raise.

[MickyB]

I was a bit surprised recently to find 2 people I played with, both experts [real ones, not BBO experts] had no idea what semi-forcing NT meant despite supposedly playing it in all their partnerships.

 

There was some discussion about this recently. My experience is that "non-forcing" indicates that you do something else with an invitational 2NT bid. "Semi-forcing" is used when you don't, regardless of whether opener is supposed to bid again on a maximum weak NT. I agree this is a bit silly.

[wank]

I was mainly concerned about people not understanding the terminology and thereby agreeing to play something they were unfamiliar with. If you play that rebids promise 4 then as far as I'm concerned you're playing a non-forcing NT and you've made the same error as my 2 partners. After all, if you don't call that a non-forcing NT, what else do you think a non-forcing NT means?

 

As for the relative merits, personally I would think unless you're playing a 14-16 NT, or your opening style was something out of Roth-Stone you'll miss a lot of games if your 1NT response isn't to some degree forcing.

[bluecalm]

I was mainly concerned about people not understanding the terminology and thereby agreeing to play something they were unfamiliar with. If you play that rebids promise 4 then as far as I'm concerned you're playing a non-forcing NT

 

They key here is "people not understanding the terminology" and "as far I am concerned". It's possible that your understanding is wrong or opposite to what other people understands. Language is defined by usage and as very significant group of people use the term "semi-forcing" to describe what you mean by "non-forcing" you displays lack of understanding here imo.

 

After all, if you don't call that a non-forcing NT, what else do you think a non-forcing NT means?

 

MickyB alread said that. Traditionally, at least in some areas, "non-forcing" meant 1NT which didn't contains inviting hands as those went to 2/1 as in sayc so "non forcing" was 5-9(10) and "semi-forcing" was 5-11.

 

or your opening style was something out of Roth-Stone you'll miss a lot of games if your 1NT response isn't to some degree forcing.

 

Meh.. as noted most elite players play "non-forcing" 1NT and don't seem to suffer from it so I wouldn't be too concerned with missing games but I kinda like forcing 1NT, especially at matchpoints but for diffrent reasons (better partials).

[nigel_k]

Totally agree with the OP.

 

The shorter version is that the 1NT response includes invitational hands, so opener only passes hands that would not accept an invite.

[jmc]

We play 1NT as "semi-forcing" in a Precision context. Our NT range is 14-16 and often contains a 5-card major. This means when we open 1D, 1H, 1S we pass partners 1NT with virtually all 11-13 5332 hands. Occasionally we miss a 5-3 M fit when responder has a 3-card limit raise or a 3NT on 25 with 13 opposite 12. I was initially very worried about this but Fred Gitelman in another thread said:

 

The alternative of rebidding 2m with a 5332 14-count (or any 5332 hand for that matter as is necessary if the 1NT response is truly forcing) is frowned upon by what seems to me to be a growing number of experts these days. One of the big plusses of semi-forcing 1NT is that 2m rebids usually deliver 4 cards in the suit bid. If you use 1NT as 14-16 then "usually" effectively becomes "always".

 

You might check the thread here:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44676-14-16-or-15-17-1nt/

[MickyB]

Also most elite players play 1NT which you call "non-forcing". All Italian pairs, Meckwell and Balicki-Zmudzinski to start with and out of those only Meckwell bid 1N with 3card limit raise.

 

I believe that one of Meckwell treats 1NT as non-forcing and the other treats 1NT as semi-forcing [using Wank's terminology]. I think it was Meckstroth who would sometimes bid again on weak NTs.

[gnasher]

Here are some more threads on the same subject:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/35505-would-you-go-2-over-1-fg-with-this/page__view__findpost__p__411152

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/39625-your-response/

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/43314-how-semi-is-semiforcing/

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/51294-question-about-semi-forcing-1nt-and-weak-hand-with-support/

 

Flicking through these, I was suprised at the number of people who were under the same misaprehension as MickyB and Bluecalm.

[Poky]

I was a bit surprised recently to find 2 people I played with, both experts [real ones, not BBO experts] had no idea what semi-forcing NT meant despite supposedly playing it in all their partnerships.

 

I had a 14 count with a card major, opened 1M and rebid a 3 card minor over 1NT. Both of my partners thought minor rebids promised 4 in this style and propelled me to the 3 level on a 7 card fit. They were under the impression any weak NT just passed 1NT. The method they were unknowingly playing is a non-forcing NT.

Interesting view.

 

Lets hear another one:

- semi-forcing 1NT is a response which sometimes allows you to play 1NT with 5-3 major fit when responder has invitational values and opener is minimal and balanced.

- if opener is minimal and balanced that means he has 5M(332) with (11)12-13.

- with 5M(332) and 14 he is too strong and has to do an upgrade (in order to avoid missing good games); therefore, he bids this hand like the same pattern with 1 point more -> most probably by opening 1NT (if Gazzilli is off);

- as a conclusion: rebids of a new suit promise a real 4+ carder suit.

 

Before hearing your opinion, I would be very surprised to know someone understands this differently.

 

Probably you should give more credit to your experts because contaminating the range of the 2m rebid with 14-balanced hands sounds like something pretty unprofitable (what an aggressive 1NT opening isn't at all).

[wank]

Poku so you're another one playing a non-forcing NT response and calling it semi-forcing for no reason.

 

 

As for the 'profitability' of it all if you want your 2 rebids to guarantee 4 in your scheme you're either playing a 14-16 NT and rebidding 2NT on 17 or you're playing a 14-17 1NT opener. in both cases you'll have to open 1NT on 45(31) hands with insufficient values to reverse. to me that sounds 'unprofitable'. of course you could start adding stuff like kaplan inversion to try and get round the 45xx problem, but playing a semi-forcing NT involves no disruption to the rest of your system.

 

anyway, personally, keeping minors to 4 cards in unopposed auctions sounds like a pretty mild gain.

[Poky]

Poku so you're another one playing a non-forcing NT response and calling it semi-forcing for no reason.

You say so. When Poku is playing a non-forcing NT that does only mean the 1NT response doesn't contain good hands with primary support - essentially being 5-10(maybe 11 with short M) without 3M.

 

As for the 'profitability' of it all if you want your 2 rebids to guarantee 4 in your scheme you're either playing a 14-16 NT and rebidding 2NT on 17 or you're playing a 14-17 1NT opener.

Wrong. I'm playing a plain 15-17 1NT. 14-(5332) and 17-(5332) are upgraded because of hand value, not because of the agreement.

 

in both cases you'll have to open 1NT on 45(31) hands with insufficient values to reverse. to me that sounds 'unprofitable'. of course you could start adding stuff like kaplan inversion to try and get round the 45xx problem, but playing a semi-forcing NT involves no disruption to the rest of your system.

Wrong again. I'll open 1♥ always. And if opener rebids 1NT, with a decent hand I could easily rebid the minor fragment (intending to bid 3NT if that gets raised), regardless of meaning of the 1NT response. But this would be an exception (choosing the least evil), not a standard.

 

anyway, personally, keeping minors to 4 cards in unopposed auctions sounds like a pretty mild gain.

I wouldn't be so sure. Having a clear range is very important.

 

For example, having a 1♥ opener as 5+♥ is much better and robust than having a 1♥ opening as 5+♥/3433/44(32). And this is a very similar thing.

[Cthulhu D]

Why isn't a 14-16 no trump pretty much standard with 2/1 GF? It seems the system works a lot better (because it mitigates a lot of the horribleness of the 1NT) when it's 14-16 and not 15-17.

[MickyB]

Why isn't a 14-16 no trump pretty much standard with 2/1 GF? It seems the system works a lot better (because it mitigates a lot of the horribleness of the 1NT) when it's 14-16 and not 15-17.

 

Because 1m:1M, 2NT as 17-18 or 17-19 is pretty bad. There are lots of solutions to this problem, of course. Maybe, one day, one of them will simply regarded as expert 2/1, but that's still quite a long way off.

[Cthulhu D]

Because 1m:1M, 2NT as 17-18 or 17-19 is pretty bad. There are lots of solutions to this problem, of course. Maybe, one day, one of them will simply regarded as expert 2/1, but that's still quite a long way off.

 

Makes sense. So if you can stop in 1NT here you're better off with 14-16, hence the proliferation of swedish club, precision and polish systems playing 14-16 NT I guess.

[the hog]

" was a bit surprised recently to find 2 people I played with, both experts [real ones, not BBO experts] had no idea what semi-forcing NT meant despite supposedly playing it in all their partnerships. "

 

I also have no idea what semi forcing means. I know what a "wide range NT response" is, but something cannot be "semi forcing"; it is either forcing or not.

Perhaps your 2 experts speak English correctly, Wank. This term shows how incorrect English can become commonly accepted usage over a period of time.

[pretzalz]

ACBL's definition of "Semi-forcing": if a 1NT response to a major is simply forcing except when opener has a balanced minimum.

 

Not sure if that helps with the debate, but semi-forcing is certainly a real term.

 

I agree with Wank's definition.

[the hog]

ACBL's definition of "Semi-forcing": if a 1NT response to a major is simply forcing except when opener has a balanced minimum.

 

Not sure if that helps with the debate, but semi-forcing is certainly a real term.

 

I agree with Wank's definition.

 

It may well be a 'real term", but so are many incorrect usages of English that have crept into the language, for example "very unique". This is another tautology - something is unique or it isn't.

[nigel_k]

It may well be a 'real term", but so are many incorrect usages of English that have crept into the language, for example "very unique". This is another tautology - something is unique or it isn't.

Standards have slipped so badly that I have even heard some people now saying 'ice cream' instead of 'iced cream'.

[gnasher]

The two opinions seem to be:

(1) The distinction between "non-forcing" and "semi-forcing" tells us whether opener is forced to bid on a particular hand-type.

(2) The terms "non-forcing" and "semi-forcing" tell us about responder's range, but opener bids identically opposite both.

 

(1) has common sense on its side, obviously. And the The Bridge World, FWIW.

 

Like Wank, I was surprised when I first discovered that some people use the term as in (2). Since they do, that makes the term "semi-forcing" unreliable as a means of forming or describing agreements, so it's probably best not to use it all. Personally I wouldn't regard that as much of a loss.

[mgoetze]

Standards have slipped so badly that I have even heard some people now saying 'ice cream' instead of 'iced cream'.

 

No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque".

 

Anyway, I have gone from calling my 1NT semi-forcing to calling it non-forcing (without any corresponding change in bidding). Seems I get less complaints that way.

[Vampyr]

No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque".

 

Anyway, I have gone from calling my 1NT semi-forcing to calling it non-forcing (without any corresponding change in bidding). Seems I get less complaints that way.

 

I think what the opponents need to know is if the 1NT bid could have 10-11 points.

[gnasher]

I think what the opponents need to know is if the 1NT bid could have 10-11 points.

A good way to do that would be to say that it's "non-forcing, but could be up to an 11-count".

[the hog]

'No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque". '

 

This is a poor analogy. check is acceptable, (even if you might not agree with it), as it is a revision instituted by Webster in the 1890's. Tautologies are the sign of a lazy or uneducated mind.

[nigel_k]

'No doubt you have even seen people write "check" instead of "cheque". '

 

This is a poor analogy. check is acceptable, (even if you might not agree with it), as it is a revision instituted by Webster in the 1890's. Tautologies are the sign of a lazy or uneducated mind.

This is a poor analogy. Bridge doesn't have a dictionary, but it does have an Encyclopedia and I wouldn't be at all surprised if 'semi-forcing' is in there. However I wouldn't regard that decisive either way.

 

If you have a term that is possibly imperfect but most people understand what it means, and there is no alternative that is anywhere near as concise, then it's fine to use that term until a better one comes along.