after forcing ant

[ArtK78]

This is one of the "hidden" advantages of turning the 2/1 structure around and playing 1NT as a forcing relay and 2♣♦♥ as natural and non-forcing responses. My view is that the bidding philosophy of 2/1 is fundamentally flawed in that weak hands should start bidding suits as quickly as possible to find a playable spot while good hands can afford to go more slowly. That does not mean I think 2/1 is a bad system - all of the traditional and natural response structures have this property and 2/1 divides the responding hands up more efficiently than most. But I do like to encouarge players, and eventually regulators, to think about whether the existing frameworks are actually optimal.

 

If you want to avoid "ugly" bids on non-GF hands then 2/1 is the wrong system to be playing. It works primarily because the game and slam hands are important enough to offset the losses elsewhere, since most of the time you can get to a playable spot. Fred has written that anyone playing a F1NT will on occasion reach silly contracts, even experts, so it should not be a surprise when club players have difficulties with such hands.

The views of Zelandakh do not necessarily reflect the views of management. :)

 

Clearly, while Zelandakh's ideas may have merit, they are very non-standard, and they may not be ACBL legal. For example, I am not sure that playing 1NT as a forcing relay is legal in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

Clearly, while Zelandakh's ideas may have merit, they are very non-standard, and they may not be ACBL legal. For example, I am not sure that playing 1NT as a forcing relay is legal in the ACBL.

I am quite sure they are not, and Zel even stated such when he referred to regulators.

 

Meanwhile we 2/1r's have to cope with and perhaps adjust our bids and rebids for the pitfalls of the style to which Zel and LC allude. Just maybe the choice of opener's rebid here is one of those practical adjustments from experience on the wrong end of hands like this one. The opponents' silence means most likely we will be left alone to play a part-score, and the tradeoffs from attempting to find the perfect one in Diamonds might be too great, since it might break even with a Spade partial even if it happens -- and get us too high if it doesn't.

[ggwhiz]

Perhaps I should not be playing a forcing 1 nt. It seems misguided to be forcing to the 3 level opposite a limited opening, with a misfit on as little as 6-7 points.

 

Yes you should. Kaplan wrote that the big advantage to KS was when you did NOT open a weak notrump but you suffered some indignities when you did.

 

Forcing notrump is simlar with the occasional tough spot but many benefits. Besides, who knows if you are in a good spot after passing a non-forcing 1nt?

[mycroft]

Yes. 1NT "promising invitational or better values" is not legal on the GCC in the ACBL. There's a story behind that...(as there is behind many of the odd GCC regs, both ALLOWED and DISALLOWED).

 

Personally, I think it's time to revisit that, as the story is dead and buried :-) But the memory of the ACBL is long.

[aguahombre]

Yes. 1NT "promising invitational or better values" is not legal on the GCC in the ACBL. There's a story behind that...(as there is behind many of the odd GCC regs, both ALLOWED and DISALLOWED).

 

Personally, I think it's time to revisit that, as the story is dead and buried :-) But the memory of the ACBL is long.

Same guy responsible for the Suction restrictions? Sounds like, but I hadn't heard about that one.

[fromageGB]

3♣ without thinking too much, playing your methods.

 

I play 1NT absolutely forcing, and surely if you do, this is "1NT as a forcing relay" is it not? But not if it implies an invitational+ hand.

 

My minor rebids are uglier than most, as my 1NT open excludes a 5 card major, so we only pass 2♦ with at least 4 in length more than spades. If your 1NT may include that, then I would prefer opener's 2♦ rebid to show 4, as ArtK78 said.