Question for 2/1 bidders.

[Finch]

So you claim you never had a bad result in 20 years bidding 1NT semi-forcing with a distributional 3 card raise?

Either you suffer from amnesia or you pass 1NT that rarely that you would be better off playing 1NT forcing!

If a bid is almost never passed it is better played as forcing.

 

I can attest to numerous results where chances of going down in 1NT are higher than going down in game in the major, not to speak of the hands where both 1NT and game in a major have good chances and opener would pass 1NT.

Granted on many of these hands opener might also pass a limit raise, but a 1NT contract is usually horrible when responder has a distributional 3 card limit raise.

The claim that your chances are better in 1NT than 3M if opener passes simply does not hold water if responder is unbalanced.

This assumes opener will pass a 1NT response with 12-13 and 5332.

These hands are not so rare!

Examples on request!

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

The point is not that 1NT is necessarily the right contract, if I have a 3154 10-count say, it's that we rarely play there. (I'm also not really bothered about +90 vs +140 as I don't play much match points.)

The auction 1S P 1NT all pass is incredibly rare to start with, and when I have a fit and partner has a balanced hand, one of the opponents usually has a bid. It's dangerous for them to pass out 1NT, particularly if we are NV, because at the extreme we could have 11 opposite 0. And it's known that they can't be protecting us into game, because opener's pass says 'we aren't making game even if you have an invitational hand'

 

As I said, we get passed out in 1NT and get a bad board when we have a fit in a different suit.

[gnasher]

I think that should be quarter-forcing. Alternatively, I don't mind both being named the same. After all, we are discussing about what responder's 1NT bid should be named.

If we use terms like "forcing" and "non-forcing" we're describing what responder is expecting to happen next.

 

If we wanted to describe responder's hand, we'd use terms like "weak", "less than invitational", "weak to invitational" or "weak without a fit or a 3-card invitation". Which is what some of us do, of course.

 

Edit: Surely in the gwnn nomenclature it should be "three-quarters forcing"? That is, it's in between "responder can be invitational, opener bids like aunt Millie" and "responder can be invitational, opener always bids"

[fromageGB]

Perhaps in your jurisdiction, this "Drury by an unpassed hand", also a psych control of sorts, is o.k.

I don't really understand this comment, as the method is nothing like Drury, and not a psyche control. If opener rebids anything other than 2♦ it is GF, and if responder is any hand other then the 11/12 3 card support it is GF. For example, 1♠ 2♣,2♦ 3♣ is GF with a club suit. Yes, a psyching opener could choose to pass 3♣, but if you were playing 2/1 without this convention the bidding would go 1♠ 2♣, pass. As this gets you out at a lower level, then basic 2/1 is more of a psyche control than this is.

 

I am surprised your jurisdiction allows such blatant psyche control methods as basic 2/1. :)

[gwnn]

Yes, three-quarters forcing is the proper word (although opener has a balanced 14-count much less than 50% of the time so I guess it should be something like 54% forcing instead). I was thinking about it but got confused. Anyway, we only have three words for dozens of possibilities, once we remember to include factors like invitational jumps, constructive raises, limit raises or optional limit raises included in 1NT, and this is only about the variety of responder's holdings.. So I think semiforcing is perfectly fine for both the SF and 54% forcing flavours.

[inquiry]

I am also in the limit raise category here (when not playing fit jumps). I use jacoby 2NT plus pretty much as described by Glenn Ashton on his bridgematters pages, and allow three card support for the limit raise (which is rolled into the 2NT raise). This has worked well for me. --- inquiry

 

*** I assume that means over 3D= D-short, or some other-than-Jacoby method, you can quit in 3S.

In ACBL, aren't you forced into 1NT:F1 or, 2NT:limit +? Because a 2C relay must be GF?

 

Jacoby 2NT Plus doesn't respond with shortness over 2NT on most hands. The basic idea is that opener rebids 3♣ over 2NT with two types of hands. Hand one is where he WOULD not accept a game try opposite a limit raise, hand two is where he would make a slam try opposite a limit raise. Over this 3♣ response, responder with limit raise tries to sign off. With better than limit raise (in other words game force), he can bid game or try for slam on his own. 3♦ by responder over 3♣ ask for opener's shortage, other bids besides 3M by responder show things and are slam tries. If opener does not accept signoff in 3M it is his own slam try.

 

3♦ response over 2NT by opener shows game going hand with out strong slam interest. Responder can ask for shortage with 3M or show his hand type (shortage or balanced) with 3NT or a new suit. 3♦ promises by opener promises just a bid more than a direct jump to 4M over 2NT which is the minimum "accept game try" response.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps in your jurisdiction, this "Drury by an unpassed hand", also a psych control of sorts, is o.k.

In our jurisdiction, as in WBF Category 3 events, and in virtually every jurisdiction I've seen other than the ACBL (and possibly Japan), any responses to an opening bid are allowed.

Yes, I was not advocating any particular jurisdiction's rules, just pointing out we cannot do it here.

 

I don't really understand this comment, as the method is nothing like Drury, and not a psyche control. If opener rebids anything other than 2♦ it is GF, and if responder is any hand other then the 11/12 3 card support it is GF. For example, 1♠ 2♣,2♦ 3♣ is GF with a club suit. Yes, a psyching opener could choose to pass 3♣, but if you were playing 2/1 without this convention the bidding would go 1♠ 2♣, pass. As this gets you out at a lower level, then basic 2/1 is more of a psyche control than this is.

Not exactly. According to your post describing the method, after:

 

1S-2C

2D...Responder could conceivably use it to get out in 2D or 2H in addition to 2S. And, depending on just how light that opening 1S might be in the agreements of that pair, the method acts as a non-fit drury and psych control. This is not a complaint, just an observation.

[redtop]

There are "seams" in every system.

 

2/1 except rebid has drawbacks, unconditionally forcing vs. semi-forcing has drawbacks, jump shifts can mean various things but only one general hand type (usually).

 

I personally prefer semi-forcing and I'd bid 1N with this hand. If pard has a bad hand and passes, at least I'm two levels lower than 3S.

 

I might just blow partner a kiss, referring to my heart, and if he smiles showing hearts I would bid 1NT but if he frowns I would make a limit raise in spades on the lack of duplicated values in hearts. Oh wait, sorry, I would like to be allowed to continue to play bridge tomorrow.

 

Seriously, what you would "like" to bid depends on his heart holding but you have no (legal) way to find that out. If you are playing naval bids (semaphore cing), you have a system bid here (1NT) or you can lie. If you have to lie, bidding theory suggests you tell the smallest lie possible, but here you don't have to lie at all.

[Cthulhu D]

How common is playing 2C as a 3 card limit raise or some strong options? I've been playing that for a while and seems OK. It means the only danger hands (playing a 14-16 NT and opening 11 counts are) 4432 12 counts with 2 card support for partner.

[PhantomSac]

For a long time now I have played semi forcing NT. I am never uncomfortable bidding 1N with a 3 card LR that does not have a singleton, if partner passes I get to play 1N with 2 balanced hands rather than 3M, that sounds awesome to me! There are many hands where 1N will make and 3M will go down, the converse is much less likely, you need the major suit fit to play THREE tricks better than 1N when you don't have singletons. I view it as a system win that I get to play 1N tbh.

 

Last week there were 2 hands where this happened and I got to play 1N instead of 3M and on both of them I went plus in 1N and 3M would have been difficult (tbh I don't know if it would have made or not). I mean seriously, if your partner is gonna pass only with 5332 minimums if you are 4432, 4333, or 5332 are you really unhappy with that?

 

At MP it is different, if 3M is making then it's probably better than 1N (unless you make 3 in 1N). You still win when 3M is down and 1N makes 7+ tricks though. But at imps I'm sure 1N will do better than 3M long term on these hands.

 

Hands with a 3 card limit raise and a singleton are a different story, I view it as a system hole that I might play 1N. We know they have a 9 or 10 card fit in my singleton, and it is likely that playing my major and getting ruffs will be very advantageous. In most partnerships I have no way to show that hand type, I end up often making a light GF raise (which in my view is fine with a singleton and a fit at imps when I'm not going to be able to show my singleton anyways... inviting is lame when you have shortness and can't show it, it's not really about whether partner is min or max but how they fit your stiff, in those cases I am ok punting game and hoping we fit well anyways...). Other options are a heavy constructive raise or just risking 1N... it isn't that likely partner passes and if he is going to the opps might bid, they have almost half the deck and a 9/10 card fit, and even if it does go 1M p 1N AP you still might make it.

 

With Bob I played that a direct LR could be an unbalanced 3 card LR and that worked out reasonably fine also. I am not a fan of dedicating a bid to a 3 card LR rather than bidding 1N, and even if I did I would still bid 1N with a bal 3c LR and only use that with an unbal one.

 

I don't understand the point of not wanting to bid 1N with the OP's hand... if it goes AP I am really happy. I guess not many others feel that way?

 

So basically +1000 to Frances itt.

[Cthulhu D]

Can you not get sunk when partner passes a 13 count and you have an awkward 12 with two card support for partner? Those the the ones I worry about the most - (though they basically never happen).

 

Though this might be a style thing - we open a 14-16 NT and partner passes a 1NT response with a weak NT.

[rhm]

For a long time now I have played semi forcing NT. I am never uncomfortable bidding 1N with a 3 card LR that does not have a singleton, if partner passes I get to play 1N with 2 balanced hands rather than 3M, that sounds awesome to me! There are many hands where 1N will make and 3M will go down, the converse is much less likely, you need the major suit fit to play THREE tricks better than 1N when you don't have singletons. I view it as a system win that I get to play 1N tbh.

 

Last week there were 2 hands where this happened and I got to play 1N instead of 3M and on both of them I went plus in 1N and 3M would have been difficult (tbh I don't know if it would have made or not). I mean seriously, if your partner is gonna pass only with 5332 minimums if you are 4432, 4333, or 5332 are you really unhappy with that?

 

At MP it is different, if 3M is making then it's probably better than 1N (unless you make 3 in 1N). You still win when 3M is down and 1N makes 7+ tricks though. But at imps I'm sure 1N will do better than 3M long term on these hands.

 

Hands with a 3 card limit raise and a singleton are a different story, I view it as a system hole that I might play 1N. We know they have a 9 or 10 card fit in my singleton, and it is likely that playing my major and getting ruffs will be very advantageous. In most partnerships I have no way to show that hand type, I end up often making a light GF raise (which in my view is fine with a singleton and a fit at imps when I'm not going to be able to show my singleton anyways... inviting is lame when you have shortness and can't show it, it's not really about whether partner is min or max but how they fit your stiff, in those cases I am ok punting game and hoping we fit well anyways...). Other options are a heavy constructive raise or just risking 1N... it isn't that likely partner passes and if he is going to the opps might bid, they have almost half the deck and a 9/10 card fit, and even if it does go 1M p 1N AP you still might make it.

 

With Bob I played that a direct LR could be an unbalanced 3 card LR and that worked out reasonably fine also. I am not a fan of dedicating a bid to a 3 card LR rather than bidding 1N, and even if I did I would still bid 1N with a bal 3c LR and only use that with an unbal one.

 

I don't understand the point of not wanting to bid 1N with the OP's hand... if it goes AP I am really happy. I guess not many others feel that way?

 

So basically +1000 to Frances itt.

Assume opener to have a balanced minimum.

Nobody really argued playing 1NT balanced opposite a balanced 3 card limit raise.

You have a preponderance of strength, the average trick difference between notrumps and a major suit contract is a little bit more than one trick and though you are a favorite making 3♠ your chances making 1NT are even better.

I probably bid and play notrumps with a known 5-3 major suit fit more often than most.

The issue is really when responder is unbalanced. Now responder will be weaker in HCP reducing your chances making 1NT and opponents will have at least half the strength.

The claim that you rarely have to play 1NT is not convincing.

Deals where the trick difference amounts to 4 or 5 tricks between a major suit trump contract and notrumps are not that rare now.

In fact I have seen deals where the difference was 8 tricks with opener always 12-13 and 5332 and the average trick difference in my simulations increases to more than 2.5 tricks.

If you insist that a limit raise has to have four trumps and you have no alternate bid for three card limit raises you have to live with this. But do not claim it is not an issue.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[jdeegan]

Assume opener to have a balanced minimum.

Nobody really argued playing 1NT balanced opposite a balanced 3 card limit raise.

You have a preponderance of strength, the average trick difference between notrumps and a major suit contract is a little bit more than one trick and though you are a favorite making 3♠ your chances making 1NT are even better.

I probably bid and play notrumps with a known 5-3 major suit fit more often than most.

The issue is really when responder is unbalanced. Now responder will be weaker in HCP reducing your chances making 1NT and opponents will have at least half the strength.

The claim that you rarely have to play 1NT is not convincing.

Deals where the trick difference amounts to 4 or 5 tricks between a major suit trump contract and notrumps are not that rare now.

In fact I have seen deals where the difference was 8 tricks with opener always 12-13 and 5332 and the average trick difference in my simulations increases to more than 2.5 tricks.

If you insist that a limit raise has to have four trumps and you have no alternate bid for three card limit raises you have to live with this. But do not claim it is not an issue.

 

Rainer Herrmann

:P Everyone seems to agree that the 2/1 system gives up something to get that extra level of below game cue bidding for slam and near slam hands. Your issue is between using a 1NT response to a 1♠ opener as forcing or using the 1NT response as semi-forcing. A third possibility is that 2/1 is too flawed and just no good.

 

Judging those issues is way above my pay grade, but if you do play 1NT as semi-forcing, then, imo, the best bid on this hand is 1NT. Even if it is forcing, 1NT is the best bid. Is there any other sensible answer other than 1NT?

[fromageGB]

Can you not get sunk when partner passes a 13 count and you have an awkward 12 with two card support for partner? Those the the ones I worry about the most - (though they basically never happen).

I think this is a downside of a non-forcing NT. There is a good/bad side to any choice you make, as nothing is perfect.

 

For a long time now I have played semi forcing NT. I am never uncomfortable bidding 1N with a 3 card LR that does not have a singleton, if partner passes I get to play 1N with 2 balanced hands rather than 3M, that sounds awesome to me! There are many hands where 1N will make and 3M will go down, the converse is much less likely, you need the major suit fit to play THREE tricks better than 1N when you don't have singletons. I view it as a system win that I get to play 1N tbh.

 

Last week there were 2 hands where this happened and I got to play 1N instead of 3M and on both of them I went plus in 1N and 3M would have been difficult (tbh I don't know if it would have made or not). I mean seriously, if your partner is gonna pass only with 5332 minimums if you are 4432, 4333, or 5332 are you really unhappy with that?

 

At MP it is different, if 3M is making then it's probably better than 1N (unless you make 3 in 1N). You still win when 3M is down and 1N makes 7+ tricks though. But at imps I'm sure 1N will do better than 3M long term on these hands.

Yes, seriously, as a MP player, I would be extremely unhappy to be in 1NT making 90 or 120 when others are making 110 or 140 respectively. And while 1NT rather than 3M seems sensible, on the whole, 1NT compared to 2M is a big no-no.

 

It seems a mistake to have one method for both IMPs and MPs. As a player with a limited memory (and partners ditto) I have to choose one suitable for the game I play most.

[PhantomSac]

Assume opener to have a balanced minimum.

Nobody really argued playing 1NT balanced opposite a balanced 3 card limit raise.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

The hand posted in the OP is a balanced 3 card limit raise. The implication is that bidding 1N with this hand is a flaw in 2/1 with semi forcing NT. Is that not the hand we are discussing? Several people have stated they would start with something other than 1N.

 

If you insist that a limit raise has to have four trumps and you have no alternate bid for three card limit raises you have to live with this. But do not claim it is not an issue.

 

Again, wtf are you talking about? Are you sure you were trying to reply to my post? I will refresh your memory as to what I said:

 

Hands with a 3 card limit raise and a singleton are a different story, I view it as a system hole that I might play 1N. We know they have a 9 or 10 card fit in my singleton, and it is likely that playing my major and getting ruffs will be very advantageous.

 

I know you have a hard on for trying to argue with me, but come on, you can try harder than that.

[rhm]

The hand posted in the OP is a balanced 3 card limit raise. The implication is that bidding 1N with this hand is a flaw in 2/1 with semi forcing NT. Is that not the hand we are discussing? Several people have stated they would start with something other than 1N.

 

 

 

Again, wtf are you talking about? Are you sure you were trying to reply to my post? I will refresh your memory as to what I said:

 

 

 

I know you have a hard on for trying to argue with me, but come on, you can try harder than that.

So we seem to be in broad agreement for once, except

 

1) I think insisting on four cards for a limit raise is a price too high to pay when playing semi-forcing notrump.

 

2) Once limit raises do not guarantee four trumps, you are able to reserve judgement when to bid 1NT with a balanced limit raise, though you will bid it on the majority of the balanced hands.

Some balanced 3 card limit raises play significantly better in the major and an experienced player should be able to discriminate and get it right most of the time. Judgement not rule of thumbs rule this game.

Being balanced is not the only condition. If I hold a small doubleton in the unbid major and mostly primary honors (aces) I will not respond 1NT even if balanced.

For notrumps I like secondary honors (quacks) and some stuff in my short suits

 

The actual hand is borderline in my opinion, not as clearcut as you consider it to be, only because it falls into the category of being balanced.

For me Kxx Qx AQxxx xxx would be a clear cut 1NT response.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

1) I think insisting on four cards for a limit raise is a price too high to pay when playing semi-forcing notrump.

You could play 2♣ as either a normal GF 2♣ bid, OR a 3-card limit raise with shortness somewhere. Then opener bids 2♦ with any minimum with 3- hearts and 5 spades.

[PhantomSac]

So we seem to be in broad agreement for once, except

 

1) I think insisting on four cards for a limit raise is a price too high to pay when playing semi-forcing notrump.

 

 

Yes, obviously I am not comfortable playing this way and am in disagreement. After all, I said in my post:

 

With Bob I played that a direct LR could be an unbalanced 3 card LR and that worked out reasonably fine also. I am not a fan of dedicating a bid to a 3 card LR rather than bidding 1N, and even if I did I would still bid 1N with a bal 3c LR and only use that with an unbal one.

 

I think having a bid dedicated to showing an unbalanced 3 card LR is a waste, there are too many other useful bids to show it. I think lumping an unbal 3 card LR in to a 4 card LR is fine and have played that way, as mentioned. You act like there is no benefit to having a LR show 4 which I think is not true, some hands are better opposite 4 trumps for game purposes and for slam hands (which are not that likely, but possible) it can definitely be relevant. Whether I show a LR or bid 1N with this is not a huge deal to me, it is unlikely to occur, and when it occurs it is unlikely to matter. I mean yeah it is possible that partner has a 5332 min, and it is possible the opps don't bid, and it is possible that 3M makes and 1N goes down, but it is not that likely. Just like it is not likely to matter that I have 3 trumps + shortness rather than 4 trumps when I show a LR.

 

Since you are happy/like bidding 1N with a 3 card LR that is balanced (like the one posted in OP), I agree we are in agreement. In my post I argued that bidding 1N on such hands is not a problem, in fact it is a benefit and rates to work well at imps. You seem to agree with that. I also argued that the 3 card unbal LR is not good to bid 1N with, if you have to it is a system hole. Sometimes system holes are ok to make other bids better defined, sometimes they aren't (in which case you can eliminate it). I even noted that I had played both ways. Thus I don't understand your response to my post, but whatever I guess!

 

Since you seem to think we disagree frequently you can save your argumentative replies for when you actually disagree! I was baffled by your initial response. I guess this is our only disagreement:

 

The actual hand is borderline in my opinion, not as clearcut as you consider it to be, only because it falls into the category of being balanced.

For me Kxx Qx AQxxx xxx would be a clear cut 1NT response.

 

Yes, I think bidding 1N will be much better long term opposite 5332 mins than playing 3M. If that is our biggest disagreement, I can live with that :P I agree with you that no rules are absolute, if I had 6322 with xx xx I would be uncomfortable playing 1N if it happened, I would rather play 3M. But in general with a 5332 opp a 5332 (with 2 fits even) I would prefer to play 1N than 3M. Perhaps that is wrong but that is my general feeling, I think taking 3 extra tricks in the major is way less likely than making 1N or 2N down in 3M.

[cherdano]

I wish we could split rhm into two accounts, rhmbiddingwisdom and rhmplayproblems.

[aguahombre]

I wish we could split rhm into two accounts, rhmbiddingwisdom and rhmplayproblems.

Perhaps superior skill at solving difficult play problems comes from practice at being in difficult contracts.

[hrothgar]

Perhaps superior skill at solving difficult play problems comes from practice at being in difficult contracts.

 

I got a lot better playing 4-3 fits after I started playing MOSCITO

[gordontd]

Perhaps superior skill at solving difficult play problems comes from practice at being in difficult contracts.

This has been a suggested explanation for Martin Hoffman's skillful declarer play.