Semi-forcing NT vs Forcing NT

[Kapi Blas]

Hi guys!

 

I would really love to hear your opinions about this stuff. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both methods and which of these 2 is superior? Since i began to play bridge 2 years ago I always played Semi-forcing NT. Now I'm thinking of switching it to Forcing just as i changed my 1♣ opening a little bit.

[eagles123]

well I answered semi forcing but the correct answer is not sure, since I've never played forcing NT

[nullve]

I voted SF, but I prefer NF if I'm allowed to play the 2♣ response as "NAT or Drury" or similar.

 

Well, maybe I prefer NF even with the 3c limit raise in 1N. I often pass GiB's forcing 1N for fear that I will end up in 2N or 3M otherwise. :)

[steve2005]

You should also have non-forcing as option.

The method you would use depends on the rest of your system.

[P_Marlowe]

The advantage of the forcing NT bid is, that responder has two ways

to reach a bid above 1 NT, and is sure, that he will reach it.

This usually is done to differentiate raises of openers major, e.g.

constructive / garbage raises to 2M, a 3M limit raise with 3 / 4 card

support, ..., including certain balanced hands to free up the 2NT /

3NT (less common).

The disadvantage of a forcing NT is, you cant play 1NT, a common MP

convern. Also if you include to many hand type in the forcing NT response

it may causes trouble, if the auction gets competitive.

 

The advantage of the semiforcing NT bid is, that you can play 1 NT, the

disadvantage is, the amount of hand types, that can be included in the

hands that go through 1NT is limited (10-12 bal., limit raise with 3 cards).

You loose the garbage raises, i.e. you reduce frequency, but their risk

that an intervention backfires increases.

There is also the risk of play 1NT(+1), when you could make 3M, but sometimes

you cant make 3M, so this basically neutral.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nullve]

You loose the garbage raises

My NF 1N response includes a garbage 3c raise, so I risk playing 1N instead of 2M on a combined 14-18 count. Is that so bad?

[The_Badger]

I haven't voted, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that a forcing 1NT only appeared as a result of the Precision system, whereas before 2/1 became the main American system, Standard American had a similar non-forcing 1NT (balanced) response as Acol.

 

We are talking about four different systems here, but the main difference is that the Precision system had limited 5M openings.

 

With 2/1 it all depends on other conventions and other stuff (e.g. constructive raises, etc.) that you build round it I feel.

 

Personally, and this is just my honest view, I've never been a ardent fan of the 2/1 forcing 1NT response as a glove that has to fit many 6-11 point hands that can't bid otherwise. This is why I was interested in other commentators' views on an earlier thread.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76994-good-pre-empts-opposite-5m-in-21/page__p__927986__fromsearch__1#entry927986

 

There are some excellent comments here too.

[Stephen Tu]

Forcing nt was part of Roth-Stone which preceded Precision by a couple decades.

[mike777]

If you open lite I would strongly recommend you play semiforcing nt...You are more likely to want to pass 1nt to show your junky bal or semi bal hand.

Keep in mind you will still rebid with 2 decent suits or more than a dead minimum. In any event you will be surprised how seldom passing 1nt comes up in practice. Please keep in mind playing this style you are pushing many hand types through 1nt.

 

OTOH if you open pretty sound you will never want to pass so forcing 1nt makes more sense.

[CSGibson]

I strongly prefer forcing NT in context of a 2/1 system. Just because opener is balanced, it doesn't mean that 1N should be played on all contracts where responder has to bid it, this allows responder to actually play in his long suit opposite a balanced hand.

[Vampyr]

I strongly prefer forcing NT in context of a 2/1 system. Just because opener is balanced, it doesn't mean that 1N should be played on all contracts where responder has to bid it, this allows responder to actually play in his long suit opposite a balanced hand.

 

I don't play a forcing NT, but I think it works quite well with a weak NT. opener does not have to find another bid when holding a weak NT; he is already there.

[mike777]

I think posters don't understand semiforcing nt.

 

for starters you seldom pass, you do not repeat do not pass with say a typical 12-14 weak nt hand.

 

 

IN practice you only pass with a really crappy, junky hand. Please note this means you open really crappy , junky hands.

[The_Badger]

Forcing nt was part of Roth-Stone which preceded Precision by a couple decades.

 

Thanks Stephen. Having looked on Bridgeguys, it seems 2/1 is based on Roth-Stone except HCP opening bids are now lower. Wasn't familiar with Roth-Stone mechanics where their 2 over 1 bid is GF. They do say you learn something every day.

[mike777]

Thanks Stephen. Having looked on Bridgeguys, it seems 2/1 is based on Roth-Stone except HCP opening bids are now lower. Wasn't familiar with Roth-Stone mechanics where their 2 over 1 bid is GF. They do say you learn something every day.

 

hmmm 2/1 is not game force in roth stone....

 

think about that

 

opener is known to be sound, old fashion sound and yet your 2/1 is not gf

 

as a result fewer hand types go dthrough forcing nt.

------------

 

 

2/1 is based on what used to be called Walsh....butof course borrows from many others.

[awm]

Semi-forcing is better when responder has an invite (stop lower when opener passes, or evaluate better when opener bids 2m since it's four cards or extras). Forcing is better when responder has a weak unbalanced hand and opener would pass 1nt.

 

The latter situation is a lot rarer, especially since opponents often bid in such situations. So I prefer semi-forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

My NF 1N response includes a garbage 3c raise, so I risk playing 1N instead of 2M on a combined 14-18 count. Is that so bad?

At least with MP scoring, I would say this is avg-. You risk often going for 150, when they have nothing, this

assumes, that you are green, going for -200, when you are red is also nothing to cheer about.

That being said, you also have gains, so take your pick, see what works for you in the enviroment you play.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I think posters don't understand semiforcing nt.

 

May well be true, since I dont like the term semiforcing.

I used to say, this is the same as saying being semi / half pregnant, ... but semi / half pregnant

exist, unfortunately I did not yet find a meaningful replacement for pregnant.

For me semiforcing means, that you include some inv. hand, that are usually not part of a nonforcing NT,

but that you are allowed, even expected to pass the 1NT response with a weak NT hand.

In short, before we discuss forcing / semiforcing / nonforcing, we need to clarify, what we mean by it.

[42xxbfxx42]

I use 1M - 1N - 2x - and a jump raise to show 13+ points 3 card raise, with a desire to play 3N ... so 1N must be FORCING

Hi guys!

 

I would really love to hear your opinions about this stuff. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both methods and which of these 2 is superior? Since i began to play bridge 2 years ago I always played Semi-forcing NT. Now I'm thinking of switching it to Forcing just as i changed my 1♣ opening a little bit.

[psyck]

You should also have non-forcing as option.

The method you would use depends on the rest of your system.

Semi-Forcing is the term commonly employed for a non forcing NT response, both are the same - meaning opener is not forced to response on min balanced hands.

[fromageGB]

The disadvantage of a forcing NT is, you cant play 1NT, a common MP

concern.

Combine it with Kaplan inversion, and you bring back playing in 1NT over hearts, and played the right way round, too.

 

I think the advantages or having double the precision of major raises outweighs disadvantages. For me 1M 2M is 7-10 hcp if 3-card, which makes game decisions easy. Without forcing NT things are too vague. Also included in 1NT are balanced hands up to 15 hcp (16+ included in the 2♣ response), which enables fit finding and discovery of better resting places. When 2♣ then 2NT shows 16+, there is better distinction between game and slam.

[fromageGB]

for starters you seldom pass, you do not repeat do not pass with say a typical 12-14 weak nt hand.

IN practice you only pass with a really crappy, junky hand. Please note this means you open really crappy , junky hands.

So you actually play a forcing NT, but also use it as a psyche control? I don't think we allow that here.

[P_Marlowe]

Combine it with Kaplan inversion, and you bring back playing in 1NT over hearts, and played the right way round, too.

 

I think the advantages or having double the precision of major raises outweighs disadvantages. For me 1M 2M is 7-10 hcp if 3-card, which makes game decisions easy. Without forcing NT things are too vague. Also included in 1NT are balanced hands up to 15 hcp (16+ included in the 2♣ response), which enables fit finding and discovery of better resting places. When 2♣ then 2NT shows 16+, there is better distinction between game and slam.

I was thinking about Kaplan Inversion, and that there a well established conventional set of agreements got developed to

take advantage of the forcing NT / improve short comings, and most likely more if compared with the developed set after a

semiforcing NT.

[Winstonm]

Bidding structure is always about trade-offs. When you pick semi-forcing NT you give up on certain sequences you could use if the bid were forcing; when you play forcing, you give up the ability to play 1N and thereby describing a minimum balanced hand should the auction proceed.

 

I think it has more to do with the type of scoring you typically play. In matchpoints, all hands are equally important so I would play non-forcing in matchpoints; game and slam accuracy is paramount to imps, so I would play forcing in imp play.

[msjennifer]

Abstain.!There should have been a third option namely Nonforcing..We play nonforcing.

But if you play 2/1 as game force then obviously you have to play 1NT responce forcing.

[CSGibson]

Semi-Forcing is the term commonly employed for a non forcing NT response, both are the same - meaning opener is not forced to response on min balanced hands.

 

 

No! This is incorrect by a lot!

 

non-forcing means that your NT does not include invitational hands. Semi-forcing means that it does. They are not the same.