does acbl define 'semi-forcing 1NT"'

[ggwhiz]

1♥ - 1nt denies 3 spades

 

makes the bid a clear alert with non-forcing added to the explanation.

 

My understanding of the announcement of semi-forcing is that if opener bids 2m next it shows 4 where over "forcing" it may be 3 or even 2 with some awkward shapes. Playing canapé (pre-announced of course) makes the semi-forcing bit moot as openers rebid here is an alert.

 

Specific knowledge of the spade length makes 1nt an alert too. ie. they end up on play and your partner leads the ♠2, you know it's a stiff so why shouldn't they? Or partner leads a higher spade and declarer owns the spots to know it's a stiff but you don't.

[hrothgar]

 

My understanding of the announcement of semi-forcing is that if opener bids 2m next it shows 4 where over "forcing" it may be 3 or even 2 with some awkward shapes.

 

Opposite a semi forcing 1NT response, opener can rebid 2m with three pieces if opener holds more than a minimum hand.

[ggwhiz]

Opposite a semi forcing 1NT response, opener can rebid 2m with three pieces if opener holds more than a minimum hand.

 

True but rare and a bit of a system break, more often a 2nt rebid. 4-5-1-3 (3-1) shape unsuitable for a reverse is the only one I can think of.

[hrothgar]

True but rare and a bit of a system break, more often a 2nt rebid. 4-5-1-3 (3-1) shape unsuitable for a reverse is the only one I can think of.

 

There are styles of play that do not open 1NT with a 5332 hand.

 

The prototypical hand for the 2m rebid on a three baggger would be a 5=3=3=2 with 14+ to a bad 17 HCPs

[barmar]

There are styles of play that do not open 1NT with a 5332 hand.

 

The prototypical hand for the 2m rebid on a three baggger would be a 5=3=3=2 with 14+ to a bad 17 HCPs

Rebid problems like this are the reason why most experts advocate opening 1NT with a 5-card major.

 

What happens when you combine constructive raises with semi-forcing NT? You probably miss out on a bunch of 5-3 fits when both hands are minimum, playing in a poor 1NT.

[Vampyr]

Rebid problems like this are the reason why most experts advocate opening 1NT with a 5-card major.

 

What happens when you combine constructive raises with semi-forcing NT? You probably miss out on a bunch of 5-3 fits when both hands are minimum, playing in a poor 1NT.

 

Can you combine constructive raises with a semi-forcing NT?

 

Playing a weak NT would solve some problems.

[helene_t]

Maybe I'm simple minded, but what exactly is "semi-forcing"?

I am confused also but as I understand it has nothing to do with the forcing character of the 1NT bid (i.e. the hands with which opener passes are the same regardless of whether you play NF or SF). It's about the range of the 1NT bid itself. Alert it if partner can systematically have 11 points. "Semi-forcing" is misleading.

[sfi]

True but rare and a bit of a system break, more often a 2nt rebid. 4-5-1-3 (3-1) shape unsuitable for a reverse is the only one I can think of.

 

The way I always describe it is that we only pass 1NT with a minimum balanced hand, and will bid with any hand that would accept a balanced invitation. Therefore opener would always bid on a 14 count and with most 13 point 5332 hands. Since 2NT is reserved for much stronger hands and 2M shows six cards, 2m need only have 3 cards. 2C can even have 2 if opener has 4-5-2-2 and enough to not pass 1NT.

[barmar]

It's about the range of the 1NT bid itself. Alert it if partner can systematically have 11 points. "Semi-forcing" is misleading.

Forcing NT can also have 11 points.

 

So is there a difference in the kinds of hands you can have when bidding FNT versus SFNT? Some pairs include some GF hands in their FNT; for instance, with my regular partner we use the sequence 1M-1NT-2x-3NT to show 13-15 4-3-3-3 shape (we use 1M-3NT artificially).

 

If you don't roll GF hands into your 1NT response, it seems like there's not much difference between F and SF NT.

[Cthulhu D]

Different system regs, but I've never had a good answer to this. If you raise with any hand with 3 card support, and have bids for 6+ suits and 10 counts, play a version of kaplan inversion, and play a 14-16 NT, the 'death hand' is only when partner has a 12 count without 3 spades or a 6 card suit, and opener has a 13 count with exactly 5 spades and no burning design to rebid, but that's a small window of hands.

 

So we basically play 1S-1NT not forcing which will result in an amazingly stupid outcome one day I am sure when we play in 1NT on a 25 count but it hasn't happened yet. Do I explain it as 6-12 not forcing? Opener will leave it in with all sorts of 5431 and 5422 hands because the probability of something bad happening if opener has an 11 count is very low. Responder has at most 12, if we don't have a major fit nothing good is happening (probably)

[helene_t]

Forcing NT can also have 11 points.

That's my point.

 

The difference between forcing and nonforcing is per definition the forcing character. You and I could play the 1NT response as containing the exact same set of hands, the difference being that one of us requires opener to bid again and the other does not. That makes one of them alertable and the other nonalertable, despite the meaning of the call itself being the exact same.

 

The difference between nonforcing and semiforcing could be either:

- different set of hands (but same level of expectation that opener bids again), or

- non-forcing means that opener will bid again less often than he would have done if it had been semiforcing

 

Or some combination of the two.

 

Some pairs play a 6-9 response but nevertheless expect opener to bid again unless he has a 5332 minimum. That is what is more or less standard in the Netherlands, probably a rudiment from the 4-card majors age. Is that nonforcing or semiforcing? I honestly don't know. In the Netherlands I obviously don't alert it. I wouldn't alert it either in ACBL but maybe I should?

[Vampyr]

The difference between forcing and nonforcing is per definition the forcing character. You and I could play the 1NT response as containing the exact same set of hands, the difference being that one of us requires opener to bid again and the other does. That makes one of them alertable and the other nonalertable, despite the meaning of the call itself being the exact same.

 

The difference between nonforcing and semiforcing could be either:

- different set of hands (but same level of expectation that opener bids again), or

- non-forcing means that opener will bid again less often than he would have done if it had been semiforcing

 

Or some combination of the two.

 

The above largely covers what I wanted to say in response to post #34. An important difference between "forcing" and "semiforcing" is the inferences available when opener bids again. Or doesn't.

[Tramticket]

I have a problem with the use of “semi-forcing NT”.

 

The words “semi-forcing NT” clearly make little or no sense in a grammatical and logical sense. A bid can be forcing (partner is forced to bid) or non-forcing (partner is not forced to bid) but to say that partner is half forced to bid is pretty meaningless. In a way, this is nit-picking, since players who make the bid clearly understand what hands are covered and have a clear partnership agreement. My view is that “Semi-forcing NT” is the name of a convention, not a description of a bid. [This is similar to "Unassuming Cue Bid", which is clearly the name of a convention, not the description of a bid].

 

It matters because when LHO opens 1♥ and RHO responds 1NT, correctly alerted (in England), I might then ask LHO for an explanation of the bid. I contend that LHO’s explanation that the bid is a “Semi-forcing NT” is an inadequate explanation and the Blue Book discourages the use of convention names (see 3C). I expect my opponent to tell me what hand types are included in the response.

[Zelandakh]

I have a problem with the use of “semi-forcing NT”.

You would probably love it even more to play in Germany. Here the term "semiforcing" is used for openings like a Benji 2♣ - strong but not GF.

 

I think you also miss the point about the usage of semi-forcing too. In some jurisdictions, bids duch as a semi-forcing 1NT response are announced rather than alerted. The announcement is naturally a form of short-hand. An opponent can always ask for further clarification, if required. This is not the same as only providing a convention name as full explanation, any more than "Strong", "Intermediate" or "Weak" are for 2-level openings in the EBU.

[Tramticket]

You would probably love it even more to play in Germany. Here the term "semiforcing" is used for openings like a Benji 2♣ - strong but not GF.

 

I think you also miss the point about the usage of semi-forcing too. In some jurisdictions, bids duch as a semi-forcing 1NT response are announced rather than alerted. The announcement is naturally a form of short-hand. An opponent can always ask for further clarification, if required. This is not the same as only providing a convention name as full explanation, any more than "Strong", "Intermediate" or "Weak" are for 2-level openings in the EBU.

 

Yes, I agree that this a form of short-hand. I guess that I get frustrated when I get nothing more than the form of short-hand - even when I ask for an explanation. This is just me expressing one of my pet irritations I guess! :)

[barmar]

Yes, I agree that this a form of short-hand. I guess that I get frustrated when I get nothing more than the form of short-hand - even when I ask for an explanation. This is just me expressing one of my pet irritations I guess! :)

Shorthands like this are only intended to be used in announcements, like like "Transfer" and "Could be short". If you want more details, you ask for it. The alternative to these announcements is just ordinary "Alert", which would not be any more useful, and would probably just slow things down further. Instead of "Semi-forcing", "What kind of hand does it show?", you'd have "Alert", "Please Explain", "Semi-forcing", "What kind of hand does it show?".

 

As for the literal meaning of "semi-forcing", I don't really have a problem with it. It's obviously just short for "Forcing unless opener has a very specific type of hand." If you don't like this term, what would you suggest as an alternative? Remember, we're talking about an announcement, so it needs to be terse, not a full-blown explanation.

[Vampyr]

Yes, I agree that this a form of short-hand. I guess that I get frustrated when I get nothing more than the form of short-hand - even when I ask for an explanation. This is just me expressing one of my pet irritations I guess! :)

 

Don't let it irritate you. "You alerted X. What does X show?" "Convention name" "Thanks. What does it show?" Or "what is it?" "Convention name" "thanks. What is it?" Just ask the same question again in the same tone of voice. Or just "I don't know what that means" Honestly it makes the situation much less irritating somehow.

 

EDIT somehow missed barmar's post.

[blackshoe]

It matters because when LHO opens 1♥ and RHO responds 1NT, correctly alerted (in England), I might then ask LHO for an explanation of the bid. I contend that LHO’s explanation that the bid is a “Semi-forcing NT” is an inadequate explanation and the Blue Book discourages the use of convention names (see 3C). I expect my opponent to tell me what hand types are included in the response.

So would I, in the ACBL. I have, of course, had to prod them sometimes. Usually by quoting Temperance Brennan: "I don't know what that means". :-)